ライフサイエンスコーパス: mammogram

1 interpreted more than 5000 annual screening mammograms).

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

3 ccording to which radiologist interprets her mammogram.

4 e breasts on an otherwise negative screening mammogram.

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

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

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

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

9 reast cancer and negative baseline screening mammogram.

10 comparable to those made from standard-dose mammograms.

11 0 561 were DBT-FFDM, and 16 173 were DBT-s2D mammograms.

12 half of radiologists interpreting screening mammograms.

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

14 mograms as compared with women with negative mammograms.

15 Women underwent annual or biennial mammograms.

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

17 ine clinical use when interpreting screening mammograms.

18 Thirty-eight tumors were occult on mammograms.

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

20 mammograms and 87 066 women with two digital mammograms.

21 in the percentage with availability of prior mammograms.

22 edema may be less likely to undergo repeated mammograms.

23 ypically diagnosed as microcalcifications in mammograms.

24 00 screen-film mammograms and 33 879 digital mammograms.

25 y interpreted 267 clinical digital screening mammograms.

26 ed 34 of 71 (48%) false-negative findings on mammograms.

27 median cumulative reading volume was 30 566 mammograms.

28 t biopsy and calcifications visible on prior mammograms.

29 that used both traditional risk factors and mammograms.

30 hile reading 80.7% (21 420 of 26 540) of the mammograms.

31 is of the calcifications was measured on all mammograms.

32 25 or fewer of their own recalled screening mammograms, 24% performed the work-up for 0-50, and 39%

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

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

35 than those in the control group to report a mammogram (45 [33.1%] of 136 v 12 [17.6%] of 68; RR, 1.9

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

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

38 < .001), while prompting more false-positive mammograms (899 [50.3%] vs 216 [12.1%] of 1787; P < .001

39 15.1%; 95% CI, 13.8% to 16.4%) compared with mammogram alone (6.4%; 95% CI, 5.5% to 7.3%).

40 95% CI, 11.2 to 22.2), none were detected by mammogram alone, 23 (65.7%) were detected by MRI alone (

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

42 actors, a DL model (image-only DL) that used mammograms alone, and a hybrid DL model that used both t

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

50 Primary barriers to completing a screening mammogram and/or breast MRI included lack of physician r

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

62 nual reading volumes between 4000 and 10 000 mammograms and cumulative reading volumes greater than 2

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

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

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

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

67 The algorithm was trained on 9611 mammograms and health records of women to make two breas

68 20% of palpable tumors are not detectable on mammograms and only about 40% of biopsied lesions are ma

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

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

71 features were extracted from the low-energy mammograms and the quantitative compartment images.

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

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

74 ly 2017, who had index findings on screening mammograms and/or US images, and for whom either histopa

75 with 5-mm overlap, 1-mm slices, synthetic 2D mammogram) and an experimental protocol (6-mm slabs with

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

77 eening-detected cancers, 1787 false-positive mammograms, and 384 benign biopsy results.

78 cers detected at mammography, false-positive mammograms, and benign biopsy findings.

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

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

81 ual reading volume ranged from 153 to 19 500 mammograms, and the median cumulative reading volume was

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

83 L to improve the detectability of lesions in mammograms are potentially informative for the professio

84 CIS) lesions are first detected on screening mammograms as calcifications.

85 A DL model was developed to triage mammograms as cancer free and evaluated on the test set.

86 To develop a DL model to triage a portion of mammograms as cancer free, improving performance and wor

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 ght radiologists reviewed 10 763 consecutive mammograms assessed with the model.

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

91 ressive growing GANs were used to synthesize mammograms at a resolution of 1280 x 1024 pixels by usin

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

93 nal network method for classifying screening mammograms attained excellent performance in comparison

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

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

96 d in 13 234 women who underwent at least one mammogram between 2013 and 2017, and who had health reco

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

98 on of participants who completed a screening mammogram by 12 months as evaluated in an intent-to-trea

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

100 erate realistic synthetic full-field digital mammograms by using a progressive GAN architecture up to

101 end approach on the CBIS-DDSM digitized film mammograms can be transferred to INbreast FFDM images 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 en individual readers interpreting screening mammograms, consensus by independent readers may reduce

105 diodensity Assessment from raw and processed mammograms correlated with established area and volumetr

106 esis combined with synthetic two-dimensional mammograms (DBT+SM) versus digital mammography (DM) yiel

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

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 fication and distortion in the following) in mammograms either with no trial-by-trial feedback, parti

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

112 hird of women (32%) were willing to decrease mammogram frequency (as consistent with the USPSTF guide

113 aimed to assess women's willingness to alter mammogram frequency based on their low risk for HBOC, an

114 ociated with women's inclination to decrease mammogram frequency.

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

119 by patient into 212 272, 25 999, and 26 540 mammograms from 56 831, 7021, and 7176 patients for trai

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 ber 2014, the authors reviewed all screening mammograms from a single unit of a biennial Irish nation

123 Mammograms from all cases of DCIS (n = 404) were reviewe

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

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

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

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

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

129 On an independent test set of digitized film mammograms from the Digital Database for Screening Mammo

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

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 prompts to indicate potential cancers on the mammograms have not led to an improvement in diagnostic

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

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

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

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

138 ly interpreted consecutive digital screening mammograms in 10 280 average-risk women aged 40-49 years

139 reening population included 71 148 screening mammograms in 24 928 women with a mean age of 55.5 years

140 study included 88 994 consecutive screening mammograms in 39 571 women between January 1, 2009, and

141 hm was tested on a held-out test set of 8677 mammograms in 5741 women.

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

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

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

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

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

147 ctive case-control study, full-field digital mammograms in for-processing (raw) and for-presentation

148 s retrospective study, consecutive screening mammograms in patients aged 65 years and older from Marc

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

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

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

152 trospective study consisted of all screening mammograms in women aged 40-74 years in Stockholm County

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

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

155 Mammogram indication and assessments were prospectively

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

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

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

159 programmes worldwide, the interpretation of mammograms is affected by high rates of false positives

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

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

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

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

164 genetic predisposition; contralateral annual mammogram may be offered to men with a history of breast

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

166 mulative reading volumes greater than 20 000 mammograms may be the most optimal volumes for achieving

167 segmentation and localization of lesions in mammogram (MG) images are challenging even with employin

168 o investigate deep learning (DL) methods for mammograms (MGs).

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

170 reting them as negative for cancer) and read mammograms not triaged as cancer free by using the origi

171 Mammograms: Number eligible with learning disability = 2

172 retrospective study of consecutive screening mammograms obtained at two institutions.

173 Purpose To evaluate LIBRA measures on mammograms obtained before breast cancer diagnosis and c

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

175 rospective cohort included 466 647 screening mammograms obtained between January 1, 2009, and January

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

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

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

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

180 nced radiologist of 41 479 digital screening mammograms obtained in 27 684 women from January 2009 to

181 terials and Methods In this study, screening mammograms obtained in breast cancer survivors before an

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

190 diologists categorized breast density on 451 mammograms on two occasions one month apart.

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

192 541 mammographic studies (hereafter called "mammograms") over a 30-month period, beginning 20 months

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

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

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

196 ast density (P > .05) or number of available mammograms (P > .05) was detected between groups.

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

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

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

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

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

202 0th month after (3.9 vs 4.2 cancers per 1000 mammograms, P = .55).

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

204 s sensitivity quartile with 10 000 screening mammograms per quartile.

205 end an annual minimum reading volume of 5000 mammograms per radiologist.

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

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

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

209 pective study, 223 109 consecutive screening mammograms performed in 66 661 women from January 2009 t

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

211 When reading all mammograms, radiologists obtained a sensitivity and spec

212 radiologists performed a reader study on 500 mammograms randomly selected from the test set.

213 sitivities, specificities, and percentage of mammograms read were calculated, with and without the DL

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

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

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

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

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

219 R = 0.74, p = 0.047), and more frequent past mammogram screening (Adjust OR = 0.13, p = 0.001) were a

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

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

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

223 Ipsilateral annual mammogram should be offered to men with a history of bre

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

225 ewed for calcifications that were visible on mammograms taken at least 6 months before biopsy.

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

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

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

229 rospective review was conducted of screening mammograms that had been obtained before DBT implementat

230 se To develop a risk model based on negative mammograms that identifies women likely to be diagnosed

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

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

233 ng screening radiologist regularly discussed mammograms that the technologists considered suspicious

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

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

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

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

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

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

240 , 2 film readers independently evaluate each mammogram to search for signs of cancer and examine digi

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

242 ased screening cohort of 1 million screening mammograms to gauge the performance of emerging AI CAD s

243 was simulated in which radiologists skipped mammograms triaged as cancer free (interpreting them as

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

245 accurately detect breast cancer on screening mammograms using an "end-to-end" training approach that

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

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

248 For screening with comparison mammograms versus screening without comparison mammogram

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

261 All mammograms were acquired with a Selenia Dimensions syste

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

263 Comparison mammograms were available in 93% of examinations.

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

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

266 Screening mammograms were double reported.

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

268 ation]) were included, and 1 186 045 digital mammograms were evaluated, with 972 899 assessed by high

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

270 Most mammograms were film rather than digital.

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

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

273 Mammograms were interpreted by breast imaging radiologis

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

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

276 energy craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique mammograms were obtained immediately before biopsy in 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

283 Their mammograms were reviewed by a breast imaging specialist

284 Postbiopsy mammograms were reviewed to determine whether all calcif

285 Mammograms were single read by certified screening techn

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

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

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

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

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

291 Women with at least one prior mammogram with visible calcifications were age- and race

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

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

294 (6-mm slabs with 3-mm overlap, synthetic 2D mammogram) with a crossover design.

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

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

297 Screening mammogram within the previous 2 years.

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

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

300 ion Deep learning models that use full-field mammograms yield substantially improved risk discriminat