Literature DB >> 12117183

Screening mammography: proven benefit, continued controversy.

Carol H Lee1.   

Abstract

Screening mammography, despite its limitations, remains the best means for diagnosing breast cancer in asymptomatic women. Regarding the continuing controversies concerning the age at which screening should start, evidence supports beginning regular screening at age 40 in women at average risk . Similarly, evidence suggests that the screening interval should be yearly, especially in younger women. Rather than an arbitrary age at which screening should stop, the decision on screening elderly women should be made on an individual basis, taking into account level of health and life expectancy. More work needs to be done on determining the optimum screening strategies for high-risk women. As to the interpretation of screening mammography, a certain level of observer variability and of false-negative and false-positive readings are inherent in the process. These should be kept to a minimum through efforts by the interpreting radiologist to improve performance through auditing of individual results and continuing education. The impact of double reading and computer-aided detection in the interpretation of screening mammograms warrants further evaluation in terms of efficacy and cost-effectiveness. Despite these continuing controversies, mortality from breast cancer in the United States has been decreasing steadily for the past 25 years. The magnitude of the decrease has been reported to range from 8% to 25%. Although some of this decrease may be attributable to improvements in the treatment of breast cancer, early detection through screening mammography has undoubtedly played a role in this mortality reduction. The controversies that surround the issue of screening should not detract from the fact that screening mammography has proved to save lives.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12117183     DOI: 10.1016/s0033-8389(01)00015-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am        ISSN: 0033-8389            Impact factor:   2.303


  11 in total

1.  Computer-aided classification of breast masses: performance and interobserver variability of expert radiologists versus residents.

Authors:  Swatee Singh; Jeff Maxwell; Jay A Baker; Jennifer L Nicholas; Joseph Y Lo
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-10-22       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 2.  Breast ultrasound image segmentation: a survey.

Authors:  Qinghua Huang; Yaozhong Luo; Qiangzhi Zhang
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2017-01-09       Impact factor: 2.924

3.  Personalizing mammography by breast density and other risk factors for breast cancer: analysis of health benefits and cost-effectiveness.

Authors:  John T Schousboe; Karla Kerlikowske; Andrew Loh; Steven R Cummings
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-07-05       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Breast cancer stage at diagnosis and geographic access to mammography screening (New Hampshire, 1998-2004).

Authors:  Maria O Celaya; Ethan M Berke; Tracy L Onega; Jiang Gui; Bruce L Riddle; Sai S Cherala; Judy R Rees
Journal:  Rural Remote Health       Date:  2010-04-23       Impact factor: 1.759

5.  Patient Navigation Can Improve Breast Cancer Outcomes among African American Women in Chicago: Insights from a Modeling Study.

Authors:  Aditya S Khanna; Bryan Brickman; Michael Cronin; Nyahne Q Bergeron; John R Scheel; Joseph Hibdon; Elizabeth A Calhoun; Karriem S Watson; Shaila M Strayhorn; Yamilé Molina
Journal:  J Urban Health       Date:  2022-08-08       Impact factor: 5.801

6.  Assessing the Effectiveness of Breast Cancer Education Workshops among Samoan and Pacific Islander Women in Southern California.

Authors:  Dorothy Etimani Schmidt-Vaivao; Genesis Lutu; Alisi Tulua-Tata; Marion Hannemann; Diana M Tisnado
Journal:  Calif J Health Promot       Date:  2010-12

Review 7.  Breast cancer: new technologies for risk assessment and diagnosis.

Authors:  Tracey Wright; Adam McGechan
Journal:  Mol Diagn       Date:  2003

8.  Identifying geographic disparities in the early detection of breast cancer using a geographic information system.

Authors:  Jane A McElroy; Patrick L Remington; Ronald E Gangnon; Luxme Hariharan; LeAnn D Andersen
Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis       Date:  2005-12-15       Impact factor: 2.830

9.  Comparative Multifractal Analysis of Dynamic Infrared Thermograms and X-Ray Mammograms Enlightens Changes in the Environment of Malignant Tumors.

Authors:  Evgeniya Gerasimova-Chechkina; Brian Toner; Zach Marin; Benjamin Audit; Stephane G Roux; Francoise Argoul; Andre Khalil; Olga Gileva; Oleg Naimark; Alain Arneodo
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2016-08-09       Impact factor: 4.566

10.  Clinical image evaluation of film mammograms in Korea: comparison with the ACR standard.

Authors:  Yeon Joo Gwak; Hye Jung Kim; Jin Young Kwak; Eun Ju Son; Kyung Hee Ko; Jin Hwa Lee; Hyo Soon Lim; You Jin Lee; Ji Won Park; Kyung Min Shin; Yun-Jin Jang
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2013-08-30       Impact factor: 3.500

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.