Radiologia · 2007
[A review of the scientific evidence concerning the clinical application of digital mammography].
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Carreira Gómez C, Martínez Cantarero J, Gómez Santos D, Polanco Sánchez C, Naranjo García P, del Llano Señarís J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To review the scientific evidence with respect to the use of digital mammography and compare it with analogical mammography in the clinical context.
MATERIAL AND METHOD: We searched Medline and EMbase for studies published between 1989 and 2005 that compared the results of digital and analogical mammography in the same group of patients or in two different groups of patients to evaluate their respective diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, area under the ROC curve), recall rate, biopsy rate, and exposure to radiation. We reviewed and compared the different methodologies of the studies published.
RESULTS: Eight articles and eight presentations at congresses were found. No statistically significant differences were observed between digital and analogical mammography for the detection of breast cancer. Until the publication of the Oslo II (2004) and Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (2005) studies, the series presented were small and used a variety of methodologies. This made it impossible to appreciate small differences in diagnostic accuracy between the two techniques and to group the, sometimes, contradictory results. Furthermore, these first series did not include follow-up.
CONCLUSION: There are no statistically significant differences between the two techniques for diagnostic accuracy, except in women with dense or heterogeneously dense breasts, in those under 50 years of age, and in peri- or pre-menopausal women, in which cases digital mammography is significantly better. These data should be confirmed in longer term studies to enable the effects on the breast cancer mortality rate to be specifically evaluated. Cost-effectiveness studies are important when considering changing techniques.
MATERIAL AND METHOD: We searched Medline and EMbase for studies published between 1989 and 2005 that compared the results of digital and analogical mammography in the same group of patients or in two different groups of patients to evaluate their respective diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, area under the ROC curve), recall rate, biopsy rate, and exposure to radiation. We reviewed and compared the different methodologies of the studies published.
RESULTS: Eight articles and eight presentations at congresses were found. No statistically significant differences were observed between digital and analogical mammography for the detection of breast cancer. Until the publication of the Oslo II (2004) and Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (2005) studies, the series presented were small and used a variety of methodologies. This made it impossible to appreciate small differences in diagnostic accuracy between the two techniques and to group the, sometimes, contradictory results. Furthermore, these first series did not include follow-up.
CONCLUSION: There are no statistically significant differences between the two techniques for diagnostic accuracy, except in women with dense or heterogeneously dense breasts, in those under 50 years of age, and in peri- or pre-menopausal women, in which cases digital mammography is significantly better. These data should be confirmed in longer term studies to enable the effects on the breast cancer mortality rate to be specifically evaluated. Cost-effectiveness studies are important when considering changing techniques.