Literature DB >> 10880551

Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers.

M T Mandelson1, N Oestreicher, P L Porter, D White, C A Finder, S H Taplin, E White.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Screening mammography is the best method to reduce mortality from breast cancer, yet some breast cancers cannot be detected by mammography. Cancers diagnosed after a negative mammogram are known as interval cancers. This study investigated whether mammographic breast density is related to the risk of interval cancer.
METHODS: Subjects were selected from women participating in mammographic screening from 1988 through 1993 in a large health maintenance organization based in Seattle, WA. Women were eligible for the study if they had been diagnosed with a first primary invasive breast cancer within 24 months of a screening mammogram and before a subsequent one. Interval cancer case subjects (n = 149) were women whose breast cancer occurred after a negative or benign mammographic assessment. Screen-detected control subjects (n = 388) were diagnosed after a positive screening mammogram. One radiologist, who was blinded to cancer status, assessed breast density by use of the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System.
RESULTS: Mammographic sensitivity (i.e., the ability of mammography to detect a cancer) was 80% among women with predominantly fatty breasts but just 30% in women with extremely dense breasts. The odds ratio (OR) for interval cancer among women with extremely dense breasts was 6.14 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.95-19.4), compared with women with extremely fatty breasts, after adjustment for age at index mammogram, menopausal status, use of hormone replacement therapy, and body mass index. When only those interval cancer cases confirmed by retrospective review of index mammograms were considered, the OR increased to 9.47 (95% CI = 2.78-32.3).
CONCLUSION: Mammographic breast density appears to be a major risk factor for interval cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10880551     DOI: 10.1093/jnci/92.13.1081

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  255 in total

Review 1.  Clinical and epidemiological issues in mammographic density.

Authors:  Valentina Assi; Jane Warwick; Jack Cuzick; Stephen W Duffy
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-12-06       Impact factor: 66.675

2.  Interpreting hemoglobin and water concentration, oxygen saturation, and scattering measured in vivo by near-infrared breast tomography.

Authors:  Subhadra Srinivasan; Brian W Pogue; Shudong Jiang; Hamid Dehghani; Christine Kogel; Sandra Soho; Jennifer J Gibson; Tor D Tosteson; Steven P Poplack; Keith D Paulsen
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2003-09-26       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Automatic classification of mammography reports by BI-RADS breast tissue composition class.

Authors:  Bethany Percha; Houssam Nassif; Jafi Lipson; Elizabeth Burnside; Daniel Rubin
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2012-01-29       Impact factor: 4.497

4.  Local curvature analysis for classifying breast tumors: Preliminary analysis in dedicated breast CT.

Authors:  Juhun Lee; Robert M Nishikawa; Ingrid Reiser; John M Boone; Karen K Lindfors
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Earlier detection of breast cancer with ultrasound molecular imaging in a transgenic mouse model.

Authors:  Sunitha V Bachawal; Kristin C Jensen; Amelie M Lutz; Sanjiv S Gambhir; Francois Tranquart; Lu Tian; Jürgen K Willmann
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2013-01-17       Impact factor: 12.701

6.  Breast tissue characterization with photon-counting spectral CT imaging: a postmortem breast study.

Authors:  Huanjun Ding; Michael J Klopfer; Justin L Ducote; Fumitaro Masaki; Sabee Molloi
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-05-07       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 7.  State of the art of current modalities for the diagnosis of breast lesions.

Authors:  Cosimo Di Maggio
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2004-04-15       Impact factor: 9.236

8.  The significance of circumscribed malignant mammographic masses in the surveillance of BRCA 1/2 gene mutation carriers.

Authors:  R Kaas; R Kroger; J H C L Hendriks; A P E Besnard; W Koops; F A Pameijer; W Prevoo; C E Loo; S H Muller
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2004-04-09       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Quantitative assessment of in vivo breast masses using ultrasound attenuation and backscatter.

Authors:  Kibo Nam; James A Zagzebski; Timothy J Hall
Journal:  Ultrason Imaging       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 1.578

10.  Influence of personal characteristics of individual women on sensitivity and specificity of mammography in the Million Women Study: cohort study.

Authors:  Emily Banks; Gillian Reeves; Valerie Beral; Diana Bull; Barbara Crossley; Moya Simmonds; Elizabeth Hilton; Stephen Bailey; Nigel Barrett; Peter Briers; Ruth English; Alan Jackson; Elizabeth Kutt; Janet Lavelle; Linda Rockall; Matthew G Wallis; Mary Wilson; Julietta Patnick
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-08-28
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.