ライフサイエンスコーパス: mammogram

1 ammograms), and regular users (three or more mammograms).

2 l in women with dense breasts and a negative mammogram.

3 of women (n = 173) returned for a subsequent mammogram.

4 d from 1996 to 2004 among women with a prior mammogram.

5 men, and reflector depth was measured on the mammogram.

6 ccording to which radiologist interprets her mammogram.

7 e breasts on an otherwise negative screening mammogram.

8 al or within 2 years of a biennial screening mammogram.

9 or fewer mammograms to 24.6 for more than 50 mammograms.

10 ine clinical use when interpreting screening mammograms.

11 Thirty-eight tumors were occult on mammograms.

12 cluded 89 639 women with both FS and digital mammograms.

13 mammograms and 87 066 women with two digital mammograms.

14 in the percentage with availability of prior mammograms.

15 edema may be less likely to undergo repeated mammograms.

16 ypically diagnosed as microcalcifications in mammograms.

17 00 screen-film mammograms and 33 879 digital mammograms.

18 comparable to those made from standard-dose mammograms.

19 y interpreted 267 clinical digital screening mammograms.

20 ensity readings were obtained from digitized mammograms.

21 n advantage in the interpretation of digital mammograms.

22 iagnosis of clustered microcalcifications on mammograms.

23 0 561 were DBT-FFDM, and 16 173 were DBT-s2D mammograms.

24 e blinded expert radiologist interpreted all mammograms.

25 sociated findings, and comparison with prior mammograms.

26 eristics, as well as receipt of surveillance mammograms.

27 half of radiologists interpreting screening mammograms.

28 uced accuracy of interpretation of screening mammograms.

29 elected from an existing database of digital mammograms.

30 ncy in women with suspicious x-ray screening mammograms.

31 mograms as compared with women with negative mammograms.

32 Women underwent annual or biennial mammograms.

33 25 or fewer of their own recalled screening mammograms, 24% performed the work-up for 0-50, and 39%

34 Of 554 mammograms (265 TRAM flap reconstructions), 546 (98.6%)

35 for receiving 1) a cervical smear test, 2) a mammogram, 3) a faecal occult blood test and 4) a prosta

36 radiologists performed the work-up for 0-50 mammograms, 32% performed the work-up for 51-125, and 44

37 radiologists interpreted 1 036 155 screening mammograms; 4961 breast cancers were detected.

38 (mean age, 59.3; SD, 7.49) who had screening mammograms (596,642 in the intervention group; 597,505 i

39 ening by Pap smear (67.3% v 54.8%, P<.0001), mammogram (80.4% v 70.7%, P<.0001), and prostate-specifi

40 ncer detection rates for 2,289,132 screening mammograms (9030 cancers) read by 510 radiologists in th

41 three experienced a false-negative screening mammogram; 97 were screened within 2 years of their deat

42 For first mammograms, a single shift in the estimated AW/ACD rate

43 15.1%; 95% CI, 13.8% to 16.4%) compared with mammogram alone (6.4%; 95% CI, 5.5% to 7.3%).

44 95% CI, 11.2 to 22.2), none were detected by mammogram alone, 23 (65.7%) were detected by MRI alone (

45 The specificities of mammogram alone, MRI alone, and both were 93%, 94%, and

46 examination was conducted, which included a mammogram and a Papanicolaou test.

47 re a feature of diagnostic significance on a mammogram and a target for stereotactic breast needle bi

48 should be obtained 1 year after the initial mammogram and at least 6 months after completion of radi

49 dex (weight (kg)/height (m)(2)), and ages at mammogram and diagnosis with breast cancer risk.

50 ive value was highest for detection based on mammogram and MRI (12.4%; 95% CI, 7.3% to 19.3%).

51 those younger than 40 years had never had a mammogram and only 52.6% (95% CI; 46.4%-58.8%) of women

52 et to reflector distance was measured on the mammogram and radiograph of the specimen, and reflector

53 A total of 2662 women underwent 7473 mammogram and ultrasound screenings, 110 of whom had 111

54 Data on 2,542,049 subsequent screening mammograms and 12,498 cancers diagnosed in the follow-up

55 radiologists interpreted 32 600 screen-film mammograms and 33 879 digital mammograms.

