SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of the Turkish-German Gynecological Association / 2010 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 3

Meme kanseri taramasında standart mamografi ile dijital mamografi ve dijital infrared termal görüntülemenin karşılaştırılması

Comparison of standard mammography with digital mammography and digital infrared thermal imaging for breast cancer screening

Nermin KÖŞÜŞ
Aydın KÖŞÜŞ
Serap SİMAVLI
Müzeyyen DURAN
Nilgün TURHAN
Pages
152–157
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Digital mammography (FFDM) and digital infrared thermal imaging (DITI) are some of these alternative modalities.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Breast cancer is the most common malignancy in women.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Despite its recognized value in detecting and characterizing breast disease, mammography has important limitations and its false-negative rate ranges from 4% to 34%.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Digital mammography (FFDM) and digital infrared thermal imaging (DITI) are some of these alternative modalities.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy in women. Screen-film mammography (SFM) has been considered the gold standard for breast cancer screening and detection. Despite its recognized value in detecting and characterizing breast disease, mammography has important limitations and its false-negative rate ranges from 4% to 34%. Given these limitations, development of imaging modalities that would enhance, complement, or replace mammography has been a priority. Digital mammography (FFDM) and digital infrared thermal imaging (DITI) are some of these alternative modalities.

Özet

Meme kanseri kadınlarda görülen en yaygın malignitedir. Mamografi hem tarama hem de saptama bakımından altın standarttır. meme kanserindeki bu değerine rağmen mamografide önemli kısıtlamalar mevcuttur ve yanlış negatiflik oranı %4-34 arasında değişmektedir. Bu kısıtlamalar nedeniyle görüntüleme yönteminin geliştirmek elzem olmuştur. Dijital mamografi ve dijital infrared termal görüntüleme diğer bazı alternatif yöntemlerdir.

🔖

Cite This Article

KÖŞÜŞ, N., KÖŞÜŞ, A., SİMAVLI, S., DURAN, M., TURHAN, N. (2022). Meme kanseri taramasında standart mamografi ile dijital mamografi ve dijital infrared termal görüntülemenin karşılaştırılması. Journal of the Turkish-German Gynecological Association, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 3, 152–157. https://ajindex.com/articles/567809

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Parkin DM, Bray, Ferlay J, Pisani P. Global Cancer Statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin 2005; 55: 74-108
  2. Swan J, Breen N, Coates RJ, Rimer BK, Lee NC. Progress in cancer screening practices in the United States: results from the 2000 National Health Interview Survey. Cancer 2003; 97: 1528-40
  3. Dündar PE, Özmen D, Öztürk B, Haspolat G, Aky×ld×z F, Çoban S, et al. The knowledge and attitudes of breast self-examination and mammography in a group of women in a rural area in western Turkey. BMC Cancer. 2006; 6: 43
  4. Tuncer M. In: Significance of cancer in Turkey, the burden of disease and cancer control policies. Tuncer M, editor. Vol
  5. Cancer Control in Turkey, Ankara, Onur Press, Health Ministry Publication; 2008. pp. 5-9
  6. Statistical analyses of National Breast Cancer Registry Program of Turkish Federation of Breast Societies 2008 Executive summary of the national cancer control programmes: policies and managerial guidelines. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2002
  7. Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P. Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin. 2005; 55: 74-108
  8. Ozmen V. Breast cancer in the World and Turkey. J Breast Health. 2008; 4: 6-12
  9. Bland KI, Menck HR, Scott-Conner CEH, Morrow M, Winchester DJ, Winchester DP. The National Cancer Data Base 10-year survey of breast carcinoma treatment at hospitals in the United States. Cancer 2000; 83: 1262-73
  10. Michaelson JS, Silverstein M, Wyatt J, Weber G, Moore R, Halpern E, et al. Predicting the survival of patients with breast carcinoma using tumor size. Cancer. Aug 15 2002; 95: 713-23
  11. Olsen O, Gotzsche PC. Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet 2001; 358: 1340-2
  12. ACOG. Practice Bulletin (2003) Breast cancer screening. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2003; 81: 313-23
  13. Smith RA, Saslow D, Sawyer KA, Burke W, Costanza ME, Evans WP III, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 2003; 53: 141-69
  14. Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, Woolf SH. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137: 347- 60
  15. Gotzsche PC. Mammographic screening: no reliable supporting evidence? Lancet 2002; 359: 706
  16. Elmore JG, Armstrong K, Lehman CD, Fletcher SW. Screening for breast cancer. J Am Med Assoc 2005; 293: 1245-56
  17. Fischer U, Hermann KP, Baum F. Digital mammography: current state and future aspects. Eur Radiol 2006; 16: