ライフサイエンスコーパス: mammography

1 east in addition to physical examination and mammography.

2 and estimate its accuracy in comparison with mammography.

3 ncer and limits the detection of cancer with mammography.

4 digital breast tomosynthesis than at digital mammography.

5 ecords for at least 1 year before undergoing mammography.

6 er screening for breast cancer with biennial mammography.

7 evious studies using traditional film-screen mammography.

8 for cancer detection and risk prediction at mammography.

9 tudies for applying CNNs on various tasks in mammography.

10 r detection rates when compared with digital mammography.

11 ensitivity or interval cancers compared with mammography.

12 t both breast magnetic resonance imaging and mammography.

13 th those for conventional diagnostic digital mammography.

14 lly confirmed breast cancer and preoperative mammography.

15 ction to those from prior studies using film mammography.

16 M) versus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) mammography.

17 th life expectancy > 10 years did not report mammography.

18 ions that manifest as microcalcifications at mammography.

19 al, and 6,481 postmenopausal, at the time of mammography.

20 pectively, after adjustment for surveillance mammography.

21 ation, and 23 (20.4%) had undergone previous mammography.

22 S, and routine yearly DCE MR imaging and FFD mammography.

23 ed life expectancy > 10 years did not report mammography.

24 ther or when women can safely stop screening mammography.

25 r and of failed early diagnosis by screening mammography.

26 n of poor-prognosis cancers than was digital mammography.

27 gnant breast microcalcifications detected on mammography.

28 le detection at chest CT and two-dimensional mammography.

29 detection (CAD) systems for use in screening mammography.

30 rates were significantly lower with DBT-s2D mammography (4.3%, 687 of 16 173) when compared with DBT

31 Sensitivity/specificity were 53.8%/96.3% for mammography, 69.2%/91.4% for magnetic resonance imaging,

32 g this method in comparison with traditional mammography (88-93% and 85-94%, respectively).

33 ; 95% confidence interval: 96.7%, 97.5%) and mammography (98.7%; 95% confidence interval: 98.3%, 99.0

34 All of these patients had undergone mammography after having an indication to undergo a comp

35 Screening mammography aims to identify breast cancer at earlier st

36 hree screening modalities were used: digital mammography alone (8935 examinations); digital mammograp

37 Women were categorized into two groups: mammography alone (n = 11 745) or breast MRI (n = 1521).

38 of significantly fewer interval cancers than mammography alone during a 2-year screening period.

39 sults Women screened with DBT versus digital mammography alone had lower likelihood regarding categor

40 to compare performance for breast MRI versus mammography alone, adjusting for women, examination, and

41 ging with two-dimensional full-field digital mammography alone.

42 te (OR, 1.7; 95% CI: 1.1, 2.7; P = .03) than mammography alone.

43 or magnetic resonance imaging compared with mammography alone.

44 of MRI screening compared to screening with mammography alone: increased detection of smaller cancer

45 s when compared with two-dimensional digital mammography among breast cancer survivors.

46 tudy was to increase the uptake of screening mammography among high-risk women who were treated for a

47 on bias by comparing receipt of surveillance mammography among users of these 2 disparate classes of

48 Proportion of participants undergoing mammography and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of undergoing

49 ance benchmarks for modern screening digital mammography and assess performance trends over time in U

50 ances of contrast material-enhanced spectral mammography and breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging i

51 Surveillance with annual mammography and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)

52 d recommendations include the performance of mammography and breast magnetic resonance imaging for su

53 atient reported normal findings at screening mammography and colonoscopy.

54 ic mammography and DBT compared with digital mammography and DBT (odds ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence in

55 in how deep learning works in the context of mammography and DBT and define the important technical c

56 high density was also observed at synthetic mammography and DBT compared with digital mammography an

57 Results The digital mammography and DBT groups were composed of 9019 and 22

58 egorization of high density breasts (digital mammography and DBT vs digital mammography: odds ratio,

59 e interval: 0.61, 0.80], P < .001; synthetic mammography and DBT vs digital mammography: odds ratio,

60 B US may not be of added value to yearly FFD mammography and DCE MR imaging surveillance of carriers

61 eep learning algorithms have been applied to mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT).

