ライフサイエンスコーパス: mammography

1 nvasive) for U.S. women undergoing screening mammography.

2 r during the lead time afforded by screening mammography.

3 rval cancers and for screen-film and digital mammography.

4 dose on breast density estimation in digital mammography.

5 benefit-to-radiation risk ratio of screening mammography.

6 ngs may be recategorized on serial screening mammography.

7 al suspected women underwent BUS followed by mammography.

8 arcinomas (+1.9 per 1000, P < .0018) than 2D mammography.

9 eening and 13% higher than CBE for universal mammography.

10 particularly women who had calcifications at mammography.

11 er detected at MR imaging that was occult at mammography.

12 and adherence to post-treatment surveillance mammography.

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

14 least one screening round with both MRI and mammography.

15 at-risk population, as with colonoscopy and mammography.

16 knowledge among women eligible for screening mammography.

17 ions that manifest as microcalcifications at mammography.

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

19 pectively, after adjustment for surveillance mammography.

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

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

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

23 psy or excisional biopsy in women undergoing mammography.

24 f experience with contrast-enhanced spectral mammography.

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

26 dicated that some women reported pain during mammography (1% to 77%); of these, 11% to 46% declined f

27 e the implementation of widespread screening mammography (1975 through 1979) and a period encompassin

28 2.98, respectively), followed by risk-based mammography (2.80 and 2.77, respectively), and lowest fo

29 ree-dimensional ) compared with conventional mammography ( 2D two-dimensional ) is associated with a

30 Of the 43 cancers found at screening mammography, 38 (88%) manifested as calcifications and 2

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

32 000) were the highest for universal biennial mammography (4.86 and 2.98, respectively), followed by r

33 and positive predictive values with DBT-s2D mammography (40.8%) were significantly higher than those

34 of 1000 screening examinations), and DBT-s2D mammography (6.1 of 1000 screening examinations) with no

35 had minimal or mild BPE at both CE spectral mammography (68%-76%) and MR imaging (69%-76%).

36 tected was significantly higher with DBT-s2D mammography (76.5%) than with DBT-FFDM (61.3%, P = .01),

37 Overall sensitivity was 87% for 2D mammography, 89% for 2D mammography plus DBT, and 88% fo

38 hs) versus return to annual screening (RTAS) mammography (9-18 months) after receiving a benign patho

39 ; 95% confidence interval: 96.7%, 97.5%) and mammography (98.7%; 95% confidence interval: 98.3%, 99.0

40 ho are 40-49 years old and are screened with mammography, a figure that approximately doubles for eac

41 ng of whole-body MRI, brain MRI, breast MRI, mammography, abdominal and pelvic ultrasound, and colono

42 as compared directly with the use of the ACR mammography accreditation phantom.

43 4 to 2.5 per 1000 examinations compared with mammography alone (3 studies).

44 ncreased screening sensitivity compared with mammography alone (94.1%; 95% CI, 77.7% to 98.7% v 38.1%

45 Two cancers were found by mammography alone (a ductal carcinoma in situ [DCIS] wit

46 Participants underwent screening mammography alone followed by an AB US examination; resu

47 he 82 cancers detected with either screening mammography alone or the combined read, 17 were detected

48 mate the benefit-to-radiation risk ratios of mammography alone, breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI)

49 By using breast cancer detection rates for mammography alone, BSGI alone, and mammography plus BSGI

50 ort, the benefit-to-radiation risk ratios of mammography alone, BSGI alone, and mammography plus BSGI

51 d biopsies but reduced recalls compared with mammography alone.

52 from 7% to 11%, compared with 7% to 17% with mammography alone.

53 mbined read, 17 were detected with screening mammography alone.

54 breasts compared with biennial screening by mammography alone.

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

56 The RR was 7.51% for 2D mammography and 6.10% for DBT (absolute change, 1.41%; r

57 at screening in 112 women: 82 with screening mammography and an additional 30 with AB US.

