Literature DB >> 11103055

Performance of screening mammography among women with and without a first-degree relative with breast cancer.

K Kerlikowske1, P A Carney, B Geller, M T Mandelson, S H Taplin, K Malvin, V Ernster, N Urban, G Cutter, R Rosenberg, R Ballard-Barbash.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although it is recommended that women with a family history of breast cancer begin screening mammography at a younger age than average-risk women, few studies have evaluated the performance of mammography in this group.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of screening mammography in women with a first-degree family history of breast cancer and women of similar age without such history.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional.
SETTING: Mammography registries in California (n = 1), New Hampshire (n = 1), New Mexico (n = 1), Vermont (n = 1), Washington State n = 2), and Colorado (n = 1). PARTICIPANTS: 389 533 women 30 to 69 years of age who were referred for screening mammography from April 1985 to November 1997. MEASUREMENTS: Risk factors for breast cancer; results of first screening examination captured for a woman by a registry; and any invasive cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ identified by linkage to a pathology database, the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program, or a state tumor registry.
RESULTS: The number of cancer cases per 1000 examinations increased with age and was higher in women with a family history of breast cancer than in those without (3.2 vs. 1.6 for ages 30 to 39 years, 4.7 vs. 2.7 for ages 40 to 49 years, 6.6 vs. 4.6 for ages 50 to 59 years, and 9.3 vs. 6.9 for ages 60 to 69 years). The sensitivity of mammography increased significantly with age (P = 0.001 [chi-square test for trend]) in women with a family history and in those without (63.2% [95% CI, 41. 5% to 84.8%] vs. 69.5% [CI, 57.7% to 81.2%] for ages 30 to 39 years, 70.2% [CI, 61.0% to 79.5%] vs. 77.5% [CI, 73.3% to 81.8%] for ages 40 to 49 years, 81.3% [CI, 73.3% to 89.3%] vs. 80.2% [CI, 76.5% to 83.9%] for ages 50 to 59 years, and 83.8% [CI, 76.8% to 90.9%] vs. 87.7% [CI, 84.8% to 90.7%] for ages 60 to 69 years). Sensitivity was similar for each decade of age regardless of family history. The positive predictive value of mammography was higher in women with a family history than in those without (3.7% vs. 2.9%; P = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Cancer detection rates in women who had a first-degree relative with a history of breast cancer were similar to those in women a decade older without such a history. The sensitivity of screening mammography was influenced primarily by age.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11103055     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-133-11-200012050-00009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  56 in total

Review 1.  Evidence based case report: Advice about mammography for a young woman with a family history of breast cancer.

Authors:  A Lucassen; E Watson; D Eccles
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-04-28

2.  Population of 224 realistic human subject-based computational breast phantoms.

Authors:  David W Erickson; Jered R Wells; Gregory M Sturgeon; Ehsan Samei; James T Dobbins; W Paul Segars; Joseph Y Lo
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  The Effect of Budgetary Restrictions on Breast Cancer Diagnostic Decisions.

Authors:  Mehmet U S Ayvaci; Oguzhan Alagoz; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  Manuf Serv Oper Manag       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 7.600

4.  Use of clinical history affects accuracy of interpretive performance of screening mammography.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Andrea J Cook; Diana L Miglioretti; Stephen A Feig; Erin Aiello Bowles; Berta M Geller; Karla Kerlikowske; Mark Kettler; Tracy Onega; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2011-10-15       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: a cohort study.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Karla Kerlikowske; Chris I Flowers; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Weiwei Zhu; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Informed decision making before initiating screening mammography: does it occur and does it make a difference?

Authors:  Larissa Nekhlyudov; Rong Li; Suzanne W Fletcher
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 3.377

7.  Impact of familial risk and mammography screening on prognostic indicators of breast disease among women from the Ontario site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry.

Authors:  Meghan J Walker; Lucia Mirea; Kristine Cooper; Mitra Nabavi; Gord Glendon; Irene L Andrulis; Julia A Knight; Frances P O'Malley; Anna M Chiarelli
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 2.375

8.  Bilateral contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography: feasibility and comparison with conventional digital mammography and MR imaging in women with known breast carcinoma.

Authors:  Maxine S Jochelson; D David Dershaw; Janice S Sung; Alexandra S Heerdt; Cynthia Thornton; Chaya S Moskowitz; Jessica Ferrara; Elizabeth A Morris
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-12-06       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  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

10.  Cancer genetics service interest in women with a limited family history of breast cancer.

Authors:  Tamara J Somers; Julie C Michael; William M P Klein; Andrew Baum
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2009-05-14       Impact factor: 2.537

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.