62 a group of 547 women who underwent spectral mammography and histopathological verification of the le

63 ailable regarding the performance metrics of mammography and magnetic resonance imaging among survivo

64 agreement on BPE levels between CE spectral mammography and MR imaging and among readers was substan

65 breast cancer risk who underwent CE spectral mammography and MR imaging for screening or staging from

66 y, calcification morphology, mass margins at mammography and MR imaging, and nonmass enhancement at M

67 Between CE spectral mammography and MR imaging, the intrareader agreement ra

68 imating equations separately for CE spectral mammography and MR imaging.

69 3 were seen with MR imaging and 14 with both mammography and MR imaging.

70 e predictive values were calculated for both mammography and MR imaging.

71 to help ensure that patients with VI undergo mammography and other preventive screenings as recommend

72 were referred for contrast-enhanced spectral mammography and targeted ultrasonography because they ha

73 sparities in the city-level use of screening mammography and to identify factors that have an impact

74 She underwent both mammography and US.

75 rification of the lesion, previously seen in mammography and/or ultrasound.

76 ests, abdominal ultrasonography in children, mammography, and colonoscopy, did not lead to a diagnosi

77 ial was similar to those detected at digital mammography, and the majority were early-stage luminal A

78 sed whether the odds of undergoing screening mammography are similar for women with and without visua

79 ool after introduction of full-field digital mammography as it reduces recall for assessment and demo

80 magnetic resonance (with supplemental annual mammography) as an optimal mode of screening.

81 ual MRI screening (with supplementary annual mammography) as the optimum screening modality.

82 of 43 381 women [72.5%]) underwent follow-up mammography at 6 months.

83 ty of being more cost-effective than digital mammography at a threshold of euro 35 000 per life-year

84 The authors reviewed screening mammography audit data obtained from 2009 to 2014, durin

85 deaths (56% to 71%) and annual MRI (without mammography) averted 56% to 62%.

86 detection rates between FFDM and screen-film mammography based on a previously published study from t

87 A mammography-based deep learning (DL) model may provide m

88 Purpose To develop a mammography-based DL breast cancer risk model that is mo

89 This study aims to develop a mammography-based radiomics nomogram for the preoperativ

90 Yearly mammography before age 50 years, commencing at age 40 or

91 uss whether to screen for breast cancer with mammography before age 50 years.

92 underwent screening with full-field digital mammography between 2008 and 2015.

93 mean age, 55.9 years +/- 14.9) who underwent mammography between June 2002 and July 2009.

94 Currently, mammographies, biopsies and MRI scans are the standard o

95 detection compared with two-dimensional (2D) mammography but has a longer interpretation time.

96 s the positive predictive value of screening mammography by age group.

97 rams from the Digital Database for Screening Mammography (CBIS-DDSM), the best single model achieved

98 BackgroundContrast agent-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) has been shown to be more sensitive a

99 The utility of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and (99m)Tc sestamibi-based molecular

100 he aim of the study was to evaluate spectral mammography (CESM) in diagnosing breast cancer, which is

101 on rural disparities in the use of screening mammography, city-level use throughout the United States

102 gitudinal cohort design included the Swedish Mammography Cohort (SMC) and the Cohort of Swedish Men (

103 ormance of synthesized two-dimensional (s2D) mammography combined with digital breast tomosynthesis (

104 DCE MR imaging and FFD mammography combined yielded the highest sensitivity of

105 uter-aided diagnosis (CAD) is widely used in mammography, conventional CAD programs that use prompts

106 Spectral mammography could be an ideal method to detect breast ca

107 l from screening mammography in the National Mammography Database (NMD).

108 Conclusion In the National Mammography Database, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data

109 intelligence-based clinical applications for mammography, DBT, and radiomics.

