Follow-up and Final Results of the Oslo I Study Comparing Screen-Film Mammography and Full-field Digital Mammography with Soft-Copy Reading

References

• Beam C. A., Layde P. M., Sullivan D. C. Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156: 209–13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berg W. A., Campassi C., Langenberg P., Sexton M. J. Breast imaging reporting and data system: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. Am J Roentgenol 2000; 174: 1769–77
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burnside E. S., Sickles E. A., Sohlich R. E., Dee K. E. Differential value of comparison with previous examinations in diagnostic versus screening mammography. Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179: 1173–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dinnes J., Moss S., Melia J., Blanks R., Song F., Kleijnen J. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of double reading of mammograms in breast cancer screening: findings of a systematic review. The Breast 2001; 10: 455–63
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duijm L. E. M., Groenewoud J. H., Hendriks J. H. C. L., de Koning H. J. Independent double reading of screening mammograms in the Netherlands: effect of arbitration following reader disagreements. Radiology 2004; 231: 564–70
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elmore J. G., Wells C. K., Lee C. H., Howard D. H., Feinstein A. R. Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 1493–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elmore J. G., Nakano C. Y., Koepsell T. D., Desnick L. M., D'Orsi C. J., Ransohoff D. F. International variation in screening mammography interpretations in community-based programs. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003; 95: 1384–93
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fischer U., Baum F., Obenauer S., Luftner-Nagel S., von Heyden D., Vosshenrich R., et al. Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography. Eur Radiol 2002; 12: 2679–83
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harvey S. C., Geller B., Oppenheimer R. G., Pinet M., Riddell L., Garra B. Increase in cancer detection and recall rates with independent double interpretation of screening mammography. Am J Roentgenol 2003; 180: 1461–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ikeda D. M., Birdwell R. L., O'Shaughnessy K. F., Brenner R. J., Sickles E. A. Analysis of 172 subtle findings on prior normal mammograms in women with breast cancer detected at follow-up screening. Radiology 2003; 226: 494–503
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewin J. M., D'Orsi C. J., Hendrick R. E., Moss L. J., Isaacs P. K., Karellas A., et al. Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179: 671–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewin J. M., Hendrick R. E., D'Orsi C. J., Isaacs P. K., Moss L. J., Karellas A., et al. Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology 2001; 218: 873–80
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Obenauer S., Hermann K. P., Marten K., Luftner-Nagel S., von Heyden D., Skaane P., et al. Soft copy versus hard copy reading in digital mammography. J Digit Imaging 2003; 16: 341–4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Riordan E., Bukhanov K., Muradali D., Goldberg F. A comparison of reporting times for analog vs digital mammography. Radiology 2000; 217((P))200
   Google Scholar
• Pisano E. D., Cole E. B., Kistner E. O., Muller K. E., Hemminger B. M., Brown M. L., et al. Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display. Radiology 2002; 223: 483–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skaane P., Skjennald A. Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program – The Oslo II study. Radiology 2004; 232: 197–204
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skaane P., Young K., Skjennald A. Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading – Oslo I study. Radiology 2003; 229: 877–84
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solari M., Berns E. A., Hendrick R. E., Wolfman J. A., Willis W., Segal L., et al. Comparison of interpretation times for screening exams between soft copy full-field digital mammography and hard copy screen-film mammography. Am J Roentgenol 2004; 182 Suppl: 11
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taplin S. H., Ichikawa L. E., Kerlikowske K., Ernster V. L., Rosenberg R. D., Yankaskas B. C., et al. Concordance of breast imaging reporting and data system assessments and management recommendations in screening mammography. Radiology 2002; 222: 529–35
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thurfjell M. G., Vitak B., Azavedo E., Svane G., Thurfjell E. Effect on sensitivity and specificity of mammography screening with or without comparison of old mammograms. Acta Radiol 2000; 41: 52–6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Dijck J. A. A. M., Verbeek A. L. M., Hendriks J. H. C. L., Holland R. The current detectability of breast cancer in a mammographic screening program. A review of the previous mammograms of interval and screen-detected cancers. Cancer 1993; 72: 1933–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wedekind N., Roelofs T., van Woudenberg S., Beck C., Del Turco M. R., Evertsz C. J. Impact of training on softcopy reading of full field digital mammograms: a study from the European Screen-trial project. Radiology 2003; 229((P))436
   Google Scholar
• Yankaskas B. C., Cleveland R. J., Schell M. J., Kozar R. Association of recall rates with sensitivity and positive predictive values of screening mammography. Am J Roentgenol 2001; 177: 543–9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar