Literature DB >> 14965658

The comparative sensitivity of mammography and ultrasound in women with breast symptoms: an age-specific analysis.

N Houssami1, S Ciatto, L Irwig, J M Simpson, P Macaskill.   

Abstract

Despite its importance for clinical policy, there is little research on the age at which ultrasound or mammography is the preferred initial diagnostic test in women with breast symptoms. We analysed data from a series of 3799 consecutively presenting cancers. The overall sensitivity was 77.6% for mammography and 80.5% for ultrasound. Sensitivity increased with age in both mammography and ultrasound, though more steeply for mammography. In the 975 women who had both tests, ultrasound had a higher sensitivity than mammography in women younger than 62 years of age, whereas mammography had a higher sensitivity than ultrasound in women older than 62 years. However, if the test results of the 2393 women who had mammography only are compared with the ultrasound results of the 975 women who had both tests, the 'cross-over' age at which the sensitivity of the two tests is equal occurs at the earlier age of 48 years. The presence of a palpable finding increases the sensitivity of ultrasound but does not influence the sensitivity of mammography.

Entities:  

Year:  2002        PMID: 14965658     DOI: 10.1054/brst.2001.0391

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast        ISSN: 0960-9776            Impact factor:   4.380


  8 in total

1.  Design-related bias in estimates of accuracy when comparing imaging tests: examples from breast imaging research.

Authors:  Nehmat Houssami; Stefano Ciatto
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists.

Authors:  William E Barlow; Chen Chi; Patricia A Carney; Stephen H Taplin; Carl D'Orsi; Gary Cutter; R Edward Hendrick; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2004-12-15       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic imaging in symptomatic breast patients: team and individual performance.

Authors:  P Britton; J Warwick; M G Wallis; S O'Keeffe; K Taylor; R Sinnatamby; S Barter; M Gaskarth; S W Duffy; G C Wishart
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-01-11       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Three-dimensional sonographic study of breast nodules.

Authors:  T Abbattista; L Serri; P Busilacchi
Journal:  J Ultrasound       Date:  2007-06-07

5.  Breast cancer in young women in Ibadan, Nigeria.

Authors:  Atara Ntekim; F T Nufu; O B Campbell
Journal:  Afr Health Sci       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 0.927

6.  Artificial intelligence system reduces false-positive findings in the interpretation of breast ultrasound exams.

Authors:  Yiqiu Shen; Farah E Shamout; Jamie R Oliver; Jan Witowski; Kawshik Kannan; Jungkyu Park; Nan Wu; Connor Huddleston; Stacey Wolfson; Alexandra Millet; Robin Ehrenpreis; Divya Awal; Cathy Tyma; Naziya Samreen; Yiming Gao; Chloe Chhor; Stacey Gandhi; Cindy Lee; Sheila Kumari-Subaiya; Cindy Leonard; Reyhan Mohammed; Christopher Moczulski; Jaime Altabet; James Babb; Alana Lewin; Beatriu Reig; Linda Moy; Laura Heacock; Krzysztof J Geras
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2021-09-24       Impact factor: 17.694

7.  Ultrasound evaluation of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.

Authors:  Marco Moschetta; Angela Sardaro; Adriana Nitti; Michele Telegrafo; Nicola Maggialetti; Arnaldo Scardapane; Maria Chiara Brunese; Valentina Lavelli; Cristina Ferrari
Journal:  J Ultrasound       Date:  2021-01-06

8.  Promoter hypermethylation of the tumor-suppressor genes ITIH5, DKK3, and RASSF1A as novel biomarkers for blood-based breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Vera Kloten; Birte Becker; Kirsten Winner; Michael G Schrauder; Peter A Fasching; Tobias Anzeneder; Jürgen Veeck; Arndt Hartmann; Ruth Knüchel; Edgar Dahl
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2013-01-15       Impact factor: 6.466

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.