110 parameters, we predict that the benefits of mammography depend on the effectiveness of cancer treatm

111 ups, marking was guided by ultrasound and/or mammography depending on the radiologic characteristics

112 In addition, contrast-enhanced spectral mammography depicted 11 of the 11 secondary cancers (100

113 digital breast tomosynthesis plus synthetic mammography depicted more cancers than full-field digita

114 who underwent mammography in addition to US, mammography depicted seven incidental suspicious finding

115 ancy (< 5 years) receive annual surveillance mammography despite unknown benefits, whereas 14% with e

116 examinations were carried-out with a digital mammography device dedicated to performing dual-energy C

117 lusion When compared with full-field digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis can reduce the

118 ove screening outcomes compared with digital mammography (DM) alone.

119 n the performance of two-dimensional digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT)

120 Background Combined digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT)

121 liant retrospective review of 10 728 digital mammography (DM) examinations from September 1, 2010, to

122 esis (DBT) is considered superior to digital mammography (DM) for women with dense breasts.

123 igital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) to digital mammography (DM) have shown conflicting results regardin

124 ging from screen-film mammography to digital mammography (DM) in a large organized national screening

125 DBT compared with those detected at digital mammography (DM) in breast cancer screening.

126 ast tomosynthesis (DBT) is replacing digital mammography (DM) in the clinical workflow.

127 creening setting, when compared with digital mammography (DM) in the Netherlands, and to quantify the

128 st tomosynthesis (DBT) combined with digital mammography (DM) is increasingly used in the United Stat

129 n 2 years after adoption relative to digital mammography (DM) performance 1 year before DBT adoption.

130 etic mammography (SM) or standard 2D digital mammography (DM) results in detection of more breast can

131 iple years and rounds to outcomes of digital mammography (DM) screening.

132 gle tertiary breast center that used digital mammography (DM) stereotactic guidance from 2013 to 2015

133 l cancers differ for two-dimensional digital mammography (DM) versus digital breast tomosynthesis (DB

134 mensional mammograms (DBT+SM) versus digital mammography (DM) yielded lower recall rates for women wi

135 es compared with those obtained with digital mammography (DM); however, the impact of DBT on patient

136 08 to February 2011, two-dimensional digital mammography [DM] group) and for 5 years after implementa

137 .56; CI, 0.36-0.87; P = 0.009) of undergoing mammography during follow-up compared with those with NV

138 en including yearly full-field digital (FFD) mammography, dynamic contrast agent-enhanced (DCE) magne

139 density and age groups compared with digital mammography, especially cancers classified as spiculated

140 Outcomes included breast cancers detected at mammography, false-positive mammograms, and benign biops

141 thesis (DBT) with that of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) alone and FFDM combined with DBT in a

142 epicted more cancers than full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and found a lower number of stage II

143 n independent test set of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) images from the INbreast database, th

144 of newer technologies of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) on breast density research and to det

145 SM (hereafter, DBT+SM) or full-field digital mammography (FFDM) with FFDM screening.

146 a lower recall rate than full-field digital mammography (FFDM).

147 owing the introduction of full-field digital mammography (FFDM).

148 was gradually replaced by full-field digital mammography (FFDM).

149 She underwent both mammography (Fig 2) and US (Fig 3).

150 cancer has the potential to be analogous to mammography for breast cancer or low-dose CT for lung ca

151 followed by annual or biennial surveillance mammography for healthy women and cessation of mammograp

152 Specifically, CNNs are used in mammography for lesion localization and detection, risk

153 reduce the benefits as well as the harms of mammography for women 40-49 years old.

154 nations (magnetic resonance [MR] imaging and mammography) for women at increased breast cancer risk (

155 tional sample of women screened with digital mammography from September 1, 2012, to February 28, 2013

156 I: 1.07, 1.41; P = .003) than in the digital mammography group.

157 ed (March 2008-February 2011 for the digital mammography group; January 2013-December 2017 for the DB

158 oup vs 72% [69 of 96 cancers] in the digital mammography group; P = .69).

