Literature DB >> 10584815

Effect of age and breast density on screening mammograms with false-positive findings.

C D Lehman1, E White, S Peacock, M J Drucker, N Urban.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the effect of breast density and age on screening mammograms with false-positive findings.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study sample was taken from the Washington State Mammography Tumor Registry, which links data from participating radiologists with the Puget Sound Cancer Surveillance System and the Washington State Cancer Registry. Participants (n = 73,247) were women 35 years old and older who underwent screening mammography for which an assessment and a four-category density rating were coded. A total of 46,340 mammograms were sampled to avoid interpreter bias. In this study of false-positive mammograms, only women with no diagnosis of breast cancer within 12 months of the index mammogram were included. Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratios of a false-positive mammogram being associated with each category of breast density or age, adjusting for the other factor as a covariate.
RESULTS: After controlling for breast density, we found that the risk of a false-positive mammogram was not affected by age (p = 27). However, the trend of increasing risk of a false-positive mammogram with increasing breast density was highly significant (p < .001). Women with extremely dense breast tissue were almost two times more likely to have a false-positive mammogram than were women with fatty breast tissue. This effect persisted after controlling for age.
CONCLUSION: Breast density, not age, is an important factor when predicting risk of a false-positive mammogram. Breast density should be considered when educating individual women on the risks and benefits of screening mammography.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10584815     DOI: 10.2214/ajr.173.6.10584815

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


  19 in total

1.  Effect of radiologist experience on the risk of false-positive results in breast cancer screening programs.

Authors:  Raquel Zubizarreta Alberdi; Ana B Fernández Llanes; Raquel Almazán Ortega; Rubén Roman Expósito; Jose M Velarde Collado; Teresa Queiro Verdes; Carmen Natal Ramos; María Ederra Sanz; Dolores Salas Trejo; Xavier Castells Oliveres
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-06-04       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Application of breast tomosynthesis in screening: incremental effect on mammography acquisition and reading time.

Authors:  D Bernardi; S Ciatto; M Pellegrini; V Anesi; S Burlon; E Cauli; M Depaoli; L Larentis; V Malesani; L Targa; P Baldo; N Houssami
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Impact of breast structure on lesion detection in breast tomosynthesis, a simulation study.

Authors:  Nooshin Kiarashi; Loren W Nolte; Joseph Y Lo; W Paul Segars; Sujata V Ghate; Justin B Solomon; Ehsan Samei
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2016-09-13

4.  An investigation into the mammographic appearances of missed breast cancers when recall rates are reduced.

Authors:  Norhashimah Mohd Norsuddin; Claudia Mello-Thoms; Warren Reed; Mary Rickard; Sarah Lewis
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-06-16       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Standardized uptake values of normal breast tissue with 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D: -glucose positron emission tomography: variations with age, breast density, and menopausal status.

Authors:  Rakesh Kumar; Anil Chauhan; Hongming Zhuang; Prem Chandra; Mitchell Schnall; Abass Alavi
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2006 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.488

6.  Ultrasound as the Primary Screening Test for Breast Cancer: Analysis From ACRIN 6666.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg; Andriy I Bandos; Ellen B Mendelson; Daniel Lehrer; Roberta A Jong; Etta D Pisano
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2015-12-28       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Association between Breast Parenchymal Complexity and False-Positive Recall From Digital Mammography Versus Breast Tomosynthesis: Preliminary Investigation in the ACRIN PA 4006 Trial.

Authors:  Shonket Ray; Lin Chen; Brad M Keller; Jinbo Chen; Emily F Conant; Despina Kontos
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2016-05-25       Impact factor: 3.173

8.  A novel functional infrared imaging system coupled with multiparametric computerised analysis for risk assessment of breast cancer.

Authors:  Tamar Sella; Miri Sklair-Levy; Maya Cohen; Mona Rozin; Myra Shapiro-Feinberg; Tanir M Allweis; Eugene Libson; David Izhaky
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-12-06       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Comparison of the screening practices of unaffected noncarriers under 40 and between 40 and 49 in BRCA1/2 families.

Authors:  Christelle Duprez; Véronique Christophe; Isabelle Milhabet; Aurélie Krzeminski; Claude Adenis; Pascaline Berthet; Jean-Philippe Peyrat; Philippe Vennin
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-01-25       Impact factor: 2.537

10.  Screen-detected versus interval cancers: Effect of imaging modality and breast density in the Flemish Breast Cancer Screening Programme.

Authors:  Lore Timmermans; Luc Bleyen; Klaus Bacher; Koen Van Herck; Kim Lemmens; Chantal Van Ongeval; Andre Van Steen; Patrick Martens; Isabel De Brabander; Mathieu Goossens; Hubert Thierens
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-03-13       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.