56 son group included 259 046 women with two FS mammograms and 87 066 women with two digital mammograms.

57 , for which significantly increased abnormal mammograms and a compromise in breast cancer detection a

58 eneously or extremely dense breasts on prior mammograms and additional risk factors provided informed

59 med consent and who had suspicious screening mammograms and an indication for biopsy, from September

60 False-positive mammograms and benign results on biopsy decrease with in

61 performed on the basis of anonymized digital mammograms and central DBT projections in 39 women (mean

62 Radiologists recorded presence of comparison mammograms and change, if seen.

63 this HIPAA-compliant retrospective review of mammograms and chest CT scans from 206 women obtained wi

64 c and CT findings independently reviewed the mammograms and CT scans and classified each case into on

65 ages and 2D mammograms, and (c) synthetic 2D mammograms and DBT images, without access to previous ex

66 diagnosed before widespread use of screening mammograms and did not differentiate between the methods

67 tic work-up for their own recalled screening mammograms and directly receiving feedback afforded by m

68 mmograms versus screening without comparison mammograms and for screening with comparison mammograms

69 with complete ascertainment of surveillance mammograms and negligible losses to follow-up.

70 20% of palpable tumors are not detectable on mammograms and only about 40% of biopsied lesions are ma

71 However, the effective use of mammograms and other patient data to plan treatment has

72 The "For Presentation" standard-dose mammograms and synthetic images were analyzed by using a

73 correlation between PD estimates on digital mammograms and those on central DBT projections suggests

74 was observed between PD estimates on digital mammograms and those on central DBT projections, average

75 gned 48,835 postmenopausal women with normal mammograms and without prior breast cancer from 1993 to

76 Eligible women had normal or benign digital mammograms and, for those with heterogeneously dense or

77 (0 mammograms), irregular users (one to two mammograms), and regular users (three or more mammograms

78 urred during the interpretation of your last mammogram, and the calcifications had actually increased

79 of (a) 2D mammograms, (b) DBT images and 2D mammograms, and (c) synthetic 2D mammograms and DBT imag

80 ecruited from women presenting for screening mammograms, and both groups completed LTFU QOL questionn

81 ciated with increased influenza vaccination, mammograms, and cervical cancer screening (P < .05).

82 ost likely to receive influenza vaccination, mammograms, and cervical cancer screening; survivors who

83 issue, masking of cancers by dense tissue on mammograms, and the efficacy, benefits, and harms of sup

84 imates of breast density made from synthetic mammograms are generally comparable to those made from s

85 eases breast density, and abnormal screening mammograms are more common among women with denser breas

86 s of 10.0% for first and 6.7% for subsequent mammograms are recommended targets on the basis of their

87 e interval (CI) in women with false-positive mammograms as compared with women with negative mammogra

88 ounger ages because of the greater number of mammograms, as well as the higher recall rate in younger

89 0-79 years who obtained an "index" screening mammogram at one of five urban hospitals in Connecticut

90 ith expertise in breast imaging interpreting mammograms at a community office practice and an academi

91 ogists can discriminate normal from abnormal mammograms at above-chance levels after a half-second vi

92 ted for independent blinded review of (a) 2D mammograms, (b) DBT images and 2D mammograms, and (c) sy

93 t significant (4.15 cases per 1000 screening mammograms before implementation and 4.20 cases after im

94 -adjusted life-years (QALYs), false-positive mammograms, benign biopsy results, overdiagnosis, cost-e

95 ists interpreted a total of 74 297 screening mammograms between both sites during the study.

96 e abstracted on all screening and diagnostic mammograms, breast ultrasounds and biopsies performed, a

97 Cancer Family Study cohort who had undergone mammograms but had not had breast cancer (n=1,893) forme

98 0.11 [95% CI: 0.04, 0.18] per 100 screening mammograms), but no clear modality differences in recall

99 lcifications may have increased on your last mammogram, but their appearance was not as worrisome as

100 ast CT images were compared with screen-film mammograms by an experienced mammographer and ranked wit

101 Interpretation of batches of mammograms by qualified screening mammography readers us

102 mmograms versus screening without comparison mammograms, CDR per 1000 women was 3.7 versus 7.1; recal

103 cember 31, 2012, 2354 consecutive diagnostic mammograms classified as showing focal asymmetry were id

104 Although abnormal screening mammograms deleteriously affect the psychological well-b

105 Annual screening mammogram demonstrated a suspicious mass in the left bre

106 d 10 years, respectively, had a surveillance mammogram during each year of follow-up.