159 Mammography has the potential to alter the course of the

160 detection applied to a linked set of digital mammography images and electronic health records.

161 diologists assessed a dataset of 240 digital mammography images, acquired between 2013 and 2016, usin

162 Features were extracted from each patient's mammography images.

163 racterization of breast lesions with digital mammography improves lesion classification over that wit

164 Conclusion Screening with DBT-s2D mammography in a large community-based practice improved

165 adiologists' reading performance for digital mammography in a screening program that uses independent

166 In the subset of 98 women who underwent mammography in addition to US, mammography depicted seve

167 nderwent targeted US, and 98 (59%) underwent mammography in addition to US.

168 Synthetic mammography in combination with digital breast tomosynth

169 milar sensitivity and specificity to digital mammography in combination with digital breast tomosynth

170 when synthetic mammography replaces digital mammography in digital breast tomosynthesis imaging.(C)

171 Purpose The benefits of annual surveillance mammography in older breast cancer survivors with limite

172 data on the benefits and risks of screening mammography in older women and on the performance of two

173 e PPV(3) for conventional diagnostic digital mammography in our data set was 32.1% (35 of 109; 95% co

174 mmography for healthy women and cessation of mammography in patients whose life expectancy is less th

175 t tumors may improve the accuracy of digital mammography in the diagnosis of breast cancer.

176 ific than two-dimensional full-field digital mammography in the diagnostic setting.

177 , 78.9% reported having routine surveillance mammography in the last 12 months.

178 are organizations (ACOs) on use of screening mammography in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP

179 gs first identified at recall from screening mammography in the National Mammography Database (NMD).

180 s limited literature on DBT as an adjunct to mammography in the staging of known breast cancers.

181 (A Comparison of Tomosynthesis with Digital Mammography in the UK National Health Service Breast Scr

182 men aged 75 years or older undergo screening mammography in the United States.

183 ta on the benefits and harms of surveillance mammography in this population are lacking, and most of

184 Recall rate, CDR, PPV2, and PPV3 of digital mammography increased after radiologist experience with

185 Adding mammography increased false-positive findings without an

186 Although mammography is a gold standard for breast cancer screeni

187 99.97%).ConclusionContrast-enhanced digital mammography is a promising technique for screening women

188 Although mammography is considered the gold standard for diagnosi

189 BAC in mammography is independently associated with C-IMT.

190 Conclusion Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography is potentially as sensitive as MR imaging in

191 mber of cancers that cannot be detected with mammography is substantial, especially in dense-breast (

192 Although mammography is the standard of care for breast cancer sc

193 The age at mammography (mean, 55.7 years vs 54.6 years; P < .001),

194 undergo yearly breast cancer screening with mammography, measurement of breast arterial calcificatio

195 t cancer screening with MRI, with or without mammography, might reduce breast cancer mortality by hal

196 rpose To investigate the effect of screening mammography modality on BI-RADS breast density assessmen

197 Conclusion Contrast-enhanced mammography, molecular breast imaging, and MRI showed si

198 Keywords: Breast, Mammography, Molecular Imaging, PET/CT, Radionuclide Stu

199 performance of surveillance breast MRI with mammography must account for patient characteristics.

200 ers were less likely to receive surveillance mammography (odds ratio (OR) = 0.90, 95% confidence inte

201 significantly associated with lower odds of mammography (odds ratio, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.3 to 0.8 for </=

202 01; synthetic mammography and DBT vs digital mammography: odds ratio, 0.43 [95% confidence interval:

203 asts (digital mammography and DBT vs digital mammography: odds ratio, 0.69 [95% confidence interval:

204 y calcification, which is routinely found in mammography of elderly women, could be predictive of cor

205 ion group and 5.0 per 1000 screenings in the mammography-only group, for a difference of 2.5 per 1000

206 n the MRI-invitation group and 32,312 in the mammography-only group.

