Detailed Information

Cited 0 time in webofscience Cited 0 time in scopus
Metadata Downloads

Effect of Different Types of Mammography Equipment on Screening Outcomes: A Report by the Alliance for Breast Cancer Screening in Koreaopen access

Authors
Choi, Bo HwaLee, Eun HyeJun, Jae KwanKim, Keum WonPark, Young MiKim, Hye-WonKim, You MeShin, Dong RockLim, Hyo SoonPark, Jeong SeonKim, Hye Jung
Issue Date
Dec-2019
Publisher
KOREAN RADIOLOGICAL SOC
Keywords
Breast neoplasms; Digital mammography; Screening; Sensitivity and specificity
Citation
KOREAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, v.20, no.12, pp.1638 - 1645
Indexed
SCIE
SCOPUS
KCI
Journal Title
KOREAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
Volume
20
Number
12
Start Page
1638
End Page
1645
URI
https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/hanyang/handle/2021.sw.hanyang/146660
DOI
10.3348/kjr.2019.0006
ISSN
1229-6929
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the effects of different types of mammography equipment on screening outcomes by comparing the performance of film-screen mammography (FSM), computed radiography mammography (CRM), and digital mammography (DM). Materials and Methods: We retrospectively enrolled 128756 sets of mammograms from 10 hospitals participating in the Alliance for Breast Cancer Screening in Korea between 2005 and 2010. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of the types of mammography equipment by analyzing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) with a 95% confidence interval (CI); performance indicators, including recall rate, cancer detection rate (CDR), positive predictive value(1) (PPV1), sensitivity, specificity, and interval cancer rate (ICR); and the types of breast cancer pathology. Results: The AUCs were 0.898 (95% CI, 0.878-0.919) in DM, 0.860 (0.815-0.905) in FSM, and 0.866 (0.828-0.903) in CRM (p = 0.150). DM showed better performance than FSM and CRM in terms of the recall rate (14.8 vs. 24.8 and 19.8%), CDR (3.4 vs. 2.2 and 2.1 per 1000 examinations), PPV1 (2.3 vs. 0.9 and 1.1%), and specificity (85.5 vs. 75.3 and 80.3%) (p < 0.001) but not in terms of sensitivity (86.3 vs. 87.4 and 86.3%) and ICR (0.6 vs. 0.4 and 0.4). The proportions of carcinoma in situ (CIS) were 27.5%, 13.6%, and 11.8% for DM, CRM, and FSM, respectively (p = 0.003). Conclusion: In comparison to FSM and CRM, DM showed better performance in terms of the recall rate, CDR, PPV1, and specificity, although the AUCs were similar, and more CISs were detected using DM. The application of DM may help to improve the quality of mammography screenings. However, the overdiagnosis issue of CIS using DM should be evaluated.
Files in This Item
Appears in
Collections
서울 의과대학 > 서울 영상의학교실 > 1. Journal Articles

qrcode

Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Related Researcher

Researcher Park, Jeong Seon photo

Park, Jeong Seon
COLLEGE OF MEDICINE (DEPARTMENT OF RADIOLOGY)
Read more

Altmetrics

Total Views & Downloads

BROWSE