107 CS, most (79%) had at least one surveillance mammogram during the first year of follow-up; 69% in yea

108 erms of cancer screening, 81% of women had a mammogram during the year before study enrollment, 25% h

109 gists who interpreted at least 500 screening mammograms during 2011 to 2013 (n = 83).

110 Patients were grouped according to number of mammograms during the 60 months before diagnosis: nonuse

111 ble radiologists, complete data on screening mammograms during the study period were provided; these

112 ivors breast MRI was not more sensitive than mammogram for breast cancer detection.

113 For subsequent mammograms, four shifts were identified.

114 Overall, 5,698 mammograms from 1,689 women with covariate information w

115 Data on 216 783 screening mammograms from 145 123 women aged 40 to 89 years were i

116 ogists who interpreted screen-film screening mammograms from 1996 to 2005 at 280 facilities that cont

117 ium (BCSC) who interpreted 783 965 screening mammograms from 2002 to 2006.

118 rveillance Consortium sites that interpreted mammograms from 2005 to 2006.

119 se-control study was conducted by collecting mammograms from 382 subjects retrospectively.

120 Bilateral DBT images and digital mammograms from 71 women (mean age, 54 years; age range,

121 itten informed consent, a data set of 36 281 mammograms from 8867 women were collected from six Unite

122 For the work-up of recalled screening mammograms from any radiologist, 24% of radiologists per

123 dimensional and 2D two-dimensional screening mammograms from August 1, 2011, to December 31, 2012, wa

124 mammograms were compared in a sample of 500 mammograms from each site by using chi(2) and two-sample

125 Materials and Methods Consecutive screening mammograms from January 2009 to February 2011 (DM group,

126 A total of 78 810 screening mammograms from October 11, 2011, to June 30, 2016, were

127 previously screened negative by film screen mammogram (FSM).

128 The authors retrieved and digitized mammograms (> or =1 per woman) imaged in 1990-2003 to ev

129 han 20% between baseline and first follow-up mammogram had a reduced risk of death as a result of bre

130 Women with low-density mammograms had 5-year risks less than 1.67% unless they

131 Synthetic mammograms had PD estimates by an average of 1.7% higher

132 Availability of comparison mammograms halved the odds of a false-positive recall (a

133 nfidence interval [95% CI] 1.17-1.24), >/= 1 mammogram (HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.45-1.53), and >/= 1 colonos

134 sts (HR=1.31, 95% CI: 1.12, 1.53), screening mammograms (HR=1.22, 95% CI: 1.09, 1.38), influenza vacc

135 39.2% v 29.6.3%; P < .001) but not abnormal mammograms (ie, those suggestive of or highly suggestive

136 ng a computer-assisted software program from mammograms imaged approximately 1 to 2 years after diagn

137 invasive (digital rectal exams), expensive (mammograms, imaging) or both (colonoscopies).

138 Radiologists' interpretations of screening mammograms improve during their first few years of pract

139 ference in the proportion of women who had a mammogram in the intervention and control groups.

140 of chest radiation, 55% reported a screening mammogram in the past 2 years (ages 25-39 years, 36.5%;

141 he proportion of women who reported having a mammogram in the previous 2 years.

142 37.0% of CCSS siblings reported a screening mammogram in the same time interval.

143 ge, ethnicity, sex, and region and who had a mammogram in the survivor's year of diagnosis and to tha

144 from standard-dose versus synthetic digital mammograms in a large cohort of women undergoing screeni

145 reening over 10 years include false-positive mammograms in approximately 200/1000 women screened and

146 arch for signs of cancer and examine digital mammograms in batches.

147 are increasingly being replaced by synthetic mammograms in DBT screening in an attempt to reduce radi

148 the film hard-copy (screen-film) and digital mammograms in DMIST cancer cases and assessed the factor

149 Radiologists who interpreted mammograms in seven U.S. regions completed a self-admini

150 clinical interpretations of the same set of mammograms in the clinical environment well.

151 st clinicians, all fully qualified to report mammograms in the NHS breast screening program.

152 The 2 readers examined each batch of digital mammograms in the same order in the control group and in

153 calization responses about briefly presented mammograms in which the spatial frequency, symmetry, and

154 dense breast tissue (hereafter called "dense mammograms") in the month before law enactment compared

155 ng focal asymmetries and masses on screening mammograms include side-by-side comparison, looking for

156 Screening and diagnostic mammograms (including magnification views) obtained befo

157 Recall rate and sensitivity for screening mammograms increased, whereas specificity decreased from

158 Mammogram indication and assessments were prospectively

159 te performance of the proficient observer in mammogram interpretation involves a shift in the mechani

160 Among women with consecutive mammograms interpreted by different radiologists, 17.2%

161 study, the authors linked 651 671 screening mammograms interpreted from 2002 to 2006 by 96 radiologi

162 the 60 months before diagnosis: nonusers (0 mammograms), irregular users (one to two mammograms), an

163 variability in positioning the breast for a mammogram is also an uncontrollable factor in measuring

164 n of small breast cancers is higher when the mammogram is read by two readers rather than by a single

165 Interpreting screening mammograms is a difficult repetitive task that can resul

166 ance is affected when change from comparison mammograms is noted.

167 We calculated adjusted annual rates (mammogram level) for prevalent HT use, incident invasive

168 d cancer detection rate of 387,218 screening mammograms linked to 1283 breast cancers in premenopausa

169 After excluding first-screen MRI and mammogram, mammogram sensitivity was 68% as compared wit

170 teractive use of CAD for malignant masses on mammograms may be more effective than the current use of

171 Most mammograms (n = 6720) were performed after 2008.

172 Mammograms: Number eligible with learning disability = 2

173 y to present with late-stage cancer for each mammogram obtained (odds ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.

174 A total of 1,157,980 screening mammograms obtained between 1994 and 2008 in 435,183 wom

175 The authors reviewed all diagnostic mammograms obtained during a 12-month interval before (t

176 Data were collected on subsequent screening mammograms obtained from 1996 to 2004 in women aged 40-7

177 Screening mammograms obtained from 1996 to 2007 in women 40-80 yea

178 independently interpreted twice deidentified mammograms obtained in 153 women (age range, 37-83 years

179 retation rate (18.7%) highest for diagnostic mammograms obtained to evaluate a breast problem with a

180 Her most recent mammogram, obtained 3 months earlier in September 2013,

181 Mammograms of 25 tumors showed a noncalcified mass in 19

182 The cases included the contralateral mammograms of cancer patients (n = 136) obtained at leas

183 esent in 27% (95% CI: 13.3%, 45.5%) of prior mammograms of cancers missed at FFDM and 10% (95% CI: 3.

184 The controls included mammograms of healthy subjects (n = 246) who had cancer-

185 ical breast examination results and negative mammograms of the study breast.

186 This study included 17 955 screening mammograms; of the total, there were 8591 (47.8%) 2D two

187 nd 48 interval cases with negative screening mammograms on expert rereading (true interval cancers) w

188 se; P < .001), diagnostic evaluation after a mammogram (OR, 2.64; P < .001), and postmenopausal hormo

189 sitive predictive value (PPV) of an abnormal mammogram, or characteristics of detected tumors.

190 541 mammographic studies (hereafter called "mammograms") over a 30-month period, beginning 20 months

191 ) vs lower (n = 118) breast density on prior mammograms (overall concordance rate, 73% [95% CI, 71%-7

192 ion between the volume of recalled screening mammograms ("own" mammograms, where the radiologist who

193 ing were associated with not returning for a mammogram (P < .05).

194 an average of 1.7% higher than standard-dose mammograms (P < .001), with a larger disagreement by 1.5

195 (P </= .004) and number of years of reading mammograms (P </= .002) were negatively related to JAFRO

196 gist (P </= .01), number of years of reading mammograms (P </= .002), and number of hours per week of

197 02), and number of hours per week of reading mammograms (P </= .003).

198 ologist (P </= .01), number of years reading mammograms (P </= .03), and number of readings per year

199 and sonograms (P = .023), calcifications on mammograms (P = .003), and clinical cancer stage at diag

200 Lesion margins on mammograms (P = .028) and sonograms (P = .023), calcific

201 0th month after (3.9 vs 4.2 cancers per 1000 mammograms, P = .55).

202 r law enactment (3.9 vs 3.8 cancers per 1000 mammograms, P = .79) or between the month before law ena

203 0.58, 0.85], respectively, per 100 screening mammograms; P = .74), recall rates (3.2% [95% CI: 2.8, 3

204 r operating characteristic (ROC) analyses of mammogram performance.

205 Metrics evaluated included the number of mammograms performed annually, sex shift, the interval f

206 e study included 1 682 504 digital screening mammograms performed between 2007 and 2013 in 792 808 wo

207 g MR imaging examinations and 1957 screening mammograms) performed between January 2012 and July 2014

208 of a cancer being more visible on a digital mammogram--rather than being equally visible on digital

209 e rate of detection of cancer from screening mammograms read by a single reader.

210 umber of years of experience or volume of 2D mammograms read.

211 ons, suggesting that receipt of surveillance mammograms reduces the rate of breast cancer mortality i

212 notification legislation, the percentage of mammograms reported as dense did not decrease below 42.8

213 significant difference in the percentage of mammograms reported as dense in the month before law ena

214 Conclusion The percentage of mammograms reported as dense slightly decreased immediat

215 ly significant decrease in the percentage of mammograms reported as showing dense breast tissue (here

216 ment for central DBT projections and digital mammograms, respectively.

217 .01) than that for PD estimation on digital mammograms (rho = 0.75 +/- 0.05); the corresponding kapp

218 after treatment were ascertained: follow-up mammograms, screening for other cancers, general prevent

219 er excluding first-screen MRI and mammogram, mammogram sensitivity was 68% as compared with 67% for M

220 breast-conserving surgery, a post-treatment mammogram should be obtained 1 year after the initial ma

221 are recommended to have an annual screening mammogram starting at age 25 years or 8 years after radi

222 cent density was assessed on 5,277 digitized mammograms taken in 1995-2004 and was analyzed using mul

223 11%) experienced a false-positive screening mammogram that led to 19 benign breast biopsies, eight r

224 ld woman presents with an abnormal screening mammogram that shows a small area of architectural disto

225 ed a change versus screening with comparison mammograms that did not show a change while controlling

226 ed a change versus screening with comparison mammograms that did not show a change, CDR per 1000 wome

227 set) mixed with an enriched "common" set of mammograms that none of the participants had previously

228 mammograms and for screening with comparison mammograms that showed a change versus screening with co

229 For screening with comparison mammograms that showed a change versus screening with co

230 ienced radiologists rated an enriched set of mammograms that they had personally read in the clinic (

231 A total of 117,136 diagnostic mammograms that were interpreted by 107 radiologists bet

232 nge, 1.1-2.6 cm) compared with postprocedure mammogram the day of placement, three of five were assoc

233 Survey data were linked to data on screening mammograms the radiologists interpreted between January

234 sults When compared with women with negative mammograms, the age-adjusted HR of cancer in women with

235 year-old woman undergoing 10 years of annual mammograms, the cumulative risk of a false-positive resu

236 radiologist work-ups for their own recalled mammograms, the sensitivity (P = .039), FPR false-positi

237 t of thresholds for considering a diagnostic mammogram to be abnormal.

238 , 2 film readers independently evaluate each mammogram to search for signs of cancer and examine digi

239 er cancer detected from 17.4 for 25 or fewer mammograms to 24.6 for more than 50 mammograms.

240 detection identifies suspicious findings on mammograms to assist radiologists.

241 and quality-adjusted life-years); number of mammograms used; harms (false-positive results, benign b

242 ickness as assessed by clinical examination, mammogram, uterine ultrasound, or endometrial lining bio

243 ere calculated for screening with comparison mammograms versus screening without comparison mammogram

244 For screening with comparison mammograms versus screening without comparison mammogram

245 tus, age, parity, density assessment method, mammogram view, and race/ethnicity were significant dete

246 d for body mass index, reproductive factors, mammogram view, image type, and reader.