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

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

60 at contrast material-enhanced (CE) spectral mammography and breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging,

61 g with that of conventional imaging (digital mammography and breast ultrasonography) in the identific

62 es of radiation-induced cancer mortality for mammography and BSGI on the basis of the Biologic Effect

63 atient reported normal findings at screening mammography and colonoscopy.

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

65 cted for women undergoing diagnostic digital mammography and linked with cancer diagnoses from state

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

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

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

69 r breast cancer who underwent screening with mammography and MR imaging, invasive cancers were more l

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

71 3 were seen with MR imaging and 14 with both mammography and MR imaging.

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

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

74 sonography might not always be as helpful as mammography and MRI (magnetic resonance imaging).

75 appropriate identification and evaluation at mammography and sonography, (c) relevant percutaneous bi

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

77 were referred for contrast-enhanced spectral mammography and targeted US as part of diagnostic imagin

78 14 DCISs, all were detected by MRI, whereas mammography and ultrasound each detected five DCISs (35.

79 d did not affect the superiority of MRI over mammography and ultrasound.

80 hree women with false-positive findings from mammography and US.

81 women, 167 (75%) at MR imaging, 43 (19%) at mammography, and 12 (5%) interval cancers.

82 and weight, baseline and annual or biennial mammography, and adjudicated breast cancer end points in

83 sed biennial mammography, universal biennial mammography, and annual CBE.

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

85 -field digital mammography, low-dose digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis.

86 features of screening MR imaging, screening mammography, and interval cancers.

87 k factor routinely documented at the time of mammography, and more than half of premenopausal and pos

88 stimated sensitivity and specificity of MRI, mammography, and the combination in all women and specif

89 g magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, screening mammography, and those detected between screening examin

90 he balance of benefit and harms of screening mammography; and the number of radiation-induced breast

91 ancer following biennial vs annual screening mammography are more likely to have tumors with less fav

92 ted breast density measurements with digital mammography are not substantially affected by variations

93 Ultrasound complements mammography as an imaging modality for breast cancer det

94 Women should continue screening mammography as long as their overall health is good and

95 Participants underwent mammography at Mayo Clinic or one of four sites within t

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

97 ositive predictive values (PPVs) for digital mammography before and after radiologist experience with

98 who underwent screening with MR imaging and mammography between January 2005 and December 2010 was p

99 Although mammography can detect early cases, it cannot prevent de

100 Mammography, chemotherapy, tamoxifen, aromatase inhibito

101 ohorts of Swedish men and women (the Swedish Mammography Cohort and the Cohort of Swedish Men) to det

102 rt of Swedish Men) and 30,713 women (Swedish Mammography Cohort) who were 45 to 83 years of age and f

103 in the Cohort of Swedish Men and the Swedish Mammography Cohort.

104 ection rates to historic outcomes of digital mammography combined with DBT (referred to as digital ma

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

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

107 (DBT) plus synthesized two-dimensional (2D) mammography compared with those after full-field digital

108 Thirty women undergoing screening mammography consented to undergo a repeated left cranioc

109 ection rate were collected from the National Mammography Database (NMD).

110 , HIPAA-compliant, retrospective review of a mammography database for records from January 1, 2009 to

111 blished benchmarks by the BCSC, the National Mammography Database, and performance recommendations by

112 dose was 39% lower in s2D/DBT versus digital mammography/DBT (4.88 mGy vs 7.97 mGy, respectively; P <

113 er detection rate for s2D/DBT versus digital mammography/DBT (5.03 of 1000 vs 5.45 of 1000, respectiv

114 Biopsy rate for s2D/DBT versus digital mammography/DBT decreased (1.3% vs 2.0%, respectively; P

115 dose for 15 571 women screened with digital mammography/DBT from October 1, 2011, to February 28, 20

116 ed in similar outcomes compared with digital mammography/DBT imaging.

117 sults Recall rate for s2D/DBT versus digital mammography/DBT was 7.1% versus 8.8%, respectively (P <

118 hy combined with DBT (referred to as digital mammography/DBT) screening.

119 ease in radiation dose compared with digital mammography/DBT.

