Literature DB >> 14747501

Effect of breast augmentation on the accuracy of mammography and cancer characteristics.

Diana L Miglioretti1, Carolyn M Rutter, Berta M Geller, Gary Cutter, William E Barlow, Robert Rosenberg, Donald L Weaver, Stephen H Taplin, Rachel Ballard-Barbash, Patricia A Carney, Bonnie C Yankaskas, Karla Kerlikowske.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Breast augmentation is not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer; however, implants may interfere with the detection of breast cancer thereby delaying cancer diagnosis in women with augmentation.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether mammography accuracy and tumor characteristics are different for women with and without augmentation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective cohort of 137 women with augmentation and 685 women without augmentation diagnosed with breast cancer between January 1, 1995, and October 15, 2002, matched (1:5) by age, race/ethnicity, previous mammography screening, and mammography registry, and 10 533 women with augmentation and 974 915 women without augmentation and without breast cancer among 7 mammography registries in Denver, Colo; Lebanon, NH; Albuquerque, NM; Chapel Hill, NC; San Francisco, Calif; Seattle, Wash; and Burlington, Vt. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Comparison between women with and without augmentation of mammography performance measures and cancer characteristics, including invasive carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ, tumor stage, nodal status, size, grade, and estrogen-receptor status.
RESULTS: Among asymptomatic women, the sensitivity of screening mammography based on the final assessment was lower in women with breast augmentation vs women without (45.0% [95% confidence interval [CI], 29.3%-61.5%] vs 66.8% [95% CI, 60.4%-72.8%]; P =.008), and specificity was slightly higher in women with augmentation (97.7% [95% CI, 97.4%-98.0%] vs 96.7% [95% CI, 96.6%-96.7%]; P<.001). Among symptomatic women, both sensitivity and specificity were lower for women with augmentation compared with women without but these differences were not significant. Tumors were of similar stage, size, estrogen-receptor status, and nodal status but tended to be lower grade (P =.052) for women with breast augmentation vs without.
CONCLUSIONS: Breast augmentation decreases the sensitivity of screening mammography among asymptomatic women but does not increase the false-positive rate. Despite the lower accuracy of mammography in women with augmentation, the prognostic characteristics of tumors are not influenced by augmentation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14747501     DOI: 10.1001/jama.291.4.442

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  23 in total

1.  Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography.

Authors:  Joshua J Fenton; Stephen H Taplin; Patricia A Carney; Linn Abraham; Edward A Sickles; Carl D'Orsi; Eric A Berns; Gary Cutter; R Edward Hendrick; William E Barlow; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-04-05       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Accuracy of diagnostic mammography at facilities serving vulnerable women.

Authors:  L Elizabeth Goldman; Rod Walker; Diana L Miglioretti; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  Method of detection and breast cancer survival disparities in Hispanic women.

Authors:  Deirdre A Hill; Andrea Nibbe; Melanie E Royce; Anne Marie Wallace; Huining Kang; Charles L Wiggins; Robert D Rosenberg
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2010-09-14       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 4.  Breast implant illness: a topic in review.

Authors:  Jordan Kaplan; Rod Rohrich
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2021-01

5.  An assessment of the quality of mammography care at facilities treating medically vulnerable populations.

Authors:  L Elizabeth Goldman; Sebastien J-P A Haneuse; Diana L Miglioretti; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Bonnie Yankaskas; Rebecca Smith-Bindman
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  Initial characterization of a dedicated breast PET/CT scanner during human imaging.

Authors:  Spencer L Bowen; Yibao Wu; Abhijit J Chaudhari; Lin Fu; Nathan J Packard; George W Burkett; Kai Yang; Karen K Lindfors; David K Shelton; Rosalie Hagge; Alexander D Borowsky; Steve R Martinez; Jinyi Qi; John M Boone; Simon R Cherry; Ramsey D Badawi
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2009-08-18       Impact factor: 10.057

7.  Variability in interpretive performance at screening mammography and radiologists' characteristics associated with accuracy.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Sara L Jackson; Linn Abraham; Diana L Miglioretti; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske; Tracy Onega; Robert D Rosenberg; Edward A Sickles; Diana S M Buist
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-10-28       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Obesity, mammography use and accuracy, and advanced breast cancer risk.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Rod Walker; Diana L Miglioretti; Arati Desai; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Diana S M Buist
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2008-11-25       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Assessment of Radiologist Performance in Breast Cancer Screening Using Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography.

Authors:  Brian L Sprague; R Yates Coley; Karla Kerlikowske; Garth H Rauscher; Louise M Henderson; Tracy Onega; Christoph I Lee; Sally D Herschorn; Anna N A Tosteson; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2020-03-02

10.  Disparities in the use of screening magnetic resonance imaging of the breast in community practice by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.

Authors:  Jennifer S Haas; Deirdre A Hill; Robert D Wellman; Rebecca A Hubbard; Christoph I Lee; Karen J Wernli; Natasha K Stout; Anna N A Tosteson; Louise M Henderson; Jennifer A Alford-Teaster; Tracy L Onega
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2015-12-28       Impact factor: 6.860

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.