247 Each additional surveillance mammogram was associated with a 0.69-fold decrease in th

248 risk for breast cancer and whose most recent mammogram was benign.

249 mammographic density at the first available mammogram was higher for cases than for controls (25.2%

250 [Figure: see text] A diagnostic mammogram was obtained and compared with the most recent

251 compared with controls, at least 1 screening mammogram was received by 8.9% (95% confidence interval

252 For each case, the index negative screening mammogram was reviewed blindly by three radiologists fro

253 nding rose until a diagnostic volume of 1000 mammograms was reached; thereafter, they either leveled

254 rding to the order in which the two types of mammogram were acquired and by the first versus second i

255 ncer who had both a baseline and a follow-up mammogram were eligible for analysis.

256 Yearly breast MRI and mammogram were performed over a 3-year period.

257 each breast MR study and on the most recent mammogram were reviewed.

258 All mammograms were acquired with a Selenia Dimensions syste

259 n for which both standard-dose and synthetic mammograms were available for analysis were retrospectiv

260 Comparison mammograms were available in 93% of examinations.

261 Posttherapy mammograms were categorized as showing mild, moderate, o

262 surgery or biopsy, and availability of prior mammograms were compared in a sample of 500 mammograms f

263 The digital mammograms were displayed on mammographic workstations a

264 e, race/ethnicity, breast density, and prior mammograms were estimated.

265 e considered stable, and those without prior mammograms were excluded, images from 521 studies were r

266 Most mammograms were film rather than digital.

267 stem (Hologic, Bedford, Mass), and synthetic mammograms were generated by using the U.S. Food and Dru

268 Mammograms were grouped on the basis of how many years t

269 ) estimates from synthetic and standard-dose mammograms were highly correlated (r = 0.92, P < .001),

270 A total of 1 599 610 mammograms were interpreted during the study period.

271 Surveillance mammograms were less likely among obese women (OR, 0.70;

272 ong those observed for 5 years, surveillance mammograms were more likely among women age 60 to 69 yea

273 two women were included in the study, and 93 mammograms were obtained during a median follow-up perio

274 The original mammograms were obtained for each case and reviewed by t

275 ics committee approval and informed consent, mammograms were obtained that showed 230 tumors in 222 (

276 f 1453 (interquartile range [IQR], 592-1458) mammograms were performed and 6.33 patients received can

277 From 2000 to 2012, a total of 7355 mammograms were performed and 76 patients with breast ca

278 ved a vignette in which comparison screening mammograms were placed in the wrong order, leading a rad

279 Results: Overall, 36.9% of mammograms were rated as showing dense breasts.

280 In this study, cancers in the women whose mammograms were read with both single reading with CAD a

281 Digital mammograms were retrieved a mean of 2.1 years (range, 6

282 Their mammograms were reviewed by a breast imaging specialist

283 Postbiopsy mammograms were reviewed to determine whether all calcif

284 ion and which had as an outcome receipt of a mammogram, were eligible for inclusion.

285 g equally visible on digital and screen-film mammograms--were significantly greater for women with de

286 ning focus [ratio of screening to diagnostic mammograms]) were collected for 120 radiologists in the

287 lume of recalled screening mammograms ("own" mammograms, where the radiologist who interpreted the di

288 d interpreted the screening image, and "any" mammograms, where the radiologist who interpreted the di

289 n each 2-year follow-up period had screening mammograms, which were positively associated with histor

290 ination, a measure of the probability that a mammogram with cancer in the follow-up period has a high

291 d one in 50 women having otherwise avoidable mammograms with short-interval follow-up recommendations

292 Use of CEE alone increased mammograms with short-interval follow-up recommendations

293 omen in the Mayo Clinic BBD cohort who had a mammogram within 6 months of BBD diagnosis were eligible

294 ic facility performing needle biopsy, and no mammogram within 60 days before consultation.

295 9 were less likely to report that they had a mammogram within the last year if they resided in commun

296 f insurance and whether the respondent had a mammogram within the past year.

297 Screening mammogram within the previous 2 years.

298 gh 50 years were being regularly screened (2 mammograms within 4 years).

299 Data System assessment category than does a mammogram without cancer in the follow-up period.

300 rmore, females were more likely to receive a mammogram/X-ray (OR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.16-1.39) or pap s