ライフサイエンスコーパス: digital mammography

1 o breast PD were stronger with DBT than with digital mammography.

2 (r = -0.26), and homogeneity (r = -0.33) at digital mammography.

3 ongly correlated to breast PD in DBT than in digital mammography.

4 ormance improvements that are available with digital mammography.

5 er QALY gained for age- and density-targeted digital mammography.

6 ests potential for modest dose reductions in digital mammography.

7 ulated microcalcifications in a phantom with digital mammography.

8 and discrimination of simulated lesions for digital mammography.

9 te the conditions present in screen-film and digital mammography.

10 participants underwent both screen-film and digital mammography.

11 and interval cancers and for screen-film and digital mammography.

12 diation dose on breast density estimation in digital mammography.

13 annual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and digital mammography.

14 without tomosynthesis underwent conventional digital mammography.

15 ast MR imaging gave consent to undergo DE CE digital mammography.

16 imaging and higher than that of conventional digital mammography.

17 With digital mammography, 29,726 patients were recalled and 5

18 aminations, 1.3% at subsequent examinations; digital mammography: 4.4% at initial examinations, 2.1%

19 inations; detection rate per 1000 women with digital mammography: 6.8 at initial examinations, 6.1 at

20 nique consists of high-energy and low-energy digital mammography after administration of iodinated co

21 0.9 minute longer (47% longer) compared with digital mammography alone (P < .0001).

22 digital mammography and tomosynthesis versus digital mammography alone among U.S. women aged 50-74 ye

23 o $226 for combined examinations vs $139 for digital mammography alone) and if reported interpretive

24 phy and 34.0 +/- 0.55 (range, 20.4-54.3) for digital mammography alone.

25 h time to interpret images from conventional digital mammography alone.

26 digital mammography was superior to that of digital mammography alone.

27 gital mammography with tomosynthesis against digital mammography alone.

28 were two false-positive findings with DE CE digital mammography and 13 false-positive findings with

29 n 19.8% of the women who underwent FS before digital mammography and 17.1% of those who underwent dig

30 performance benchmarks for modern screening digital mammography and assess performance trends over t

31 Both sites used full-field digital mammography and batch screening interpretation.

32 ) imaging with that of conventional imaging (digital mammography and breast ultrasonography) in the i

33 e current state of the art in technology for digital mammography and data from clinical trials that s

34 mammography to the current era of full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis.

35 oft-copy display is likely to be useful with digital mammography and is unlikely to significantly cha

36 ly collected for women undergoing diagnostic digital mammography and linked with cancer diagnoses fro

37 Two-view digital mammography and screen-film mammography involve

38 Results were sensitive to the cost of digital mammography and to the prevalence of dense breas

39 Biennial combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for U.S.

40 ffectiveness of biennial screening with both digital mammography and tomosynthesis versus digital mam

41 ard full-field digital mammography, low-dose digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis.

42 Studies of older women, digital mammography, and magnetic resonance imaging are

43 mmography, percentage of women screened with digital mammography, and percentage of mammography recal

44 Rather, digital mammography appears to add to the detection of h

45 f automated breast density measurements with digital mammography are not substantially affected by va

46 significantly better diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography, as compared with screen-film mammog

47 This study included 201 women who underwent digital mammography at seven U.S. and Canadian medical c

48 icant tendency toward film being better than digital mammography (AUCs, 0.88 vs 0.70; P = .0025).

49 film mammography is more favorable than for digital mammography because film has a lower false-posit

50 ), and positive predictive values (PPVs) for digital mammography before and after radiologist experie

51 When radiation effects were included, annual digital mammography beginning at age 30 years maximized

52 MR imaging and DE CE digital mammography both depicted 50 (96%) of 52 index t

53 ncer detection rates to historic outcomes of digital mammography combined with DBT (referred to as di

54 ported improved breast cancer detection with digital mammography compared with film mammography in se

55 andular dose was 39% lower in s2D/DBT versus digital mammography/DBT (4.88 mGy vs 7.97 mGy, respectiv

56 in cancer detection rate for s2D/DBT versus digital mammography/DBT (5.03 of 1000 vs 5.45 of 1000, r

57 Biopsy rate for s2D/DBT versus digital mammography/DBT decreased (1.3% vs 2.0%, respect

58 adiation dose for 15 571 women screened with digital mammography/DBT from October 1, 2011, to Februar

59 e resulted in similar outcomes compared with digital mammography/DBT imaging.