207 us benign lesions than did contrast-enhanced mammography or molecular breast imaging, leading to lowe

208 udy, 141 women with imaging abnormalities on mammography or sonography (BI-RADS 4/5) underwent combin

209 0 examinations with DBT vs 10.6 with digital mammography; OR, 0.76; 95% CI: 0.57, 1.02; P = .07).

210 Her lesion was found at screening mammography performed at an outside institution when she

211 152 of 207 (73.4%) cases who had mammography performed had DB, and 55 (26.6%) cases had v

212 Breast density was assessed on mammography performed within 5 years of MRI.

213 ned to attain high accuracy on heterogeneous mammography platforms, and hold tremendous promise for i

214 ic density measurements across FFDM and film mammography platforms.

215 has not been evaluated in routine screening mammography practice.

216 Background Several European screening mammography programs that use independent double reading

217 the prospective screening cohort Karolinska Mammography Project for Risk Prediction of Breast Cancer

218 961 women enrolled in the Swedish KARolinska MAmmography Project for Risk Prediction of Breast Cancer

219 rt study of 46,436 women from the Karolinska Mammography Project for Risk Prediction of Breast Cancer

220 recalls, 100 normal) were interpreted by 14 Mammography Quality Standards Act-qualified radiologists

221 -lipid-protein composition images alone, (b) mammography radiomics alone, and (c) a combined image an

222 Purpose To investigate the combination of mammography radiomics and quantitative three-compartment

223 mage analysis of breast masses combined with mammography radiomics has the potential to reduce unnece

224 In comparison, combined mammography radiomics plus quantitative 3CB image analys

225 normalities detected at discordant screening mammography readings were discussed at biweekly consensu

226 as 9.3% (95% CI: 6.83%, 12.36%) and that for mammography recalls was 6.5% (95% CI: 3.57%, 10.59%).

227 recorded prospectively in the San Francisco Mammography Registry.

228 maintained within benchmarks when synthetic mammography replaces digital mammography in digital brea

229 ations of breast density were extracted from mammography reports.

230 The mammography research community can utilize this survey a

231 n of digital breast tomosynthesis to digital mammography resulted in significant gains in sensitivity

232 ly dense breast tissue and normal results on mammography resulted in the diagnosis of significantly f

233 false positive and false negative screening mammography results.

234 cancer in Norway before the introduction of mammography screening (ie, 16.3%, 95% CI 15.4%-17.2% in

235 The recommendations address digital mammography screening and the addition of hand-held ultr

236 tection of suspicious microcalcifications at mammography screening and the yield of these lesions aft

237 VI were significantly less likely to undergo mammography screening for breast cancer than women witho

238 The benefits of mammography screening have been controversial, with conf

239 supplemental MRI or to a group that received mammography screening only.

240 The proportion of women undergoing 1 mammography screening or more within the 2-year follow-u

241 reening rounds of a population-based digital mammography screening program, to assess differences ove

242 by telephone-delivered counseling increased mammography screening rates in survivors at high risk fo

243 Background Mammography screening reduces breast cancer mortality, b

244 erquartile range, 14 years) were recalled at mammography screening, 3556 of whom had suspicious micro

245 ected microcalcifications during 20 years of mammography screening.

246 The mean +/- standard deviation number of mammography screenings undergone per patient during the

247 n 2009-2010 (transition period), screen-film mammography (SFM) was gradually replaced by full-field d

248 of a screening round with DBT plus synthetic mammography (SM) (hereafter, DBT+SM) and the repeat scre

249 DBT combined with two-dimensional synthetic mammography (SM) (hereafter, DBT+SM) versus DM.

250 both examinations and the role of synthetic mammography (SM) and computer-aided detection (CAD).

251 is (DBT) with two-dimensional (2D) synthetic mammography (SM) or standard 2D digital mammography (DM)

252 y screening outcomes incorporating synthetic mammography (SM) with DBT have suggested that SM is an a

253 Annual MRI with or without mammography, starting at age 25, 30, or 35 years.

254 unger than 40 years may not benefit from FFD mammography surveillance in addition to DCE MR imaging.

