Search

Your search keyword '"Breast cancer screening"' showing total 158 results
Start Over Descriptor "Breast cancer screening" Publisher springer berlin heidelberg
158 results on '"Breast cancer screening"'

4. Image Processing and Registration of Opposed View 3D Breast Ultrasound

Author

Sinha, Sumedha, Hooi, Fong-Ming, Pinsky, Renee, Kripfgans, Oliver, Carson, Paul, Hutchison, David, editor, Kanade, Takeo, editor, Kittler, Josef, editor, Kleinberg, Jon M., editor, Mattern, Friedemann, editor, Mitchell, John C., editor, Naor, Moni, editor, Nierstrasz, Oscar, editor, Pandu Rangan, C., editor, Steffen, Bernhard, editor, Sudan, Madhu, editor, Terzopoulos, Demetri, editor, Tygar, Doug, editor, Vardi, Moshe Y., editor, Weikum, Gerhard, editor, Maidment, Andrew D. A., editor, Bakic, Predrag R., editor, and Gavenonis, Sara, editor

Published
2012
Full Text
View/download PDF

5. Performance of Computed Radiography and Direct Digital Radiography in a Screening Setting: Effect on the Screening Indicators

Author

Van Ongeval, Chantal, Postema, Sandra, van Steen, André, Vande Putte, Gretel, van Limbergen, Erik, Zanca, Federica, Bosmans, Hilde, Hutchison, David, editor, Kanade, Takeo, editor, Kittler, Josef, editor, Kleinberg, Jon M., editor, Mattern, Friedemann, editor, Mitchell, John C., editor, Naor, Moni, editor, Nierstrasz, Oscar, editor, Pandu Rangan, C., editor, Steffen, Bernhard, editor, Sudan, Madhu, editor, Terzopoulos, Demetri, editor, Tygar, Doug, editor, Vardi, Moshe Y., editor, Weikum, Gerhard, editor, Maidment, Andrew D. A., editor, Bakic, Predrag R., editor, and Gavenonis, Sara, editor

Published
2012
Full Text
View/download PDF

10. Impact of Digital Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening: Initial Experience in a National Breast Screening Program

Author

Hambly, N., Phelan, N., Hargaden, G., O’Doherty, A., Flanagan, F., Hutchison, David, editor, Kanade, Takeo, editor, Kittler, Josef, editor, Kleinberg, Jon M., editor, Mattern, Friedemann, editor, Mitchell, John C., editor, Naor, Moni, editor, Nierstrasz, Oscar, editor, Pandu Rangan, C., editor, Steffen, Bernhard, editor, Sudan, Madhu, editor, Terzopoulos, Demetri, editor, Tygar, Doug, editor, Vardi, Moshe Y., editor, Weikum, Gerhard, editor, and Krupinski, Elizabeth A., editor

Published
2008
Full Text
View/download PDF

11. Stereoscopic Digital Mammography: Improved Accuracy of Lesion Detection in Breast Cancer Screening

Author

Getty, David J., D’Orsi, Carl J., Pickett, Ronald M., Hutchison, David, editor, Kanade, Takeo, editor, Kittler, Josef, editor, Kleinberg, Jon M., editor, Mattern, Friedemann, editor, Mitchell, John C., editor, Naor, Moni, editor, Nierstrasz, Oscar, editor, Pandu Rangan, C., editor, Steffen, Bernhard, editor, Sudan, Madhu, editor, Terzopoulos, Demetri, editor, Tygar, Doug, editor, Vardi, Moshe Y., editor, Weikum, Gerhard, editor, and Krupinski, Elizabeth A., editor

Published
2008
Full Text
View/download PDF

12. Risks of Screening and Preventive Diagnosis

Author

Griebel, Jürgen, Brix, Gunnar, Kramer, Harald, Baert, A. L., editor, Knauth, M., editor, Sartor, K., editor, Reiser, Maximilian F., editor, van Kaick, Gerhard, editor, Fink, Christian, editor, and Schoenberg, Stefan O., editor

Published
2008
Full Text
View/download PDF

13. Optimising breast cancer screening reading: blinding the second reader to the first reader’s decisions

Author

Chris Stinton, David J. Jenkinson, Matthew G. Wallis, Sian Taylor-Phillips, Jennifer Cooper, Sue Hudson, Taylor-Phillips, Sian [0000-0002-1841-4346], and Apollo - University of Cambridge Repository

Subjects
medicine.medical_specialty, Blinding, media_common.quotation_subject, Breast Neoplasms, 030218 nuclear medicine & medical imaging, RC0254, Cohort Studies, 03 medical and health sciences, Breast cancer screening, 0302 clinical medicine, Reading (process), medicine, Credible interval, Mammography, Humans, Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging, Breast, Mass screening, media_common, Observer Variation, medicine.diagnostic_test, Recall, Markov chains, business.industry, Bayes Theorem, General Medicine, 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis, Early detection of cancer, Observational study, Female, Radiology, business, Clinical psychology
Abstract

