Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Comparison of the clinical performance of three digital mammography systems in a breast cancer screening programme

  • E Keavey
  • , N Phelan
  • , A M O'Connell
  • , Fidelma Flanagan
  • , A O'Doherty
  • , A Larke
  • , A M Connors
  • BreastCheck

Research output: Contribution to a Journal (Peer & Non Peer)Articlepeer-review

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This study compares the clinical performance of three digital mammography system types in a breast cancer screening programme. 28 digital mammography systems from three different vendors were included in the study. The retrospective analysis included 238 182 screening examinations of females aged between 50 and 64 years over a 3-year period. All images were double read and assigned a result according to a 5-point rating scale to indicate the probability of cancer. Females with a positive result were recalled for further assessment imaging and biopsy if necessary. Clinical performance in terms of cancer detection rate was analysed and the results presented. No statistically significant difference was found between the three different mammography systems in a population-based screening programme, in terms of the overall cancer detection rate or in the detection of invasive cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ. This was shown in both prevalent and subsequent screening examination categories. The results demonstrate comparable cancer detection performance for the three imaging system types operational in the screening programme.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1123-1127
Number of pages5
JournalBritish Journal of Radiology
Volume85
Issue number1016
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2012
Externally publishedYes

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of the clinical performance of three digital mammography systems in a breast cancer screening programme'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this