Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “MAMMOGRAPHY”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed1993

Mammography use and outcomes in a community. The Greater Lansing Area Mammography Study.

BACKGROUND: Mammography is widely known to reduce morbidity and mortality from breast cancer, but a population-based assessment of mammography use and follow-up of mammography findings has not been reported previously. METHODS: An observational, population-based, follow-up study was conducted of all women having mammograms in the Greater Lansing, Michigan, metropolitan area, between June 1987 and June 1988. A total of 17,811 Greater Lansing women participated. The adherence of women to mammography screening guidelines was estimated, and mammography's utility to detect breast cancer was assessed through follow-up review of breast biopsy results. RESULTS: Thirty-seven percent of the expected number of women 35 years of age and older had mammograms. Adherence to screening guidelines declined with age, and less than 5% (302 of 6700) of women 55 years of age and older reporting having annual mammograms. Seventy-six percent of women reported that their physicians prompted the examination. The predictive value of a positive mammogram was 21.9% for women without symptoms and 32.4% for women with symptoms. Mammography's sensitivity and specificity for breast cancer detection were 71% and 98%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The study highlights the need to target mammography to women 50 years of age and older, underscores the importance of physicians in promoting mammography, and demonstrates the analytic value and limitation of mammography in clinical decision-making.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

[Film-screen mammography versus digital storage plate mammography: hard copy and monitor display of microcalcifications and focal findings--a retrospective clinical and histologic analysis].

PURPOSE: A retrospective clinical-histological study to determine the diagnostic accuracy of mammography using conventional screen-film cassettes (hard copy), high-resolution digital phosphor storage plates (hard copy) and monitor display (soft copy) for microcalcifications and focal lesions (BI-RADS (TM) category 4 or 5). MATERIALS AND METHODS: From April to November 2001, 76 patients underwent conventional film-screen mammography and, after diagnosis and preoperative wire localization, digital mammography with the same exposure parameters. Five investigators retrospectively determined the diagnosis after the operation from randomly distributed mediolateral views (hard-copy reading) and from the monitor display (soft-copy reading). These results were correlated with the final histology. RESULTS: The accuracy of conventional screen-film mammography, digital mammography and monitor-displayed mammography was 67%, 65% and 68% for all findings, (n = 76), 59%, 59% and 68% for microcalcifications (n = 44) and 75%, 72% and 63% for focal lesions (n = 32). The overall results showed no difference. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate equivalence of conventional screen-film mammography, high-resolution digital phosphor storage plate mammography and monitor-displayed mammography.

Adenocarcinoma↗
PubMed2005

[Digital mammography with high-resolution storage plates (CR) versus full-field digital mammography (CCD) (DR) for microcalcifications and focal lesions -- a retrospective clinical histologic analysis (n = 102)].

PURPOSE: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of microcalcifications and focal lesions in a retrospective clinical-histological study using high-resolution digital phosphor storage plates (hard copy) and full-field digital mammography (hard copy). MATERIALS AND METHODS: From May 2003 to September 2003, 102 patients underwent digital storage plate mammography (CR), using a mammography unit (Mammomat 3000 N, Siemens) in combination with a high resolution (9 lp/mm) digital storage phosphor plate system (pixel size 50 microm) (Fuji/Siemens). After diagnosis and preoperative wire localization, full-field digital mammography (CCD) (DR) was performed with the same exposure parameters. The full-field digital mammography used a CCD-detector (SenoScan) (Fisher Imaging) with a resolution of 10 Ip/mm and a pixel size of 50 microm. Five investigators determined the diagnosis (BI-RADS I - V) retrospectively after the operation from randomly distributed mediolateral views (hard copy reading). These results were correlated with the final histology. RESULTS: The diagnostic accuracy of digital storage plate mammography (CR) and full-field digital mammography (CCD) (DR) was 73 % and 71 % for all findings (n = 102), 73 % and 71 % for microcalcifications (n = 51), and 72 % and 70 % for focal lesions (n = 51). The overall results showed no difference. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate the equivalence of high-resolution digital phosphor storage plate mammography (CR) and full-field digital mammography (CCD) (DR).

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection and characterization of simulated small masses.