60 Results Recall rate for s2D/DBT versus digital mammography/DBT was 7.1% versus 8.8%, respective

61 ammography combined with DBT (referred to as digital mammography/DBT) screening.

62 h a decrease in radiation dose compared with digital mammography/DBT.

63 8 (baseline examinations were performed with digital mammography), DCIS detection rates were determin

64 ation-induced cancer per 100,000 women using digital mammography, depending on age and screening inte

65 DE CE digital mammography depicted 14 (56%) of 25 additional i

66 Digital mammography depicted significantly more ductal c

67 adiation, including screen-film mammography, digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, dedic

68 tal breast tomosynthesis (DBT) combined with digital mammography (DM) decreases false-positive examin

69 PAA-compliant retrospective review of 10 728 digital mammography (DM) examinations from September 1,

70 Results from all screening digital mammography (DM) examinations performed without

71 interval cancers differ for two-dimensional digital mammography (DM) versus digital breast tomosynth

72 to prospectively compare cancer detection of digital mammography (DM), whole-breast ultrasound (WBUS)

73 n-film mammography for Fischer, Fuji, and GE digital mammography equipment.

74 ng sites, which used five different types of digital mammography equipment.

75 Data were included of the first round of digital mammography examinations, performed in 17 screen

76 tomosynthesis (DBT) with that of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) alone and FFDM combined with

77 dy consisted of current and prior full-field digital mammography (FFDM) images and DBT images that we

78 c, Bedford, Mass) in both DBT and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) mode.

79 (39 and 78 microm) and a clinical full-field digital mammography (FFDM) system that yields a 100-micr

80 ography compared with those after full-field digital mammography (FFDM).

81 V2), and PPV of biopsies performed (PPV3) of digital mammography for six radiologists were compared b

82 years of age) and age- and density-targeted digital mammography (for women <50 years of age or women

83 mammography screening, which is age-targeted digital mammography (for women <50 years of age) and age

84 ening) and ages 65 to 74 years (vs. biennial digital mammography from ages 50 to 64 years).

85 om 3665 examinations (1502 combined and 2163 digital mammography) from July 2012 to January 2013 were

86 DE CE digital mammography had a lower sensitivity for detectin

87 Patients undergoing tomosynthesis plus digital mammography had significantly lower screening re

88 hese findings suggest that dose reduction in digital mammography has a measurable but modest effect o

89 ed thirty-three cases were selected from the Digital Mammography Image Screening Trial screening stud

90 The DMIST (Digital Mammography Imaging Screening Trial) reported im

91 breast screening program, the performance of digital mammography in the detection of DCIS and invasiv

92 Before the nationwide transition to digital mammography in the Dutch biennial screening prog

93 MY trial (A Comparison of Tomosynthesis with Digital Mammography in the UK National Health Service Br

94 cancer that is 23 times higher than that of digital mammography in women aged 40 years.

95 of fatal cancer that is 20-30 times that of digital mammography in women aged 40 years.

96 ography was increased and the sensitivity of digital mammography in women with nondense breasts was d

97 es obtained with screen-film mammography and digital mammography, including radiologic and pathologic

98 nclusion Recall rate, CDR, PPV2, and PPV3 of digital mammography increased after radiologist experien

99 and 1.9 minutes +/- 0.6 (range, 1.1-3.0) for digital mammography; interpretation time with combined t

100 screening for breast cancer is similar, but digital mammography is more accurate in women under the

101 hy, screening for breast cancer by using all-digital mammography is not cost-effective.

102 Digital mammography is standard for women with dense bre

103 ose protocols, including standard full-field digital mammography, low-dose digital mammography, and d

104 iagnostic accuracy of each of the individual digital mammography machines versus screen-film mammogra

105 Women screened with digital mammography may receive false-positive and false

106 old RRs are higher for annual screening with digital mammography (median, 4.3 [range, 3.3 to 10]) and

107 However, with digital mammography more high-grade DCIS lesions were de

108 A total of 454,850 examinations (n=281,187 digital mammography; n=173,663 digital mammography + tom

109 Addition of tomosynthesis to digital mammography offers the dual benefit of significa

110 sts prospectively read images from screening digital mammography or screening combined tomosynthesis

111 ctor of PD (R(2) = 0.41 for DBT and 0.28 for digital mammography; P < .001).

112 Digital mammography performed significantly better than

113 of tomosynthesis implementation); period 2: digital mammography plus tomosynthesis examinations from

114 al tomosynthesis were offered screening with digital mammography plus tomosynthesis.

115 Lesions depicted by using DE CE digital mammography ranged from 4 to 67 mm in size (medi

116 The odds of a cancer being more visible at digital mammography--rather than being equally visible a

117 d breast cancer incidence and mortality from digital mammography screening are affected by dose varia

118 that high overall cancer detection rates in digital mammography screening are related to high detect

119 All-digital mammography screening cost $331,000 (95% CI, $26

120 Period 1: digital mammography screening examinations 1 year before

121 Annual or biennial digital mammography screening from age 40, 45, or 50 yea

122 Intervention: Annual, biennial, or triennial digital mammography screening from ages 50 to 74 years (

123 quent screening rounds of a population-based digital mammography screening program, to assess differe

124 Targeted digital mammography screening resulted in more screen-de

125 Digital mammography screening supplemented with DBT.

126 , the cost-effectiveness of density-targeted digital mammography screening varied from a base-case es

127 life year gained by adding tomosynthesis to digital mammography screening was $53 893.

128 Digital mammography screening with dose-efficient photon

129 -digital mammography screening; and targeted digital mammography screening, which is age-targeted dig

130 aths from cancer than either all-film or all-digital mammography screening, with cost-effectiveness e

131 more costly and less effective than targeted digital mammography screening.

132 All-film mammography screening; all-digital mammography screening; and targeted digital mamm

133 Age-targeted screening with digital mammography seems cost-effective, whereas densit

134 tomosynthesis and mammography compared with digital mammography sessions (P < .0001).

135 ects, the breast model indicated that annual digital mammography starting at age 25 years maximized L

136 life-years gained as biennial screening with digital mammography starting at age 40 years for women w

137 for lesions imaged with the General Electric digital mammography system than for lesions imaged with

138 n = 14) intermittently for 3 days by using a digital mammography system; subsequently, the animals we

139 crylate were acquired with SF and full-field digital mammography systems at matched exposure conditio

140 Digital mammography systems from four manufacturers (Fis

141 aluation are routinely used for analogue and digital mammography systems in Poland.

142 In digital mammography, the processes of image acquisition,

143 to $33,000) per QALY gained for age-targeted digital mammography to $84,500 (CI, $75,000 to $93,000)

144 graphy screening, they may choose to undergo digital mammography to optimize cancer detection.

145 ns (n=281,187 digital mammography; n=173,663 digital mammography + tomosynthesis) were evaluated.

146 With digital mammography + tomosynthesis, 15,541 patients wer

147 ital mammography vs 91 (95% CI, 73-108) with digital mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, -16 (95

148 al mammography vs 5.4 (95% CI, 4.9-6.0) with digital mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, 1.2 (95

149 al mammography vs 4.1 (95% CI, 3.7-4.5) with digital mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, 1.2 (95

150 mammography vs 19.3 (95% CI, 16.6-22.1) with digital mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, 1.3 (95

151 With emerging imaging techniques (ie, digital mammography, tomosynthesis, ultrasonography, mag

152 ed with Fischer, General Electric, and Lorad digital mammography units.

153 for biopsies, 18.1 (95% CI, 15.4-20.8) with digital mammography vs 19.3 (95% CI, 16.6-22.1) with dig

154 cancer detection, 2.9 (95% CI, 2.5-3.2) with digital mammography vs 4.1 (95% CI, 3.7-4.5) with digita

155 cancer detection, 4.2 (95% CI, 3.8-4.7) with digital mammography vs 5.4 (95% CI, 4.9-6.0) with digita

156 : for recall rate, 107 (95% CI, 89-124) with digital mammography vs 91 (95% CI, 73-108) with digital

157 Addition of tomosynthesis to digital mammography was associated with a decrease in re

158 d in both a community setting, in which only digital mammography was available, and in two tertiary b

159 Bilateral DE CE digital mammography was feasible and easily accomplished

160 In addition, digital mammography was shown to be more sensitive than

161 graphy comprised the only subgroup for which digital mammography was significantly better than film (

162 film-screen mammography, the sensitivity of digital mammography was significantly higher for women a

163 However, the accuracy of digital mammography was significantly higher than that o

164 ennial screening program, the performance of digital mammography was studied in three screening regio

165 stic accuracy for combined tomosynthesis and digital mammography was superior to that of digital mamm

166 l applications that are being developed with digital mammography will be described.

167 hed reader studies were performed to compare digital mammography with tomosynthesis against digital m

168 porary performance benchmarks for diagnostic digital mammography with use of recent data from the Bre

169 We assessed whether the use of digital mammography would avoid some of these limitation