Detailed Information

Cited 2 time in webofscience Cited 3 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 Korea

Full metadata record
DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.authorChoi, Bo Hwa-
dc.contributor.authorLee, Eun Hye-
dc.contributor.authorJun, Jae Kwan-
dc.contributor.authorKim, Keum Won-
dc.contributor.authorPark, Young Mi-
dc.contributor.authorKim, Hye-Won-
dc.contributor.authorKim, You Me-
dc.contributor.authorShin, Dong Rock-
dc.contributor.authorLim, Hyo Soon-
dc.contributor.authorPark, Jeong Seon-
dc.contributor.authorKim, Hye Jung-
dc.date.accessioned2024-12-02T23:30:50Z-
dc.date.available2024-12-02T23:30:50Z-
dc.date.issued2019-12-
dc.identifier.issn1229-6929-
dc.identifier.issn2005-8330-
dc.identifier.urihttps://scholarworks.gnu.ac.kr/handle/sw.gnu/72985-
dc.description.abstractObjective: 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.-
dc.format.extent8-
dc.language영어-
dc.language.isoENG-
dc.publisherKOREAN RADIOLOGICAL SOC-
dc.titleEffect of Different Types of Mammography Equipment on Screening Outcomes: A Report by the Alliance for Breast Cancer Screening in Korea-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.publisher.location대한민국-
dc.identifier.doi10.3348/kjr.2019.0006-
dc.identifier.scopusid2-s2.0-85077088760-
dc.identifier.wosid000503384900007-
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationKOREAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, v.20, no.12, pp 1638 - 1645-
dc.citation.titleKOREAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY-
dc.citation.volume20-
dc.citation.number12-
dc.citation.startPage1638-
dc.citation.endPage1645-
dc.type.docTypeArticle-
dc.identifier.kciidART002531472-
dc.description.isOpenAccessY-
dc.description.journalRegisteredClassscie-
dc.description.journalRegisteredClassscopus-
dc.description.journalRegisteredClasskci-
dc.relation.journalResearchAreaRadiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging-
dc.relation.journalWebOfScienceCategoryRadiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging-
dc.subject.keywordPlusFIELD DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY-
dc.subject.keywordPlusFILM MAMMOGRAPHY-
dc.subject.keywordPlusDIAGNOSTIC PERFORMANCE-
dc.subject.keywordPlusTRANSITION-
dc.subject.keywordPlusMORTALITY-
dc.subject.keywordPlusACCURACY-
dc.subject.keywordPlusPROGRAM-
dc.subject.keywordPlusDENSITY-
dc.subject.keywordAuthorBreast neoplasms-
dc.subject.keywordAuthorDigital mammography-
dc.subject.keywordAuthorScreening-
dc.subject.keywordAuthorSensitivity and specificity-
Files in This Item
There are no files associated with this item.
Appears in
Collections
ETC > Journal Articles

qrcode

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

Related Researcher

Altmetrics

Total Views & Downloads

BROWSE