120 ine examinations were performed with digital mammography), DCIS detection rates were determined for 5

121 Receipt of mammography decreased with decreasing life expectancy (

122 duced cancer per 100,000 women using digital mammography, depending on age and screening interval.

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

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

125 Conclusion Contemporaneous screening mammography did not have added value in detection of bre

126 st tomosynthesis (DBT) combined with digital mammography (DM) decreases false-positive examinations a

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

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

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

130 ared with performance during the screen-film mammography era, diagnostic digital performance showed i

131 6.6%) DBT examinations and 80 149 (93.4%) 2D mammography examinations.

132 after a normal mammography result) per 1000 mammography examinations.

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

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

135 Urban women with suspected cancer received mammography followed by breast ultrasound (BUS), while r

136 with dense breasts and the specificity of 2D mammography for all subgroups.

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

138 st MR imaging and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for newly diagnosed unilateral breast cancer

139 PPV of biopsies performed (PPV3) of digital mammography for six radiologists were compared before (2

140 Screening programs offering biennial mammography for women aged 50 to 69 years beginning in d

141 The USPSTF recommends biennial screening mammography for women aged 50 to 74 years.

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

143 nd ages 65 to 74 years (vs. biennial digital mammography from ages 50 to 64 years).

144 picious for cancer were scheduled to undergo mammography-guided VAB.

145 Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography had similar sensitivity to MR imaging (94% [

146 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) detected by mammography has led to the development of clinical trial

147 Screening mammography has lower sensitivity and specificity in wom

148 Advances in mammography have sparked an exponential increase in the

149 nd stopping ages and intervals for screening mammography; how breast density, breast cancer risk, and

150 ncer detection recommendations for screening mammography; however, AIRs continue to be higher than th

151 addition of DBT to conventional 2D screening mammography improved specificity for all readers, but th

152 Addition of AB US to screening mammography in a generalizable cohort of women with dens

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

154 ntation of synthesized two-dimensional (s2D) mammography in a population screened entirely with s2D a

155 ed for all patients presenting for screening mammography in an urban, academic breast center during 4

156 Purpose To evaluate the value of mammography in detecting breast cancer in high-risk wome

157 ach screening in the community or undergoing mammography in hospitals were enrolled in the 3 screenin

158 ach screening in the community or undergoing mammography in hospitals were enrolled in the 3 screenin

159 se reframing discussions around surveillance mammography in older breast cancer survivors and to cons

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

161 sonography should always be correlated with mammography in patients over 40 years old and the images

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

163 ition of DBT increased the sensitivity of 2D mammography in patients with dense breasts and the speci

164 , 78.9% reported having routine surveillance mammography in the last 12 months.

165 year life expectancy, respectively, reported mammography in the last year.

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

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

168 one; women were eligible if they had not had mammography in the past 2 years and did not have a perso

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

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

171 Combining MRI and mammography in women age >/= 50 years resulted in sensit

172 Screening mammography in women aged 40 to 69 years is associated w

173 e balance of benefits and harms of screening mammography in women aged 75 years or older.

174 detection when BSGI is used as an adjunct to mammography in women at increased risk for breast cancer

175 The decision to start screening mammography in women prior to age 50 years should be an

176 Routine use of screening mammography in women undergoing screening breast MR imag

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

178 e observational studies of tomosynthesis and mammography indicated increased biopsies but reduced rec

179 easured the performance of digital screening mammography interpreted by 359 radiologists across 95 fa

180 Although mammography is considered the gold standard for diagnosi

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

182 following diagnosis, and annual surveillance mammography is recommended for those with residual breas

183 The goal of screening mammography is to detect small malignant tumors before t

184 -month interval before (two-dimensional [2D] mammography [June 2, 2010, to June 1, 2011]) and for 3 c

185 ocols, including standard full-field digital mammography, low-dose digital mammography, and digital b

186 matched for age, race, examination date, and mammography machine were evaluated.

187 Women screened with digital mammography may receive false-positive and false-negativ

188 Retrospective analysis of screening mammography metrics was performed for all patients prese

189 ciated with a lower recall rate of screening mammography, most often for asymmetries.

