THE DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY OF DUAL-VIEW DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY, SINGLE-VIEW BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS AND A DUAL-VIEW COMBINATION OF BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS AND DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY IN A FREE-RESPONSE OBSERVER PERFORMANCE STUDY.
Svahn, Tony LU ; Andersson, Ingvar LU ; Chakraborty, D ; Svensson, S ; Ikeda, D ; Förnvik, Daniel LU ; Mattsson, Sören LU ; Tingberg, Anders LU
and Zackrisson, Sophia
LU
(2010)
In Radiation Protection Dosimetry
139.
p.113-117
- Abstract
- The purpose of the present study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of dual-view digital mammography (DM), single-view breast tomosynthesis (BT) and BT combined with the contralateral DM view. Patients with subtle lesions were selected to undergo BT examinations. Two radiologists who are non-participants in the study and have experience in using DM and BT determined the locations and extents of lesions in the images. Five expert mammographers interpreted the cases using the free-response paradigm. The task was to mark and rate clinically reportable findings suspicious for malignancy and clinically relevant benign findings. The marks were scored with reference to the outlined regions into lesion localization or non-lesion localization,... (More)
- The purpose of the present study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of dual-view digital mammography (DM), single-view breast tomosynthesis (BT) and BT combined with the contralateral DM view. Patients with subtle lesions were selected to undergo BT examinations. Two radiologists who are non-participants in the study and have experience in using DM and BT determined the locations and extents of lesions in the images. Five expert mammographers interpreted the cases using the free-response paradigm. The task was to mark and rate clinically reportable findings suspicious for malignancy and clinically relevant benign findings. The marks were scored with reference to the outlined regions into lesion localization or non-lesion localization, and analysed by the jackknife alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic method. The analysis yielded statistically significant differences between the combined modality and dual-view DM (p < 0.05). No differences were found between single-view BT and dual-view DM or between single-view BT and the combined modality. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/1582197
- author
- Svahn, Tony
LU
; Andersson, Ingvar
LU
; Chakraborty, D
; Svensson, S
; Ikeda, D
; Förnvik, Daniel
LU
; Mattsson, Sören
LU
; Tingberg, Anders
LU
and Zackrisson, Sophia
LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2010
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- in
- Radiation Protection Dosimetry
- volume
- 139
- pages
- 113 - 117
- publisher
- Oxford University Press
- external identifiers
-
- wos:000277738200020
- pmid:20228048
- scopus:77953333258
- ISSN
- 1742-3406
- DOI
- 10.1093/rpd/ncq044
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 4a0f0f8a-907a-4bc5-9e54-f33a0f493b0b (old id 1582197)
- alternative location
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20228048?dopt=Abstract
- date added to LUP
- 2016-04-04 09:40:20
- date last changed
- 2024-04-27 10:59:37
@article{4a0f0f8a-907a-4bc5-9e54-f33a0f493b0b,
abstract = {{The purpose of the present study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of dual-view digital mammography (DM), single-view breast tomosynthesis (BT) and BT combined with the contralateral DM view. Patients with subtle lesions were selected to undergo BT examinations. Two radiologists who are non-participants in the study and have experience in using DM and BT determined the locations and extents of lesions in the images. Five expert mammographers interpreted the cases using the free-response paradigm. The task was to mark and rate clinically reportable findings suspicious for malignancy and clinically relevant benign findings. The marks were scored with reference to the outlined regions into lesion localization or non-lesion localization, and analysed by the jackknife alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic method. The analysis yielded statistically significant differences between the combined modality and dual-view DM (p < 0.05). No differences were found between single-view BT and dual-view DM or between single-view BT and the combined modality.}},
author = {{Svahn, Tony and Andersson, Ingvar and Chakraborty, D and Svensson, S and Ikeda, D and Förnvik, Daniel and Mattsson, Sören and Tingberg, Anders and Zackrisson, Sophia}},
issn = {{1742-3406}},
language = {{eng}},
pages = {{113--117}},
publisher = {{Oxford University Press}},
series = {{Radiation Protection Dosimetry}},
title = {{THE DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY OF DUAL-VIEW DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY, SINGLE-VIEW BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS AND A DUAL-VIEW COMBINATION OF BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS AND DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY IN A FREE-RESPONSE OBSERVER PERFORMANCE STUDY.}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncq044}},
doi = {{10.1093/rpd/ncq044}},
volume = {{139}},
year = {{2010}},
}