Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23588746/ below:

Short-term outcomes of screening mammography using computer-aided detection: a population-based study of medicare enrollees

Affiliations

• ¹ University of California, Davis, Department of Family and Community Medicine, 4860 Y Street, Suite 2300, Sacramento, CA 95817, USA. joshua.fenton@ucdmc.ucdavis.edu

• PMID: 23588746
• PMCID: PMC3772716
• DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-158-8-201304160-00002

Item in Clipboard

Joshua J Fenton et al. Ann Intern Med. 2013.

• ¹ University of California, Davis, Department of Family and Community Medicine, 4860 Y Street, Suite 2300, Sacramento, CA 95817, USA. joshua.fenton@ucdmc.ucdavis.edu

• PMID: 23588746
• PMCID: PMC3772716
• DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-158-8-201304160-00002

Item in Clipboard

Background: Computer-aided detection (CAD) has rapidly diffused into screening mammography practice despite limited and conflicting data on its clinical effect.

Objective: To determine associations between CAD use during screening mammography and the incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and invasive breast cancer, invasive cancer stage, and diagnostic testing.

Design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Medicare program.

Participants: Women aged 67 to 89 years having screening mammography between 2001 and 2006 in U.S. SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results) regions (409 459 mammograms from 163 099 women).

Measurements: Incident DCIS and invasive breast cancer within 1 year after mammography, invasive cancer stage, and diagnostic testing within 90 days after screening among women without breast cancer.

Results: From 2001 to 2006, CAD prevalence increased from 3.6% to 60.5%. Use of CAD was associated with greater DCIS incidence (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.17 [95% CI, 1.11 to 1.23]) but no difference in invasive breast cancer incidence (adjusted OR, 1.00 [CI, 0.97 to 1.03]). Among women with invasive cancer, CAD was associated with greater likelihood of stage I to II versus III to IV cancer (adjusted OR, 1.27 [CI, 1.14 to 1.41]). In women without breast cancer, CAD was associated with increased odds of diagnostic mammography (adjusted OR, 1.28 [CI, 1.27 to 1.29]), breast ultrasonography (adjusted OR, 1.07 [CI, 1.06 to 1.09]), and breast biopsy (adjusted OR, 1.10 [CI, 1.08 to 1.12]).

Limitation: Short follow-up for cancer stage, potential unmeasured confounding, and uncertain generalizability to younger women.

Conclusion: Use of CAD during screening mammography among Medicare enrollees is associated with increased DCIS incidence, the diagnosis of invasive breast cancer at earlier stages, and increased diagnostic testing among women without breast cancer.

Primary funding source: Center for Healthcare Policy and Research, University of California, Davis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Potential Conflicts of Interest: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M12-2025 .

• Pathologic findings from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: population-based outcomes in women undergoing biopsy after screening mammography.

  Weaver DL, Rosenberg RD, Barlow WE, Ichikawa L, Carney PA, Kerlikowske K, Buist DS, Geller BM, Key CR, Maygarden SJ, Ballard-Barbash R. Weaver DL, et al. Cancer. 2006 Feb 15;106(4):732-42. doi: 10.1002/cncr.21652. Cancer. 2006. PMID: 16411214

• The contribution of mammography screening to breast cancer incidence trends in the United States: an updated age-period-cohort model.

  Gangnon RE, Sprague BL, Stout NK, Alagoz O, Weedon-Fekjær H, Holford TR, Trentham-Dietz A. Gangnon RE, et al. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2015 Jun;24(6):905-12. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-1286. Epub 2015 Mar 18. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2015. PMID: 25787716 Free PMC article.

• Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital Screening Mammography With and Without Computer-Aided Detection.

  Lehman CD, Wellman RD, Buist DS, Kerlikowske K, Tosteson AN, Miglioretti DL; Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Lehman CD, et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2015 Nov;175(11):1828-37. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.5231. JAMA Intern Med. 2015. PMID: 26414882 Free PMC article.

• Computer-aided detection mammography for breast cancer screening: systematic review and meta-analysis.

  Noble M, Bruening W, Uhl S, Schoelles K. Noble M, et al. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009 Jun;279(6):881-90. doi: 10.1007/s00404-008-0841-y. Epub 2008 Nov 21. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009. PMID: 19023581 Review.

• Assessment of grating-based X-ray phase-contrast CT for differentiation of invasive ductal carcinoma and ductal carcinoma in situ in an experimental ex vivo set-up.

  Sztrókay A, Herzen J, Auweter SD, Liebhardt S, Mayr D, Willner M, Hahn D, Zanette I, Weitkamp T, Hellerhoff K, Pfeiffer F, Reiser MF, Bamberg F. Sztrókay A, et al. Eur Radiol. 2013 Feb;23(2):381-7. doi: 10.1007/s00330-012-2592-1. Epub 2012 Aug 31. Eur Radiol. 2013. PMID: 22932738 Review.

• Implementation and design of artificial intelligence in abdominal imaging.

  Choi HH, Chang SD, Kohli MD. Choi HH, et al. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2020 Dec;45(12):4084-4089. doi: 10.1007/s00261-020-02471-0. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2020. PMID: 32211946

• Retrospective observation on contribution and limitations of screening for breast cancer with mammography in Korea: detection rate of breast cancer and incidence rate of interval cancer of the breast.

  Lee K, Kim H, Lee JH, Jeong H, Shin SA, Han T, Seo YL, Yoo Y, Nam SE, Park JH, Park YM. Lee K, et al. BMC Womens Health. 2016 Nov 18;16(1):72. doi: 10.1186/s12905-016-0351-1. BMC Womens Health. 2016. PMID: 27863517 Free PMC article.

• Computer-aided detection in mammography: downstream effect on diagnostic testing, ductal carcinoma in situ treatment, and costs.

  Fenton JJ, Lee CI, Xing G, Baldwin LM, Elmore JG. Fenton JJ, et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Dec;174(12):2032-4. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.5410. JAMA Intern Med. 2014. PMID: 25347134 Free PMC article. No abstract available.

• Patient Graph Deep Learning to Predict Breast Cancer Molecular Subtype.

  Furtney I, Bradley R, Kabuka MR. Furtney I, et al. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform. 2023 Sep-Oct;20(5):3117-3127. doi: 10.1109/TCBB.2023.3290394. Epub 2023 Oct 10. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform. 2023. PMID: 37379184 Free PMC article.

• Malignancy Detection on Mammography Using Dual Deep Convolutional Neural Networks and Genetically Discovered False Color Input Enhancement.

  Teare P, Fishman M, Benzaquen O, Toledano E, Elnekave E. Teare P, et al. J Digit Imaging. 2017 Aug;30(4):499-505. doi: 10.1007/s10278-017-9993-2. J Digit Imaging. 2017. PMID: 28656455 Free PMC article.

1. 1. Fenton JJ, Foote SB, Green P, Baldwin LM. Diffusion of computer-aided mammography after mandated Medicare coverage. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:987–989. [PMID: 20548013] - PubMed
2. 1. Rao VM, Levin DC, Parker L, Cavanaugh B, Frangos AJ, Sunshine JH. How widely is computer-aided detection used in screening and diagnostic mammography? J Am Coll Radiol. 2010;7:802–805. [PMID: 20889111] - PubMed
3. 1. Gross CP, Long JB, Ross JS, Abu-Khalaf MM, Wang R, Killelea BK, et al. The cost of breast cancer screening in the Medicare population. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:220–226. [PMID: 23303200] - PMC - PubMed
4. 1. Bazzocchi M, Mazzarella F, Del Frate C, Girometti R, Zuiani C. CAD systems for mammography: a real opportunity? A review of the literature. Radiol Med. 2007;112:329–353. [PMID: 17440698] - PubMed
5. 1. Cupples TE, Cunningham JE, Reynolds JC. Impact of computer-aided detection in a regional screening mammography program. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;185:944–950. [PMID: 16177413] - PubMed

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.3