OBJECTIVE: The two objectives of this study were to create an ex vivo phantom model that closely mimics human breast cancer for detection tasks and to compare the performance of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography in detecting and characterizing small breast masses in a phantom with a spectrum of complex tissue backgrounds. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen phantom breast masses of varying sizes (0.3-1.2 cm), shapes (round and irregular), and densities (high and low) were created from shaved tumor specimens and imaged using both full-field digital and screen-film mammography techniques. We created 408 detection tasks that were captured on 68 films. On each radiograph, six detection tasks were partially obscured by areas of varying breast-pattern complexity, including low (predominantly fatty), mixed (scattered fibroglandular densities and heterogeneously dense), and high (extremely dense) density patterns. Each detection task was scored using a five-point confidence scale by three mammographers. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to analyze differences in detection of masses between the two imaging systems, and sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were computed. RESULTS: Full-field digital mammography showed higher area under the ROC curve than screen-film mammography for detecting masses in each breast background and performed significantly better than screen-film mammography in mixed (p = 0.010), dense (p = 0.029), and all breast backgrounds combined (p = 0.004). Full-field digital mammography was superior to screen-film mammography for characterizing round and irregular masses and low- and high-density masses. CONCLUSION: Full-field digital mammography was significantly superior to screen-film technique for detecting and characterizing small masses in mixed and dense breast backgrounds in a phantom model.

Artifacts↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Differentiation of benign and malignant breast microcalcifications: mammography versus mammography-sonography combination.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic contribution of high-frequency sonography in the diagnosis of isolated clustered microcalcifications detected by mammography. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 238 women (aged 3198) with isolated clustered microcalcifications were examined by mammography and subsequently by high frequency sonography (13 MHz) at the site of microcalcification. 170 underwent surgery. 94 were affected by cancer and 76 by benign pathology. The other 68 were considered to have benign microcalcifications after three years follow-up. The ROC statistical technique was employed to compare the diagnostic role of mammography alone versus the combination of mammography and sonography. The area under the ROC curves was calculated by the Wilcoxon method, without any hypothesis on the distribution of the statistical data. RESULTS: The microcalcifications were neoplastic in 39.5% of cases. The difference between the areas under the mammography ROC curve (area = 0.807, standard error = 0.03) and the mammography-sonography ROC curve (area = 0.819, standard error = 0.028) was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The higher sensitivity of mammography-sonography combination demonstrates that it may be useful to perform sonography following mammography when mammography yields a diagnosis of non malignant pathology.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

MR mammography in the pre-operative staging of breast cancer in patients with dense breast tissue: comparison with mammography and ultrasound.

The aim of this study was to determine whether pre-operative MR mammography could predict the extent of breast cancer in patients with dense breasts or whether dense parenchyma will lead to false-positive or inconclusive examinations. Sixty-seven patients with dense breasts with a malignant breast tumor planned for conservative surgery were reviewed. Detection rates of mammography, ultrasound, and MR mammography were studied, and the diameters of the lesions were measured and compared with pathological examination. Pathology revealed breast cancer in 65 patients. Sensitivity for detection of index lesions was 83% for mammography, 70.8% for ultrasound, and 98% for MR mammography. Mammography underestimated tumor extent in 37%, ultrasound in 40%, and MR in 12.5%. Of the 20 patients (31%) with multifocal or multicentric carcinoma, mammography detected the lesions in 35%, ultrasound in 30%, and MR in 100%, with a false-positive rate of 12.5, 14, and 23%. The MR mammography is more accurate in assessing tumor extent and multifocality in patients with dense breasts, but benign changes may lead to false-positive examinations.

Breast↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Improving the timeliness of written patient notification of mammography results by mammography centers.

Timely reporting of mammogram results helps to reduce anxiety for women with negative results and speeds up diagnosis or treatment in the case of abnormal results. The goal of this project was to improve the rate at which Virginia mammography centers provide a written report to women in lay terms within 30 days of a mammogram. The project included six intervention and five control mammography centers. The baseline period was prior to when new regulations in the Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA) took effect in April 1999. The re-measurement period was after April 1999. Data were obtained from abstraction of mammography reports and patient notification letters from a sample of patients with negative and abnormal mammography results at each mammography center. Each intervention mammography center received a notebook that included numerous tools on systems for patient notification and tracking, baseline notification rates and other abstracted information, biopsy recommendations, sample results letters, and a copy of the MQSA. For negative mammograms, the intervention group in aggregate increased from 24% at baseline to 79% at re-measurement in their rate of notification within 30 days. The control group increased from 25% to 46%. For abnormal mammograms, increases were from 35% to 85% and from 25% to 58%, respectively. The intervention group's increases were considerably higher, suggesting an effect due to the interventions that involved technical assistance, education, and system change. All increases were statistically significant (p < 0.01). At baseline, three intervention centers and two controls had policies for written notification. All 11 had policies at re-measurement. However, only two of the five control centers could provide clear supporting documentation for dates of notification at re-measurement. Mammography centers can benefit from guidance in the form of intervention materials specifically designed to address the MQSA sections that apply to patient notification, tracking, and positive predictive value of biopsy recommendations.

