Posted on October 28, 2011 Updated on December 7, 2011
This entry was posted in Positioning- Lower Limmb.
Wow, great blog.Thanks Again. Really Cool.
Commercial snow removal Valparaiso, Indiana
I am so grateful for your article post.Really looking forward to read more. Really Cool.
snow removal Valparaiso IN
Great article. Cool.
A big thank you for your blog post.Really thank you! Cool.
Very neat article post.Really thank you! Keep writing.
computer repair lexington sc
Thanks-a-mundo for the blog.Really looking forward to read more. Really Great.
Wow, great blog. Really Cool.
I really enjoy the blog.Really looking forward to read more. Awesome.
wireless presentation system
Awesome blog. Fantastic.
how to get rid of spots
Muchos Gracias for your article post.Really thank you! Fantastic.
I cannot thank you enough for the blog article.Thanks Again. Will read on…
Thanks for the blog post.Really looking forward to read more.
create a budget
Very good article.Much thanks again. Great.
orologi rolex replica
Major thankies for the article. Cool.
best tablets 2013
I want to start a blog on myyearbook but i cant locate the box on my profile.. I have made sure i’ve checked the box to show my latest blog in the manage profile boxes section.. But it still wont show up.. Please help.. Is there any other way to star…
Purpose: To evaluate the effect of comparison mammograms on accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV1), and cancer detection rate (CDR) of screening mammography to determine the role played by identification of change on comparison mammograms.
Materials and Methods: This HIPAA-compliant and institutional review board–approved prospective study was performed with waiver of patient informed consent. A total of 1 157 980 screening mammograms obtained between 1994 and 2008 in 435 183 women aged at least 40 years were included. Radiologists recorded presence of comparison mammograms and change, if seen. Women were followed for 1 year to monitor cancer occurrence. Performance measurements were calculated for screening with comparison mammograms versus screening without comparison mammograms and for screening with comparison mammograms that showed a change versus screening with comparison mammograms that did not show a change while controlling for age, breast density, and data clustering.
Results: Comparison mammograms were available in 93% of examinations. For screening with comparison mammograms versus screening without comparison mammograms, CDR per 1000 women was 3.7 versus 7.1; recall rate, 6.9% versus 14.9%; sensitivity, 78.9% versus 87.4%; specificity, 93.5% versus 85.7%; and PPV1, 5.4% versus 4.8%. For screening with comparison mammograms that showed a change versus screening with comparison mammograms that did not show a change, CDR per 1000 women was 25.4 versus 0.8; recall rate, 41.4% versus 2.0%; sensitivity, 96.6% versus 43.5%; specificity, 60.4% versus 98.1%; and PPV1, 6.0% versus 3.9%. Detected cancers with change were 21.1% ductal carcinoma in situ and 78.9% invasive carcinoma. Detected cancers with no change were 19.3% ductal carcinoma in situ and 80.7% invasive carcinoma.
Conclusion: Performance is affected when change from comparison mammograms is noted. Without change, sensitivity is low and specificity is high. With change, sensitivity is high, with a high false-positive rate (low specificity). Further work is needed to appreciate changes that might indicate cancer and to identify changes that are likely not indicative of cancer.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google+ account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.