Literature DB >> 15159273

The association between obesity and screening mammography accuracy.

Joann G Elmore1, Patricia A Carney, Linn A Abraham, William E Barlow, Joseph R Egger, Jessica S Fosse, Gary R Cutter, R Edward Hendrick, Carl J D'Orsi, Prashni Paliwal, Stephen H Taplin.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Obesity is increasing among American women, especially as they age. The influence of obesity on the accuracy of screening mammography has not been studied extensively.
METHODS: We analyzed 100 622 screening mammography examinations performed on members of a nonprofit health plan. The relationship between body mass index (weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters) and measures of screening accuracy was assessed. Body mass index was categorized as underweight or normal weight (<25), overweight (25-29), obesity class I (30-34), and obesity classes II to III (> or =35).
RESULTS: Compared with underweight or normal weight women, overweight and obese women were more likely to be recalled for additional tests after adjusting for important covariates, including age and breast density (overweight odds ratio [OR], 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.23); obesity class I OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.19-1.35; obesity classes II-III OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.22-1.41). As body mass index increased, women were more likely to have lower specificity (overweight OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.81-0.90; obesity class I OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.74-0.84; and obesity classes II-III OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.71-0.82). No statistically significant differences were noted in sensitivity. Adjusted receiver operating characteristic analysis showed statistically significant improvement in the area under the curve (AUC) for underweight or normal weight women (AUC = 0.941) vs overweight women (AUC = 0.916, P =.02) and underweight or normal weight women vs obesity classes II and III women (AUC = 0.904, P =.02).
CONCLUSIONS: Obese women had more than a 20% increased risk of having false-positive mammography results compared with underweight and normal weight women, although sensitivity was unchanged. Achieving a normal weight may improve screening mammography performance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15159273      PMCID: PMC3143016          DOI: 10.1001/archinte.164.10.1140

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-9926


  26 in total

Review 1.  Update in women's health.

Authors:  J M Walsh; N C Dolan; P Charney; M R Gillock; D A Cramer; P T Kefalides
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2000-11-21       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Performance comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography in clinical practice.

Authors:  Eric A Berns; R Edward Hendrick; Gary R Cutter
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography.

Authors:  Virginia L Ernster; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; William E Barlow; Yingye Zheng; Donald L Weaver; Gary Cutter; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Robert Rosenberg; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Stephen H Taplin; Nicole Urban; Berta M Geller
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2002-10-16       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Body weight and cancer screening among women.

Authors:  K R Fontaine; M Heo; D B Allison
Journal:  J Womens Health Gend Based Med       Date:  2001-06

5.  Screening mammography: clinical image quality and the risk of interval breast cancer.

Authors:  Stephen H Taplin; Carolyn M Rutter; Charles Finder; Margaret T Mandelson; Florence Houn; Emily White
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  The process of restructuring and the treatment of obesity in women.

Authors:  L M Hayward; C Nixon; M P Jasper; K M Murphy; V Harlan; L Swirda; K Hayward
Journal:  Health Care Women Int       Date:  2000 Oct-Nov

7.  Mammography in 53,803 women from the New Hampshire mammography network.

Authors:  S P Poplack; A N Tosteson; M R Grove; W A Wells; P A Carney
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Mammography diffusion and trends in late-stage breast cancer: evaluating outcomes in a population.

Authors:  S H Taplin; M T Mandelson; C Anderman; E White; R S Thompson; D Timlin; E H Wagner
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  Screening mammograms by community radiologists: variability in false-positive rates.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Diana L Miglioretti; Lisa M Reisch; Mary B Barton; William Kreuter; Cindy L Christiansen; Suzanne W Fletcher
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2002-09-18       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Factors associated with interval adherence to mammography screening in a population-based sample of New Hampshire women.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Beth G Harwood; Julie E Weiss; M Scottie Eliassen; Martha E Goodrich
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2002-07-15       Impact factor: 6.860

View more
  23 in total

1.  The impact of obesity on follow-up after an abnormal screening mammogram.

Authors:  Ellen A Schur; Joann E Elmore; Tracy Onega; Karen J Wernli; Edward A Sickles; Sebastien Haneuse
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2011-12-05       Impact factor: 4.254

2.  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

3.  The influence of statin use on breast density.

Authors:  Denise M Boudreau; Carolyn M Rutter; Diana S M Buist
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 4.254

4.  Variation in tumor natural history contributes to racial disparities in breast cancer stage at diagnosis.

Authors:  Nataliya G Batina; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Ronald E Gangnon; Brian L Sprague; Marjorie A Rosenberg; Natasha K Stout; Dennis G Fryback; Oguzhan Alagoz
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2013-02-16       Impact factor: 4.872

5.  Radiation-Induced Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality From Digital Mammography Screening: A Modeling Study.

Authors:  Diana L Miglioretti; Jane Lange; Jeroen J van den Broek; Christoph I Lee; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Dominique Ritley; Karla Kerlikowske; Joshua J Fenton; Joy Melnikow; Harry J de Koning; Rebecca A Hubbard
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 25.391

6.  Feasibility and satisfaction with a tailored web-based audit intervention for recalibrating radiologists' thresholds for conducting additional work-up.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Edward A Sickles; Diana L Miglioretti; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Linn Abraham; Stephen A Feig; David Brown; Andrea J Cook; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2010-12-30       Impact factor: 3.173

7.  Race-specific impact of natural history, mammography screening, and adjuvant treatment on breast cancer mortality rates in the United States.

Authors:  Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Clyde B Schechter; Aimee M Near; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Michael A Stoto; Gerrit Draisma; Harry J de Koning; Jeanne S Mandelblatt
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2010-11-30       Impact factor: 4.254

8.  Evaluation and outcomes of women with a breast lump and a normal mammogram result.

Authors:  Jennifer S Haas; Celia P Kaplan; Phyllis Brawarsky; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 5.128

9.  Alcohol and Tobacco Use in Relation to Mammographic Density in 23,456 Women.

Authors:  Laurel A Habel; Weiva Sieh; Russell B McBride; Kezhen Fei; Joseph H Rothstein; Stacey E Alexeeff; Xiaoyu Song; Lori C Sakoda; Valerie McGuire; Ninah Achacoso; Luana Acton; Rhea Y Liang; Jafi A Lipson; Martin J Yaffe; Daniel L Rubin; Alice S Whittemore
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2020-02-17       Impact factor: 4.254

10.  Body mass index, tumor characteristics, and prognosis following diagnosis of early-stage breast cancer in a mammographically screened population.

Authors:  Aruna Kamineni; Melissa L Anderson; Emily White; Stephen H Taplin; Peggy Porter; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Kathleen Malone; Diana S M Buist
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2012-12-07       Impact factor: 2.506

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.