Ambulatory Care Facilities↗
PubMed2002

Performance comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography in clinical practice.

Results of acceptance testing 18 full-field digital mammography systems for clinical use and of conducting annual physics surveys of 38 screen-film mammography systems were compared in terms of exposure times, mean glandular breast doses, and image quality. These evaluations were made using the same test tools on all systems, with emphasis on assessing automatic exposure control performance and image quality on both digital and screen-film systems using clinical techniques. Survey results indicated that digital mammography systems performed similarly to screen-film systems in terms of exposure times and mean glandular doses for thin to intermediate breasts, but that digital mammography systems selected shorter exposure times and lower mean glandular doses for thicker breasts. For all breast thicknesses, digital mammography systems yielded mean contrast-detail scores higher than those for screen-film systems. For all breast thicknesses, the 18 digital mammography systems demonstrated less variance in terms of exposure times, mean glandular doses, and contrast-detail scores than did the 38 screen-film systems tested. These results indicate that the clinical use of digital mammography may generally improve image quality for equal or lower breast doses, while providing tighter control on exposures and image quality than screen-film mammography.

Biophysical Phenomena↗
PubMed2006

Mammography self-report and mammography claims: racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic discrepancies among elderly women.

BACKGROUND: National self-report surveys show minimal racial disparity in mammography, whereas analyses of administrative data show large disparity. METHODS: Using the 1998-2002 Medicare Current Beneficiary Surveys, which contain participants' self-report and claims data, we developed multivariable adjusted models examining factors associated with self-reported mammography and self-reported mammography verified by billing records. RESULTS: No racial/ethnic disparities were found in self-reported mammography. Verified mammography, however, revealed significant disparities for race, education, income, insurance, and health status. CONCLUSIONS: Race, education, income, insurance, and health status are associated with a lower likelihood of self-reported mammography verified by the existence of claims data. These data caution against exclusive reliance on self-report survey data to assess disparity in mammography.

Aged↗
PubMed2001

ROC curve analysis of lesion detectability on phantoms: comparison of digital spot mammography with conventional spot mammography.

Although conventional screen--film mammography has excellent spatial resolution and is commonly used as a screening tool, certain inherent limitations prevent its further improvement. New digital mammography techniques, despite lower spatial resolution than screen--film mammography, may overcome these limitations. This study compared lesion detectability between charge coupled device-based digital spot mammography and conventional spot mammography. A total of 100 sets of images of specially designed breast phantoms was acquired, with variable background achieved by overlapping several layers of grapefruit fibre on a 4 cm thick lucite slab, using both modalities. 75 sets were "normal" images and 25 sets were images with simulated lesions. Four radiologists assessed the images according to a five-point confidence scale. The results were used to construct receiver operating characteristic curves. No statistical difference was observed between the two sets of curves for individual radiologists as well as pooled data. The lower spatial resolution of digital mammography was compensated for by its higher contrast sensitivity relative to conventional spot mammography.

Equipment Design↗
PubMed2006

Comparison of calcification specificity in digital mammography using soft-copy display versus screen-film mammography.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare specificity in the interpretation of calcifications in soft-copy reviewing of digital mammograms versus hard-copy reviewing of screen-film mammograms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 130 consecutive cases with calcifications (44 malignant and 86 benign) that had been evaluated with needle or surgical biopsy were collected. Both screen-film mammography and soft-copy digital mammography were obtained in the same patients under existing research protocols using Fischer Imaging's SenoScan (n = 71), Lorad's digital mammography system (n = 35), and GE Healthcare's Senographe 2000D (n = 24). Eight trained radiologists scored all lesions--cropped or masked to display just the region of interest--both on screen-film and soft-copy digital mammography with a month between reviews to reduce the effects of learning and memory. A 5-point malignancy scale was used, with 1 as definitely not, 2 as probably not, 3 as possibly, 4 as probably, and 5 as definitely. Reviewers were randomly assigned condition order, and images within each condition were randomly ordered. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to test for differences between conditions in specificity computed via nonparametric receiver operating characteristic (ROC) study separately for each reviewer and condition. RESULTS: Across all reviewers, the mean specificity for 1 or 2 versus 3, 4, or 5 was 0.803 for screen-film mammography (range, 0.413-0.938; SD +/- 0.166) and 0.833 for soft-copy image (range, 0.375-0.951; SD +/- 0.187). Although not statistically significant (Student's t test p values from 0.19 to 0.99 across all cut points), numeric values of specificity were consistently higher for soft-copy versus screen-film mammography. No statistical significance in specificity was seen using all possible cut points in the 5-point scale, although the primary analysis used the cutpoint for differentiation between benign and malignant cases as 1 or 2 versus 3, 4, or 5. CONCLUSION: No statistically significant difference was shown in specificity achievable using soft-copy digital versus screen-film mammography in this study.

Biopsy↗
PubMed1997

[Effect of age and menstrual cycle on mammography and MR mammography].

Age and menstrual cycle have an important influence on the breast. This well-known fact is experienced in the daily routine of gynecologists and radiologists. The number of publications addressing the effect of these influences on imaging, however, is surprisingly low. The aim of this work is to describe the influences of age and menstrual cycle on the breast and to address their clinical relevance for mammography and MR mammography. Therefore, own data are presented concerning the age and menstrual cycle influences on breast parenchyma in dynamic MR mammography. Literature data are used to correlate mammography and MR imaging findings with these influences. The changes of the breast due to age and menstrual cycle have important direct implications on performing and reading conventional mammography and MR mammography. The knowledge of these changes is also helpful in the interpretation of findings when comparing different methods. Finally, the data gained by using imaging methods enable important basic insights into physiology and physiopathology of the breast in vivo.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1988

Impact of low-cost mammography screening on nearby mammography practices.

Data derived from the first 30 months of operation of a low-cost mammography screening program demonstrate the impact of the introduction of low-cost screening on nearby mammography practices. Low-cost screening attracts a very different group of women than traditionally populate existing practices, and 93% represent "new business" rather than established mammography patients seeking examination at a lower price. Although low-cost screening does divert some women away from more expensive nearby practices, it also generates an approximately equal number of breast imaging cases for these neighbor practices, including problem-solving examinations to further evaluate screening-detected abnormalities and subsequent screening examinations for women who prefer more full-featured albeit costlier screening. Finally, a survey of nearby practices indicates that the introduction of low-cost screening had no measurable impact on the steadily increasing mammography case loads observed during the study period. Low-cost screening does not appear to be much of an economic threat to existing mammography practices, at least under the conditions in effect in the study area. It can indeed coexist successfully with traditional mammography practices that make no distinction in features and price between screening and problem-solving examinations.

Breast Neoplasms↗
PubMed2000

Reasons for failure of a mammography unit at clinical image review in the American College of Radiology Mammography Accreditation Program.

PURPOSE: To identify the most common deficiencies in the quality of mammograms submitted for clinical image evaluation (evaluation of image from actual patient referred for mammography). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 1997, the American College of Radiology Mammography Accreditation Program reviewed clinical images for 2,341 mammography units. For each mammography unit, the facility submitted bilateral mediolateral oblique and craniocaudal mammograms obtained in a woman with fatty breasts and a woman with dense breasts. Images were reviewed independently by two experienced radiologists. Reviewers listed the general categories and specific deficiencies that led to a decision to fail the unit that produced the clinical images. RESULTS: Of the 2,341 mammography units, 1,034 (44%) failed the clinical image evaluation process. Of 6,128 categories cited by reviewers as deficient, 1,250 (20%) involved problems in positioning; 944 (15%), exposure; 887 (14%), compression; 806 (13%), sharpness; 785 (13%), contrast; 703 (11%), labeling; 465 (8%), artifacts; and 288 (5%), noise. A significantly higher proportion of failures was attributed to positioning deficiencies for fatty breasts than for dense breasts (P =.028). Higher proportions of failures in dense breasts were related to compression (P <.001) and exposure (P <.001) deficiencies. CONCLUSION: Common problems in clinical image quality have been identified. This information should be useful for educators and facilities striving to improve the quality of mammography.