Objectives In breast cancer screening, two readers separately examine each woman’s mammograms for signs of cancer. We examined whether preventing the two readers from seeing each other’s decisions (blinding) affects behaviour and outcomes. Methods This cohort study used data from the CO-OPS breast-screening trial (1,119,191 women from 43 screening centres in England) where all discrepant readings were arbitrated. Multilevel models were fitted using Markov chain Monte Carlo to measure whether reader 2 conformed to the decisions of reader 1 when they were not blinded, and the effect of blinding on overall rates of recall for further tests and cancer detection. Differences in positive predictive value (PPV) were assessed using Pearson’s chi-squared test. Results When reader 1 recalls, the probability of reader 2 also recalling was higher when not blinded than when blinded, suggesting readers may be influenced by the other’s decision. Overall, women were less likely to be recalled when reader 2 was blinded (OR 0.923; 95% credible interval 0.864, 0.986), with no clear pattern in cancer detection rate (OR 1.029; 95% credible interval 0.970, 1.089; Bayesian p value 0.832). PPV was 22.1% for blinded versus 20.6% for not blinded (p < 0.001). Conclusions Our results suggest that when not blinded, reader 2 is influenced by reader 1’s decisions to recall (alliterative bias) which would result in bypassing arbitration and negate some of the benefits of double-reading. We found a relationship between blinding the second reader and slightly higher PPV of breast cancer screening, although this analysis may be confounded by other centre characteristics. Key Points • In Europe, it is recommended that breast screening mammograms are analysed by two readers but there is little evidence on the effect of ‘blinding’ the readers so they cannot see each other’s decisions. • We found evidence that when the second reader is not blinded, they are more likely to agree with a recall decision from the first reader and less likely to make an independent judgement (alliterative error). This may reduce overall accuracy through bypassing arbitration. • This observational study suggests an association between blinding the second reader and higher positive predictive value of screening, but this may be confounded by centre characteristics.

Published
2021

14. Computer-Aided Detection of Breast Cancer Using an Ultra High-Resolution Liquid Crystal Display: Reading Session Analysis

Author

Kuroki, Yoshifumi, Nawano, Shigeru, Kobatake, Hidefumi, Uchiyama, Nachiko, Shimura, Kazuo, Matano, Kouji, Hutchison, David, editor, Kanade, Takeo, editor, Kittler, Josef, editor, Kleinberg, Jon M., editor, Mattern, Friedemann, editor, Mitchell, John C., editor, Naor, Moni, editor, Nierstrasz, Oscar, editor, Pandu Rangan, C., editor, Steffen, Bernhard, editor, Sudan, Madhu, editor, Terzopoulos, Demetri, editor, Tygar, Dough, editor, Vardi, Moshe Y., editor, Weikum, Gerhard, editor, Astley, Susan M., editor, Brady, Michael, editor, Rose, Chris, editor, and Zwiggelaar, Reyer, editor

Published
2006
Full Text
View/download PDF

16. Screening

Author

Miller, Anthony B., Ahrens, Wolfgang, editor, and Pigeot, Iris, editor

Published
2005
Full Text
View/download PDF

29. A Critical Review of Screening for Breast Cancer

Author

Rosselli Del Turco, M., Herfarth, Ch., editor, Senn, H. J., editor, Baum, M., editor, Diehl, V., editor, Gutzwiller, F., editor, Rajewsky, M. F., editor, Wannenmacher, M., editor, Senn, Hans Jörg, editor, Gelber, Richard D., editor, Goldhirsch, Aron, editor, and Thürlimann, Beat, editor

Published
1996
Full Text
View/download PDF

46. Cost differences between digital tomosynthesis and standard digital mammography in a breast cancer screening programme: results from the To-Be trial in Norway

Author

Åsne S Holen, Solveig Hofvind, Berit Hanestad, Jayson O. Swanson, and Tron Anders Moger

Subjects
medicine.medical_specialty, Digital mammography, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous), Breast Neoplasms, 030218 nuclear medicine & medical imaging, 03 medical and health sciences, Breast cancer screening, 0302 clinical medicine, Breast cancer, medicine, Mammography, Humans, Medical physics, health care economics and organizations, Early Detection of Cancer, Aged, Original Paper, Screenings, Tomosyntheses, Health economics, medicine.diagnostic_test, business.industry, Norway, Health Policy, Public health, H510, Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, Health Care Costs, Middle Aged, medicine.disease, Tomosynthesis, Costs, 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis, Screening, Female, I180, business
Abstract

Background Several studies in Europe and the US have shown promising results favouring digital breast tomosynthesis compared to standard digital mammography (DM). However, the costs of implementing the technology in screening programmes are not yet known. Methods A randomised controlled trial comparing the results from digital breast tomosynthesis including synthetic mammograms (DBT) vs. DM was performed in Bergen during 2016 and 2017 as a part of BreastScreen Norway. The trial included 29,453 women and allowed for a detailed comparison of procedure use and screening, recall and treatment costs estimated at the individual level. Results The increased cost of equipment, examination and reading time with DBT vs. DM was €8.5 per screened woman (95% CI 8.4−8.6). Costs of DBT remained significantly higher after adding recall assessment costs, €6.2 (95% CI 4.6−7.9). Substantial reductions in either examination and reading times, price of DBT equipment or price of IT storage and connectivity did not change the conclusion. Adding treatment costs resulted in too wide confidence intervals to draw definitive conclusions (additional costs of tomosynthesis €9.8, 95% CI –56 to 74). Performing biopsy at recall, radiation therapy and chemotherapy was significantly more frequent among women screened with DBT. Conclusion The results showed lower incremental costs of DBT vs. DM, compared to what is found in previous cost analyses of DBT and DM. However, the incremental costs were still higher for DBT compared with DM after including recall costs. Further studies with long-term treatment data are needed to understand the complete costs of implementing DBT in screening.

Published
2019

47. Summary

Author

Forbes, John F., Herfarth, Ch., editor, Senn, H. J., editor, Baum, M., editor, Diehl, V., editor, Gutzwiller, F., editor, Rajewsky, M. F., editor, Wannenmacher, M., editor, Senn, Hans Jörg, editor, Gelber, Richard D., editor, Goldhirsch, Aron, editor, and Thürlimann, Beat, editor

Published
1996
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results