Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26105023›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2016

Breast cancer detection rates using four different types of mammography detectors.

Alistair Mackenzie, Lucy M Warren, Matthew G Wallis, Julie Cooke, Rosalind M Given-Wilson, David R Dance, Dev P Chakraborty, Mark D Halling-Brown, Padraig T Looney, Kenneth C Young

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The relationship between cancer detection in mammography and image quality measurements.Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics (AIFB) · 2016
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Alistair MackenzieNational Coordinating Centre for the Physics in Mammography (NCCPM), Level B, St Luke's Wing, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, GU2 7XX, UK. alistairmackenzie@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4545-8018
Lucy M WarrenNational Coordinating Centre for the Physics in Mammography (NCCPM), Level B, St Luke's Wing, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, GU2 7XX, UK.
Matthew G WallisCambridge Breast Unit, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge & NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, UK.
Julie CookeJarvis Breast Screening and Diagnostic Centre, Guildford, UK.
Rosalind M Given-WilsonDepartment of Radiology, St George's Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
David R DanceNational Coordinating Centre for the Physics in Mammography (NCCPM), Level B, St Luke's Wing, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, GU2 7XX, UK.
Dev P ChakrabortyDepartment of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Mark D Halling-BrownScientific Computing, Department of Medical Physics, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK.
Padraig T LooneyNational Coordinating Centre for the Physics in Mammography (NCCPM), Level B, St Luke's Wing, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, GU2 7XX, UK.
Kenneth C YoungNational Coordinating Centre for the Physics in Mammography (NCCPM), Level B, St Luke's Wing, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, GU2 7XX, UK.
Royal Surrey County Hospital · GBCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBSt George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Pittsburgh · US

Funding

Observer Studies Involving Search: Modeling and AnalysisR01EB005243 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI CHAKRABORTY, DEV P · 2005 to 2013
$2.9M
Cancer Research UK 17321Cancer Research UK C30682/A17321NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB005243NIBIB NIH HHS R01-EB005243
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the performance of different types of detectors in breast cancer detection.

methodsA mammography image set containing subtle malignant non-calcification lesions, biopsy-proven benign lesions, simulated malignant calcification clusters and normals was acquired using amorphous-selenium (a-Se) detectors. The images were adapted to simulate four types of detectors at the same radiation dose: digital radiography (DR) detectors with a-Se and caesium iodide (CsI) convertors, and computed radiography (CR) detectors with a powder phosphor (PIP) and a needle phosphor (NIP). Seven observers marked suspicious and benign lesions. Analysis was undertaken using jackknife alternative free-response receiver operating characteristics weighted figure of merit (FoM). The cancer detection fraction (CDF) was estimated for a representative image set from screening.

resultsNo significant differences in the FoMs between the DR detectors were measured. For calcification clusters and non-calcification lesions, both CR detectors' FoMs were significantly lower than for DR detectors. The calcification cluster's FoM for CR NIP was significantly better than for CR PIP. The estimated CDFs with CR PIP and CR NIP detectors were up to 15% and 22% lower, respectively, than for DR detectors.

conclusionCancer detection is affected by detector type, and the use of CR in mammography should be reconsidered. KEY POINTS: The type of mammography detector can affect the cancer detection rates. CR detectors performed worse than DR detectors in mammography. Needle phosphor CR performed better than powder phosphor CR. Calcification clusters detection is more sensitive to detector type than other cancers.

Indexed as

AgedBreast NeoplasmsCalcinosisEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMammographyMass ScreeningMiddle AgedNeedlesObserver VariationRadiographic Image EnhancementROC CurveBreast cancer screeningComputed radiographyDigital mammographyImage qualityObserver study

Identifiers

PMID26105023
PMCPMC4691226
OpenAlexW826758417

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.