Title: Digital Compared with Screen-Film Mammography: Measures of Diagnostic Accuracy among Women Screened in the Ontario Breast Screening Program—Evidence that Direct Radiography Is Superior to Computed Radiography for Cancer Detection
Abstract: HomeRadiologyVol. 278, No. 2 PreviousNext Reviews and CommentaryEditorialDigital Compared with Screen-Film Mammography: Measures of Diagnostic Accuracy among Women Screened in the Ontario Breast Screening Program—Evidence that Direct Radiography Is Superior to Computed Radiography for Cancer DetectionEtta D. Pisano Etta D. Pisano Author AffiliationsFrom the Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.Address correspondence to the author (e-mail: [email protected]).Etta D. Pisano Published Online:Jan 20 2016https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015152344MoreSectionsFull textPDF ToolsImage ViewerAdd to favoritesCiteTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked In AbstractDespite differences in screening performance between the Canadian and U.S. cohorts, given the differences in physical characteristics of the computed radiography (CR) and direct radiography (DR) systems, it is this writer’s judgment that the comparisons between CR and DR are highly likely to be reproducible in a U.S. patient cohort screened at yearly intervals.References1. Prummel MV, Muradali D, Shumak R, et al. Digital compared with screen-film mammography: measures of diagnostic accuracy among women screened in the Ontario Breast Screening Program. Radiology 2016; 278(2)365–373. Link, Google Scholar2. Lipasti S, Anttila A, Pamilo M. Mammographic findings of women recalled for diagnostic work-up in digital versus screen-film mammography in a population-based screening program. Acta Radiol 2010;51(5):491–497. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar3. Pisano ED, Gatsonis CA, Yaffe MJ, et al. American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial: objectives and methodology. Radiology 2005;236(2):404–412. Link, Google Scholar4. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005;353(17):1773–1783. [Published correction appears in N Engl J Med 2006;355(17):1840.] Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar5. Pisano ED, Zuley M, Baum JK, Marques HS. Issues to consider in converting to digital mammography. Radiol Clin North Am 2007;45(5):813–830, vi. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar6. Seibert JA, Boone JM 3rd, Cooper VN, Lindfors KK. Cassette-based digital mammography. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2004;3(5):413–427. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar7. Health Canada Web site. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/radiation/02hecs-sesc267/index-eng.php. Accessed October 26, 2015. Google Scholar8. American College of Radiology Mammography Accreditation Program Requirements Web site. http://www.acr.org/∼/media/ACR/Documents/Accreditation/Mammography/Requirements.pdf. Accessed October 26, 2015. Google Scholar9. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Cancer Data Website. http://breastscreening.cancer.gov/statistics/benchmarks/screening/2009/table4.html. Accessed October 26, 2015. Google Scholar10. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Mammography Data Website. http://breastscreening.cancer.gov/statistics/mammography_data.html. Accessed October 26, 2015. Google Scholar11. Yaffe MJ, Bloomquist AK, Hunter DM, et al. Comparative performance of modern digital mammography systems in a large breast screening program. Med Phys 2013;40(12):121915. Crossref, Medline, Google ScholarArticle HistoryReceived October 26, 2015; final version accepted October 26.Published online: Jan 20 2016Published in print: Feb 2016 FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByClinically Adjudicated Reference Standards for Evaluation of Infectious Diseases DiagnosticsRobinPatel, Ephraim LTsalik, ScottEvans, Vance GFowler, Sarah BDoernberg2023 | Clinical Infectious Diseases, Vol. 76, No. 5Effect of Digital Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening: A Comparative Study of More than 8 Million Korean WomenSeri Hong, Soo Yeon Song, Boyoung Park, Mina Suh, Kui Son Choi, Seung Eun Jung, Min Jung Kim, Eun Hye Lee, Chan Wha Lee, Jae Kwan Jun, 3 December 2019 | Radiology, Vol. 294, No. 2Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for breast lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysisMatteo BasilioSuter, FilippoPesapane, Giorgio MariaAgazzi, TaniaGagliardi, OlgaNigro, AnnaBozzini, FrancescaPriolo, SilviaPenco, EnricoCassano, ClaudioChini, AlessandroSquizzato2020 | The Breast, Vol. 53A need for screening and early diagnosis of breast cancer2019 | Asian Biomedicine, Vol. 13, No. 1Recommended Articles Effect of Digital Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening: A Comparative Study of More than 8 Million Korean WomenRadiology2019Volume: 294Issue: 2pp. 247-255Clinical Performance of Synthesized Two-dimensional Mammography Combined with Tomosynthesis in a Large Screening PopulationRadiology2017Volume: 283Issue: 1pp. 70-76Use of Breast Cancer Screening and Its Association with Later Use of Preventive Services among Medicare BeneficiariesRadiology2018Volume: 288Issue: 3pp. 660-668Lessons Learned from the Randomized Controlled TOmosynthesis plus SYnthesized MAmmography (TOSYMA) TrialRadiology2022Volume: 306Issue: 2National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Screening Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance ConsortiumRadiology2016Volume: 283Issue: 1pp. 49-58See More RSNA Education Exhibits Non-Contrast-Enhanced Breast MR Screening for Women with Dense BreastsDigital Posters2019How Important are Imaging Endpoints in the Oncologic Clinical Trials? Digital Posters2019Certifications, Audits, And National Benchmarks: Breaking Down The Basics For The New Mammography AttendingDigital Posters2021 RSNA Case Collection Poland SyndromeRSNA Case Collection2020Neurofibromatosis Type 1RSNA Case Collection2021 Post vaccination axillary adenopathyRSNA Case Collection2021 Vol. 278, No. 2 Supplemental MaterialMetrics Altmetric Score PDF download
Publication Year: 2016
Publication Date: 2016-02-01
Language: en
Type: letter
Indexed In: ['crossref', 'pubmed']
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 6
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot