Radiation medicine · 2004
Comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography in Japanese population-based screening.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Yamada Takayuki, Saito Mioko, Ishibashi Tadashi, Tsuboi Masahiro, Matsuhashi Toshio, Sato Akihiro, Saito Haruo, Takahashi Shoki, Onuki Koji, Ouchi Noriaki
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To investigate how the greater contrast of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) affects the detection of suspicious lesions in Japanese population-based screening.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Screen-film mammography (SFM) and FFDM were performed in 480 women aged 50 years or more. A set of mediolateral oblique views was obtained with each modality. All mammograms were independently double-read. The five-scale category assessment and type of finding using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data system (BI-RADS) nomenclature were given. Intraobserver variance, recall rates, and positive predictive value were calculated.
RESULTS: The findings between the two modalities were discordant. kappa-values for each reader were 0.619 and 0.385, respectively. Almost half of the microcalcifications were called with both modalities. The detection of masses was less concordant between the readers (27%). The masses were detected more frequently with FFDM (73%). Other findings were only detected with one modality. The recall rate was not significantly different (2.9% with SFM vs. 4.2% with FFDM; p=0.253). The positive predictive value was not significantly different (14% with SFM vs. 10% with FFDM; p=0.69), either. Two patients with breast cancer were detected with both modalities.
CONCLUSION: Recall rates and positive predictive value were not significantly different between SFM and FFDM. Cancers were detected with both modalities.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Screen-film mammography (SFM) and FFDM were performed in 480 women aged 50 years or more. A set of mediolateral oblique views was obtained with each modality. All mammograms were independently double-read. The five-scale category assessment and type of finding using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data system (BI-RADS) nomenclature were given. Intraobserver variance, recall rates, and positive predictive value were calculated.
RESULTS: The findings between the two modalities were discordant. kappa-values for each reader were 0.619 and 0.385, respectively. Almost half of the microcalcifications were called with both modalities. The detection of masses was less concordant between the readers (27%). The masses were detected more frequently with FFDM (73%). Other findings were only detected with one modality. The recall rate was not significantly different (2.9% with SFM vs. 4.2% with FFDM; p=0.253). The positive predictive value was not significantly different (14% with SFM vs. 10% with FFDM; p=0.69), either. Two patients with breast cancer were detected with both modalities.
CONCLUSION: Recall rates and positive predictive value were not significantly different between SFM and FFDM. Cancers were detected with both modalities.