ライフサイエンスコーパス: digital mammography

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

2 roportion of poor-prognosis cancers than was digital mammography.

3 without tomosynthesis underwent conventional digital mammography.

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

5 imaging and higher than that of conventional digital mammography.

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

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

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

9 ormance improvements that are available with digital mammography.

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

11 ests potential for modest dose reductions in digital mammography.

12 ulated microcalcifications in a phantom with digital mammography.

13 and discrimination of simulated lesions for digital mammography.

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

15 participants underwent both screen-film and digital mammography.

16 ecrease false-positive results compared with digital mammography.

17 nancy for a developing asymmetry detected at digital mammography.

18 r to full MRI and AB MRI and was superior to digital mammography.

19 hesis did not differ from that obtained with digital mammography.

20 th digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) versus digital mammography.

21 r digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography.

22 y outcomes compared with women who underwent digital mammography.

23 ere lower on digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography.

24 uous at digital breast tomosynthesis than at digital mammography.

25 er cancer detection rates when compared with digital mammography.

26 pared with those for conventional diagnostic digital mammography.

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

28 diation dose on breast density estimation in digital mammography.

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

30 was significantly lower for tomosynthesis vs digital mammography (35.7% vs 38.1%; difference, -2.4; 9

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

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

33 reening with digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography, accounting for competing risks of b

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

35 Three screening modalities were used: digital mammography alone (8935 examinations); digital m

36 0.9 minute longer (47% longer) compared with digital mammography alone (P < .0001).

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

38 Results Women screened with DBT versus digital mammography alone had lower likelihood regarding

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

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

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

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

43 gital mammography with tomosynthesis against digital mammography alone.

44 ervational data from Cambridge on full-field digital mammography alone.

45 than imaging with two-dimensional full-field digital mammography alone.

46 addition to those resulting from full-field digital mammography alone; and one with the addition of

47 e metrics when compared with two-dimensional digital mammography among breast cancer survivors.

48 were not significantly different for DBT vs digital mammography among women at low to average risk o

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

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

51 o 79 years who underwent 1 003 900 screening digital mammography and 375 189 screening DBT examinatio

52 t shown low-energy images as a surrogate for digital mammography and asked to give a forced Breast Im

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

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

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

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

57 synthetic mammography and DBT compared with digital mammography and DBT (odds ratio, 0.62; 95% confi

58 Results The digital mammography and DBT groups were composed of 9019

59 ding categorization of high density breasts (digital mammography and DBT vs digital mammography: odds

60 ce and outcomes of surveillance mammography (digital mammography and DBT) performed from 2007 to 2016

61 Background Since 2007, digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis (DB

62 Conclusion Digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis scr

63 clusion In transitioning from screen-film to digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis, su

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

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

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

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

68 e transition from screen-film mammography to digital mammography and then for the transition to digit

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

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

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

72 rated to help improve accuracy compared with digital mammography and US in women with abnormal screen

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

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

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

76 ening trial was similar to those detected at digital mammography, and the majority were early-stage l

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

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

79 luable tool after introduction of full-field digital mammography as it reduces recall for assessment

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

81 robability of being more cost-effective than digital mammography at a threshold of euro 35 000 per li

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

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

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

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

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

87 den, who underwent screening with full-field digital mammography between 2008 and 2015.

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

89 or sensitivity, with a lower recall rate for digital mammography but a higher recall rate for digital

90 is (DBT) has higher diagnostic accuracy than digital mammography, but interpretation time is substant

91 BackgroundContrast agent-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) has been shown to be more sen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

102 8 (baseline examinations were performed with digital mammography), DCIS detection rates were determin

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

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

105 Digital mammography depicted significantly more ductal c

106 ll CESM examinations were carried-out with a digital mammography device dedicated to performing dual-

107 est-performing individual AI models from the Digital Mammography Dialogue on Reverse Engineering Asse

108 Conclusion When compared with full-field digital mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis can re

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

110 to improve screening outcomes compared with digital mammography (DM) alone.

111 BT) images with that of two-dimensional (2D) digital mammography (DM) and 2D sections from DBT in ass

112 en and on the performance of two-dimensional digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesi

113 Background Combined digital mammography (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesi

114 tween digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and digital mammography (DM) and evaluate density as a breas

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

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

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

118 reast tomosynthesis (DBT) is increasing over digital mammography (DM) following studies demonstrating

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

120 paring digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) to digital mammography (DM) have shown conflicting results

121 cognitively demanding than interpretation of digital mammography (DM) images.

122 Adding digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) to digital mammography (DM) improves breast cancer screenin

123 of changing from screen-film mammography to digital mammography (DM) in a large organized national s

124 ast tomosynthesis (DBT) is rapidly replacing digital mammography (DM) in breast cancer screening, the

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

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

127 e in a screening setting, when compared with digital mammography (DM) in the Netherlands, and to quan

128 s synthesized mammography (SM) compared with digital mammography (DM) in the randomized TOmosynthesis

129 tal breast tomosynthesis (DBT) combined with digital mammography (DM) is increasingly used in the Uni

130 ntelligence (AI) as a stand-alone reader for digital mammography (DM) or digital breast tomosynthesis

131 er detection in breast cancer screening with digital mammography (DM) or digital breast tomosynthesis

132 me within 2 years after adoption relative to digital mammography (DM) performance 1 year before DBT a

133 D) synthetic mammography (SM) or standard 2D digital mammography (DM) results in detection of more br

134 ver multiple years and rounds to outcomes of digital mammography (DM) screening.

135 om a single tertiary breast center that used digital mammography (DM) stereotactic guidance from 2013

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

137 c two-dimensional mammograms (DBT+SM) versus digital mammography (DM) yielded lower recall rates for

138 and increased cancer detection compared with digital mammography (DM), depending on women's age and b

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

140 eases invasive tumor detection compared with digital mammography (DM).

141 ncer detection compared with two-dimensional digital mammography (DM).

142 ue superimposition, which is a limitation of digital mammography (DM).

143 nd lower recall rates compared with those of digital mammography (DM).

144 d higher cancer detection rate compared with digital mammography (DM).

145 e in a contemporary population screened with digital mammography (DM).

146 s and cancer subtypes in consecutive routine digital mammography (DM).

147 call rates compared with those obtained with digital mammography (DM); however, the impact of DBT on

148 March 2008 to February 2011, two-dimensional digital mammography [DM] group) and for 5 years after im

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

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

151 in all density and age groups compared with digital mammography, especially cancers classified as sp

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

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

154 graphy depicted more cancers than full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and found a lower number of s

155 s that are visually equivalent to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and recombined images that sh

156 screen-film mammography (SFM) to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and second, the transition to

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

158 On an independent test set of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) images from the INbreast data

159 mic texture features derived from full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in breast screening populatio

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

161 nfluence of newer technologies of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) on breast density research an

162 (39 and 78 microm) and a clinical full-field digital mammography (FFDM) system that yields a 100-micr

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

164 mes following the introduction of full-field digital mammography (FFDM).

165 y (SFM) was gradually replaced by full-field digital mammography (FFDM).

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

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

168 as significantly lower with tomosynthesis vs digital mammography for all outcomes: 49.6% vs 56.3% (di

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

170 inations were significantly lower for DBT vs digital mammography for the 3.6% of women with extremely

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

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

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

174 ross-sectional sample of women screened with digital mammography from September 1, 2012, to February

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

176 3; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.41; P = .003) than in the digital mammography group.

177 y reviewed (March 2008-February 2011 for the digital mammography group; January 2013-December 2017 fo

178 e DBT group vs 72% [69 of 96 cancers] in the digital mammography group; P = .69).

179 DE CE digital mammography had a lower sensitivity for detectin

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

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

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

183 cancer detection applied to a linked set of digital mammography images and electronic health records

184 y, 14 radiologists assessed a dataset of 240 digital mammography images, acquired between 2013 and 20

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

186 the characterization of breast lesions with digital mammography improves lesion classification over

187 ume on radiologists' reading performance for digital mammography in a screening program that uses ind

188 s had similar sensitivity and specificity to digital mammography in combination with digital breast t

189 osynthesis plus synthesized mammography than digital mammography in dense breasts, relatively and abs

190 nchmarks when synthetic mammography replaces digital mammography in digital breast tomosynthesis imag

191 sults The PPV(3) for conventional diagnostic digital mammography in our data set was 32.1% (35 of 109

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

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

194 and specific than two-dimensional full-field digital mammography in the diagnostic setting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

203 NCT03520218 Keywords: Positron Emission Digital Mammography, Invasive Breast Cancer, Oncology, M

204 99.09%, 99.97%).ConclusionContrast-enhanced digital mammography is a promising technique for screeni

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

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

207 Digital mammography is standard for women with dense bre

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

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

210 Digital mammography makes it possible to develop compute

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

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

213 rary age-matched control group screened with digital mammography might translate into screening benef

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

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

216 , P < .001; synthetic mammography and DBT vs digital mammography: odds ratio, 0.43 [95% confidence in

217 sity breasts (digital mammography and DBT vs digital mammography: odds ratio, 0.69 [95% confidence in

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

219 o 74 years undergoing mammography screening (digital mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis) fro

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

221 per 1000 examinations with DBT vs 10.6 with digital mammography; OR, 0.76; 95% CI: 0.57, 1.02; P = .

222 were not significantly different for DBT vs digital mammography (overall, 0.57 vs 0.61, respectively

223 CEM was superior to digital mammography (P < .001).

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

225 Digital mammography performed significantly better than

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

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

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

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

230 Addition of digital breast tomosynthesis to digital mammography resulted in significant gains in sen

231 The recommendations address digital mammography screening and the addition of hand-h

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

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

234 ast cancer and was higher than the published digital mammography screening benchmarks.

235 ata from 1996 to 2007 and the performance of digital mammography screening benchmarks.

236 Digital mammography screening benefits were similar to t

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

238 Period 1: digital mammography screening examinations 1 year before

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

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

241 edian, 59.0 years; IQR = 14.0) who underwent digital mammography screening in British Columbia, Canad

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

243 Targeted digital mammography screening resulted in more screen-de

244 Digital mammography screening supplemented with DBT.

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

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

247 Digital mammography screening with dose-efficient photon

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

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

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

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

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

253 Annual screening of each group using digital mammography (sensitivity 70%, specificity 92%) w

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

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

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

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

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

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

260 Digital mammography systems from four manufacturers (Fis

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

262 In digital mammography, the processes of image acquisition,

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

264 euro 35 000 per LYG.ConclusionSwitching from digital mammography to biennial digital breast tomosynth

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

266 s were collected in 9234 women who underwent digital mammography to pretrain the algorithms.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

275 stitutions, there were racial differences in digital mammography use, which followed a U-shaped patte

276 mammography or standard of care (full-field digital mammography) varied by modality availability at

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

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

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

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

281 Digital mammography was a highly cost-effective tool to

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

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

284 Bilateral DE CE digital mammography was feasible and easily accomplished

285 self-reported in 2007, and breast density by digital mammography was measured in 2010.

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

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

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

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

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

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

292 false-positive results with tomosynthesis vs digital mammography were largest for annual screening in

293 ction, imaging is performed with dual-energy digital mammography, which helps provide a low-energy im

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

295 gital mammography alone (8935 examinations); digital mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis (D

296 Conclusion The combination of digital mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis im

297 l cancer detection rate was 14% greater with digital mammography with no change in recall rates and w

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

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

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