255 te versus synchronous magnetic resonance and mammography, the age at which to terminate the two techn

256 l computer-aided detection (CAD) systems for mammography, the extreme importance of early detection o

257 With the advent of screening mammography, the incidence of DCIS has significantly inc

258 reast tissue and normal results on screening mammography to a group that was invited to undergo suppl

259 000 per LYG.ConclusionSwitching from digital mammography to biennial digital breast tomosynthesis is

260 port the impact of changing from screen-film mammography to digital mammography (DM) in a large organ

261 t breast (3CB) image analysis of dual-energy mammography to limit unnecessary benign breast biopsies.

262 screening performance, the benefit of adding mammography to MRI increased in both models, although th

263 However, the model predicts that confining mammography to populations with a high risk of acquiring

264 Timely mammography to screen for breast cancer in accordance wi

265 Initial stage was determined by mammography, ultrasound, or surgery.

266 on mammography using the WIPRO GE - DMR PLUS mammography unit.

267 nthesis, contrast material-enhanced spectral mammography, US (automated three-dimensional breast US,

268 nt a breast examination, additional imaging (mammography, US), and biopsy, if required.

269 ortant risks; however, little is known about mammography use among these women.

270 2010, 2013, and 2015 to examine surveillance mammography use among women age >/= 65 years who reporte

271 inal outcomes, with mean change in screening mammography use of +2.6% (range, -33.2% to +42.2%), with

272 Results Overall mean city-level screening mammography use rate was 77.7% (range, 62.8%-88.9%).

273 small significant improvements in screening mammography use.

274 ions between medication use and surveillance mammography using multivariable generalized estimating e

275 into two groups based on presence of BAC on mammography using the WIPRO GE - DMR PLUS mammography un

276 500 Cities Project, which includes screening mammography utilization data from the Behavioral Risk Fa

277 tomosynthesis (DBT) and two-dimensional (2D) mammography varies with number of years of experience or

278 inations (95% CI: 15.78, 29.19) and that for mammography was 7.2 cancers per 1000 examinations (95% C

279 c performance of FFDM, DBT-FFDM, and DBT-s2D mammography was compared.

280 The use of screening mammography was evaluated at the city level by census re

281 orted in 2007, and breast density by digital mammography was measured in 2010.

282 were performed at diagnostic evaluation, and mammography was performed at the discretion of the inter

283 were 96% and 78% respectively, and those of mammography were 31% and 89%, respectively (P < .001).

284 w performance measures for breast MRI versus mammography were as follows, respectively: cancer detect

285 iologists improved their cancer detection at mammography when using an artificial intelligence system

286 study included women recalled from screening mammography with BI-RADS category 3 assessment at additi

287 rpose To compare performance of surveillance mammography with breast MRI.

288 is (DBT; 30 779 examinations); and synthetic mammography with DBT (21 052 examinations).

289 mmography alone (8935 examinations); digital mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT; 30 7

290 Conclusion The combination of digital mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis improves d

291 Northern California and underwent screening mammography with either Hologic (Hologic, Inc., Marlboro

292 screening, starting at age 25 years, annual mammography with MRI averted the most deaths (56% to 71%

293 detection rate was 14% greater with digital mammography with no change in recall rates and without c

294 pproaches for discussions about surveillance mammography with older patients.

295 erformance benchmarks for diagnostic digital mammography with use of recent data from the Breast Canc

296 and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of undergoing mammography within 2 years of follow-up.

297 men aged 40-69 years who underwent screening mammography within 24 months) were obtained.

298 ng compared the odds of undergoing screening mammography within a 2-year follow-up period among the 3

299 thus lactation, into their 30s and 40s, when mammography would typically be the initial imaging modal

300 ode-negative cancers resulted from screening mammography, yielding a cancer detection rate of 18 per