Accreditation↗
PubMed2000

Mammography in 53,803 women from the New Hampshire mammography network.

PURPOSE: To describe measures of mammography performance in a geographically defined population and evaluate the interpreter's use of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Mammographic data from 47,651 screening and 6,152 diagnostic examinations from November 1, 1996, to October 31, 1997, were linked to 1,572 pathologic results. Mammographic outcomes were based on BI-RADS assessments and recommendations reported by the interpreting radiologist. The consistency of BI-RADS recommendations was evaluated. RESULTS: Screening mammography had a sensitivity of 72.4% (95% CI: 66.4%, 78.4%), specificity of 97.3% (95% CI: 97.25%, 97.4%), and positive predictive value of 10.6% (95% CI: 9.1%, 12.2%). Diagnostic mammography had higher sensitivity, 78.1% (95% CI: 71.9%, 84.3%); lower specificity, 89.3% (95% CI: 88.5%, 90.1%); and better positive predictive value, 17.1% (95% CI: 14.5%, 19.8%). The cancer detection rate with screening mammography was 3.3 per 1,000 women, with a biopsy yield of 22.4%, whereas the interval cancer rate was 1. 2 per 1,000. Nearly 80% of screening-detected invasive malignancies were node negative. The recall rate for screening mammography was 8. 3%. Ultrasonography was used in 3.5% of screening and 17.5% of diagnostic examinations. BI-RADS recommendations were generally consistent, except for probably benign assessments. CONCLUSION: The sensitivity of screening mammography in this population-based sample is lower than expected, although other performance indicators are commendable. BI-RADS "probably benign" assessments are commonly misused.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Effectiveness of women's telephone counseling and physician education to improve mammography screening among women who underuse mammography.

The effect on women's breast cancer screening utilization of a barrier-specific telephone counseling (BSTC) intervention, with and without a concurrent continuing medical education (CME) activity for their physicians, was evaluated. All participants (50-80 years of age) were not regular mammography users at baseline. A 4-arm quasi-experimental design was employed. Women were randomized to the BSTC or no BSTC group and assigned (with their physicians) to the CME or no CME group based on place of residence. Pre- and postintervention data were obtained for 1,601 women using telephone interviews conducted during 1995 and 1998, respectively. Among women who had ever used mammography at baseline, those who received BSTC were more likely than the control group to become regular mammography users at follow-up (OR = 1.4, p = .033). Greater reductions in perceived barriers to mammography, from baseline to follow-up, were significantly associated with receiving BSTC compared with the control group (p = .001), among women with previous mammography experience. Findings suggest that CME may have potential for initiating mammography use among women who never had a previous mammogram. However, because of the small sample available for analyses of the CME intervention and differential attrition among women who never had a previous mammogram, further study is needed to confirm this hypothesis.

Aged↗
PubMed1998

Storage phosphor direct magnification mammography in comparison with conventional screen-film mammography--a phantom study.

Contact mammography with current photostimulable storage phosphors is hampered by its low spatial resolution. Detail visualization can be improved by geometric magnification radiography which enlarges small details to exceed inherent image noise. This study compares storage phosphor mammography using a dedicated direct magnification system with state-of-the-art conventional screen-film mammography. Storage phosphor direct magnification survey views (1.7x) and spot views (4x) were obtained with a prototype mammography unit providing focal spot sizes of 120-40 microns. Conventional technique screen-film survey views (1.1x) and spot views (1.8x) served as comparison. A contrast detail study and a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis using an anthropomorphic breast phantom with superimposed microcalcifications was performed. Contrast detail resolution in the digital and conventional survey views were equivalent. For the spot views, contrast detail resolution was significantly higher with the digital technique (p < 0.001). ROC analysis of 400 observations demonstrated a significantly higher performance (p < 0.001) with digital images versus conventional screen-film mammograms. The area under the ROC curve (Az) in the digital survey views was 0.76 +/- 0.07 versus 0.59 +/- 0.02 in the conventional technique. In digital spot views, Az was 0.82 +/- 0.07 as compared with 0.66 +/- 0.04 in the conventional spot views. These results suggest that storage phosphor digital mammography in conjunction with direct geometric magnification technique may be superior to conventional screen-film mammography in the detection of microcalcifications.

Breast Diseases↗