Tabla de contenido
GE Healthcare
Revisión 1
Bibliografía
1. National Alliance of Breast Cancer Organizations (NABCO). Facts about breast cancer in the USA.
Puede consultarse en: http://www.nabco.org/index.php/index.php/137, febrero de 2002, acceso el 21
de octubre de 2002..
2. Gotzsche PC, Olsen O. Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable? Lancet
2000;355:129-134.
3. Breast Cancer (PDQ
healthprofessional/, fecha de la última modificación septiembre de 2002, acceso el 16 de octubre de
2002..
4. Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, et al. Breast cancer screening: A summary of the evidence for
the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:347-360.
5. IARC handbooks of cancer prevention: Breast cancer screening, vol. 7. IARC Press; 2002.
6. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography,
physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of the factors that influence them: An analysis of
27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 2002;225:165-175.
7. Yankaskas BC, Cleveland RJ, Schell MJ, et al. Association of recall rates with sensitivity and positive
predictive values of screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;177:543-549.
8. Kerlikowske K, Carney PA, Geller B, et al. Performance of screening mammography among women
with and without a first-degree relative with breast cancer. Ann Intern Med 2000;133:855-863.
9. Bird RE, Wallace TW, Yankaskas BC. Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography.
Radiology 1992;184:613-617.
10. Fletcher SW, Black W, Harris R, et al. Special article: Report of the International Workshop on
Screening for Breast Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85:1644-1656.
11. Goergen SK, Evans J, Cohen GP, et al. Characteristics of breast carcinomas missed by screening
radiologists. Radiology 1997;204:131-135.
12. Robertson CL. A private breast imaging practice: Medical audit of 25,788 screening and 1,077
diagnostic examinations. Radiology 1993;187:75-79.
13. Sickles EA. Auditing your practice. RSNA categorical course in breast imaging. Oak Park, IL:RSNA,
1995:81-91.
14. Anderson ED, Muir BB, Walsh JS, et al. The efficacy of double reading mammograms in breast
screening. Clin Radiol 1994;49:248-251.
15. Anttinen I, Pamilo M, Soiva M, et al. Double reading of mammography screening films: One
radiologist or two? Clin Radiol 1993;48:414-421.
16. Beam C, Sullivan D, Layde P. Effect of human variability on independent double reading in screening
mammography. Acad Radiol 1996;3:891-897.
17. Ciatto S, Del Turco M, Morrone D, et al. Independent double reading of screening mammograms. J
Med Screen 1995;2:99-101.
18. Warren RM, Duffy SW. Comparison of single reading with double reading of mammograms, and
change in effectiveness with experience. Br J Radiol 1995;68:958-962.
19. Brown J, Bryan S, Warren R. Mammography screening: An incremental cost effectiveness analysis
of double versus single reading of mammograms. BMJ 1996;312:809-812.
20. Bird RE. Professional quality assurance for mammographic screening programs. Radiology
1990;177:587.
21. Kopans DB. Breast imaging. 2
®
): Screening. http://cancer.gov/cancerinfo/pdq/screening/breast/
nd
Ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1998:214.
Sistema de SecondLook Digital CAD para Senographe
Manual del operador 5189820-5-C-1ES
página 56
CAD.fm
Tabla de contenido
