Literature DB >> 10430120

Outcome analysis for women undergoing annual versus biennial screening mammography: a review of 24,211 examinations.

K A Hunt1, E L Rosen, E A Sickles.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to determine differences in outcome measures between women undergoing annual versus biennial screening mammography.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data on 24,211 consecutive screening mammography examinations was performed in women aged 40-79 years, all of whom had undergone previous normal screening mammography. Annual screening and biennial screening were defined as examinations performed 10-14 months and 22-26 months, respectively, after previous normal screening mammography. The rates of recall, biopsy, cancer detection, and interval cancer for annual and biennial screening cohorts were calculated, as were tumor size, lymph node status, and stage of invasive cancer. Interval cancer cases were identified by linkage with a regional tumor registry.
RESULTS: Of the 4306 biennially screened women, 160 were recalled (3.7%), 45 were biopsied (1.0%), and cancer was detected in 19 (0.44%). Of the 19,905 annually screened women, 518 were recalled (2.6%), 150 were biopsied (0.75%), and cancer was detected in 71 (0.36%). Of the 3278 registry-linked biennially screened women, five had interval cancer (0.15%); of the 15,031 registry-linked annually screened women, 10 had interval cancer (0.07%). For biennial screening-detected cancer and interval invasive cancer combined, the median tumor size was 15 mm, 24% had lymph node metastasis, and 29% were stage 2 or higher. For annual screening-detected cancer, these measures were 11 mm, 14% positive nodes, and 17% stage 2+ cancer, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Annual screening mammography results in lower recall rates than does biennial screening (p < .0001). Moreover, annual screening results in the detection of smaller tumors that have a more favorable prognosis (p = .04).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10430120     DOI: 10.2214/ajr.173.2.10430120

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  9 in total

1.  Modelling the cumulative risk of a false-positive screening test.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Diana L Miglioretti; Robert A Smith
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2010-03-31       Impact factor: 3.021

2.  Mammography Screening Among the Elderly: A Research Challenge.

Authors:  Maureen Sanderson; Robert S Levine; Mary K Fadden; Barbara Kilbourne; Maria Pisu; Van Cain; Baqar A Husaini; Michael Langston; Lisa Gittner; Roger Zoorob; George S Rust; Charles H Hennekens
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2015-07-11       Impact factor: 4.965

3.  Measuring sustained mammography use by urban African-American women.

Authors:  Amanda L Greene; Celeste M Torio; Ann C Klassen
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2005-08

4.  Prediction of higher mortality reduction for the UK Breast Screening Frequency Trial: a model-based approach on screening intervals.

Authors:  N T van Ravesteyn; E A M Heijnsdijk; G Draisma; H J de Koning
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2011-08-23       Impact factor: 7.640

5.  Design and methods for a randomized clinical trial comparing three outreach efforts to improve screening mammography adherence.

Authors:  Mary E Costanza; Roger Luckmann; Mary Jo White; Milagros C Rosal; Caroline Cranos; George Reed; Robin Clark; Susan Sama; Robert Yood
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2011-06-03       Impact factor: 2.655

6.  Comparison of 1- and 2-year screening intervals for women undergoing screening mammography.

Authors:  E S Wai; Y D'yachkova; I A Olivotto; S Tyldesley; N Phillips; L J Warren; A J Coldman
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2005-03-14       Impact factor: 7.640

7.  Benefits and harms of annual, biennial, or triennial breast cancer mammography screening for women at average risk of breast cancer: a systematic review for the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC).

Authors:  Carlos Canelo-Aybar; Margarita Posso; Nadia Montero; Ivan Solà; Zuleika Saz-Parkinson; Stephen W Duffy; Markus Follmann; Axel Gräwingholt; Paolo Giorgi Rossi; Pablo Alonso-Coello
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2021-11-26       Impact factor: 9.075

8.  Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Breast Cancer Diagnoses.

Authors:  Samantha L Heller
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2021-10-19       Impact factor: 29.146

9.  Misinformation and Facts about Breast Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Daniel B Kopans
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2022-08-09       Impact factor: 3.109

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.