190 cremental BC detection than tomosynthesis in mammography-negative dense breasts at a similar FP-recal

191 th Tomosynthesis or Ultrasound in Women With Mammography-Negative Dense Breasts is a prospective mult

192 th Tomosynthesis or Ultrasound in Women With Mammography-Negative Dense Breasts' interim analysis sho

193 mosynthesis can detect breast cancer (BC) in mammography-negative dense breasts, but these modalities

194 detection by tomosynthesis and ultrasound in mammography-negative dense breasts.

195 Among 3,231 mammography-negative screening participants (median age,

196 ter study recruiting asymptomatic women with mammography-negative screens and dense breasts.

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

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

199 te the effect of tomosynthesis in diagnostic mammography on the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data Sys

200 nd MR imaging), and none were diagnosed with mammography only or US only.

201 ies, these women are currently screened with mammography only.

202 masses or architectural distortions, control mammography or DBT was performed to confirm adequate tar

203 architectural distortions not visualized at mammography or sonography.

204 lesions classified as BI-RADS category 4 at mammography or US and can help avoid 92% of unnecessary

205 ociated with screening MR imaging, screening mammography, or interval cancer (P > .06).

206 Specificity was significantly higher than 2D mammography (P < .001in both cases) and was observed for

207 ivity on interpretation of positron emission mammography (PEM) images and compared image interpretati

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

209 rates for mammography alone, BSGI alone, and mammography plus BSGI from the study by Rhodes et al, as

210 old and to double by age 70-79 years, while mammography plus BSGI has benefit-to-radiation risk rati

211 ast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI) alone, and mammography plus BSGI in women with dense breasts who we

212 ratios of mammography alone, BSGI alone, and mammography plus BSGI performed annually over 10-year ag

213 ivity was 87% for 2D mammography, 89% for 2D mammography plus DBT, and 88% for synthetic 2D mammograp

214 mmography plus DBT, and 88% for synthetic 2D mammography plus DBT.

215 r publication of the 2009 USPSTF guidelines, mammography rates declined by 6% to 17% among white, His

216 at patient navigation increases surveillance mammography rates, but only minimal evidence was found w

217 Regarding biennial mammography rates, women age 40 to 49 years experienced

218 batches of mammograms by qualified screening mammography readers using a different order vs the same

219 Purpose To compare screening mammography recall rate, cancer detection rate (CDR), an

220 confidence interval [CI]: 21.5%, 25.2%), and mammography recalled 217 (recall rate, 11.1%; 95% CI: 9.

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

222 r one of four sites within the San Francisco Mammography Registry between 2006 and 2012 and provided

223 rm the update and a supplemental analysis of mammography registry data to address questions related t

224 recorded prospectively in the San Francisco Mammography Registry.

225 ations of breast density were extracted from mammography reports.

226 l ultrasonography screening after a negative mammography result for women aged 50 to 74 years with he

227 (invasive cancer </=12 months after a normal mammography result) per 1000 mammography examinations.

228 t cancer with annual CBE, universal biennial mammography resulted in a substantial reduction in breas

229 t cancer deaths, whereas risk-based biennial mammography resulted in only a modest benefit.

230 False-positive mammography results and additional imaging are common, p

231 , 10-year cumulative rates of false-positive mammography results and biopsies were higher with annual

232 y of ultrasonography for women with negative mammography results ranged from 80% to 83%; specificity,

233 isk, pooled estimates of association between mammography screening and mortality reduction after 13 y

234 cancer incidence and mortality from digital mammography screening are affected by dose variability f

235 Mammography screening can reduce breast cancer mortality

236 ed with annual CBE, risk-based and universal mammography screening did not result in significant over

237 ive Services Task Force recommended biennial mammography screening for women aged 50 to 74 years and

238 Annual or biennial digital mammography screening from age 40, 45, or 50 years until

239 tion: Annual, biennial, or triennial digital mammography screening from ages 50 to 74 years (vs. no s

240 isk for radiation-induced breast cancer from mammography screening have not considered variation in d

241 DBT unit was introduced into the existing 2D mammography screening program, and patients were assigne

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

243 Controversy persists about optimal mammography screening strategies.

244 Digital mammography screening supplemented with DBT.

245 ar gained by adding tomosynthesis to digital mammography screening was $53 893.

246 Risk-based mammography screening was associated with an 8% reductio

247 t cancer mortality is generally reduced with mammography screening, although estimates are not statis

248 enopausal women, conducted in the era before mammography screening, among the 652 women with MammaPri

249 Universal biennial mammography screening, compared with annual CBE, was ass

250 d 50 to 69 years in observational studies of mammography screening.

251 In women age >/= 50 years, combining MRI and mammography significantly increased screening sensitivit

252 d deaths associated with different screening mammography strategies over the course of a woman's life

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

254 The study is limited by different mammography systems and its cross-sectional rather than

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

256 ular doses were measured and compared for 47 mammography systems in the Mazovia Voivodeship in Poland

257 ted radiography (CR), and fully digital (DR) mammography systems was compared directly with the use o

258 is a reliable adjunct modality to screening mammography that increases breast cancer detection by 1.

259 duction (95% CI, -6.6% to -5.7%) in biennial mammography that was similar among white, Hispanic, and

260 ors fell after the introduction of screening mammography, the more favorable size distribution was pr

261 After the advent of screening mammography, the proportion of detected breast tumors th

262 body mass index of 21 was found on screening mammography to have a new, approximately 1-cm spiculated

263 We used 2005 to 2009 mammography trends to predict 2012 rates.

264 Mammography trials, which are the primary sources of evi

265 or breast cancer were offered screening with mammography, ultrasound, and MRI every 12 months.

266 itial stage was determined from examination, mammography, ultrasound, MR, or surgery.

267 Risk-based biennial mammography, universal biennial mammography, and annual

268 tervention group offered annual screening by mammography up to and including the calendar year of the

269 cancer was diagnosed with all three methods (mammography, US, and MR imaging), and none were diagnose

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

271 2010, 2013, and 2015 to examine surveillance mammography use among women age >/= 65 years who reporte

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

273 e used to evaluate baseline and longitudinal mammography use, with stratified analyses performed for

274 small significant improvements in screening mammography use.

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

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

277 a well-circumscribed oval mass (P = .024) at mammography, vascularity (P = .047) and posterior enhanc

278 nal assessments also occurred (33.3% with 2D mammography vs 16.4% with tomosynthesis at year 3, P < .

279 gnificantly with tomosynthesis (8.0% with 2D mammography vs 7.8% with tomosynthesis at year 3, P = .2

280 ry 1 or 2) with tomosynthesis (58.7% with 2D mammography vs 75.8% with tomosynthesis at year 3, P < .

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

282 h a community setting, in which only digital mammography was available, and in two tertiary breast im

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

284 Mammography was performed in 86% of patients, US was per

285 tality after the implementation of screening mammography was predominantly the result of improved sys

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

287 Images from contrast-enhanced spectral mammography were analyzed by two fellowship-trained brea

288 , whereas most cancers detected at screening mammography were ductal carcinoma in situ.

289 ndings with developing asymmetry detected at mammography were excluded from statistical analysis.

290 and fine linear branching calcifications at mammography were significantly associated with higher OD

291 Tests like mammography, which are used abundantly for the detection

292 ive breast cancer in 955331 women undergoing mammography with and without a diagnosis of ADH.

293 rs of the BRCA2 mutation, sensitivity of FFD mammography with DCE MR imaging surveillance was 90.9% (

294 pproaches for discussions about surveillance mammography with older patients.

295 mal conventional imaging findings (screening mammography with or without screening ultrasonography [U

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

297 Unenhanced diagnostic MR imaging (DWIBS mammography), with an NPV of 0.92 and an acquisition tim

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

299 c regression, we assessed the probability of mammography within the last 12 months by 5- and 10-year

300 FFD mammography yielded no additional cancers in women young