OBJECTIVES: To examine how lifestyle, hormonal, and other factors influence the sensitivity and specificity of mammography. METHODS: Women recruited into the Million Women Study completed a questionnaire about various personal factors before routine mammographic screening. A sample of 122,355 women aged 50-64 years were followed for outcome of screening and incident breast cancer in the next 12 months. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated by using standard definitions, with adjustment for potential confounding factors. RESULTS: Breast cancer was diagnosed in 726 (0.6%) women, 629 in screen positive and 97 in screen negative women; 3885 (3.2%) were screen positive but had no subsequent diagnosis of breast cancer. Overall sensitivity was 86.6% and specificity was 96.8%. Three factors had an adverse effect on both measures: use of hormone replacement therapy (sensitivity: 83.0% (95% confidence interval 77.4% to 87.6%), 84.7% (73.9% to 91.6%), and 92.1% (87.6% to 95.0%); specificity: 96.8% (96.6% to 97.0%), 97.8% (97.5% to 98.0%), and 98.1% (98.0% to 98.2%), respectively, for current, past, and never use); previous breast surgery v no previous breast surgery (sensitivity: 83.5% (75.7% to 89.1%) v 89.4% (86.5% to 91.8%); specificity: 96.2% (95.8% to 96.5%) v 97.4% (97.3% to 97.5%), respectively); and body mass index < 25 v > or = 25 (sensitivity: 85.7% (81.2% to 89.3%) v 91.0% (87.5% to 93.6%); specificity: 97.2% (97.0% to 97.3%) v 97.4% (97.3% to 97.6%), respectively). Neither sensitivity nor specificity varied significantly according to age, family history of breast cancer, parity, past oral contraceptive use, tubal ligation, physical activity, smoking, or alcohol consumption. CONCLUSIONS: The efficiency, and possibly the effectiveness, of mammographic screening is lower in users of hormone replacement therapy, in women with previous breast surgery, and in thin women compared with other women.
OBJECTIVES: To examine how lifestyle, hormonal, and other factors influence the sensitivity and specificity of mammography. METHODS:Women recruited into the Million Women Study completed a questionnaire about various personal factors before routine mammographic screening. A sample of 122,355 women aged 50-64 years were followed for outcome of screening and incident breast cancer in the next 12 months. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated by using standard definitions, with adjustment for potential confounding factors. RESULTS:Breast cancer was diagnosed in 726 (0.6%) women, 629 in screen positive and 97 in screen negative women; 3885 (3.2%) were screen positive but had no subsequent diagnosis of breast cancer. Overall sensitivity was 86.6% and specificity was 96.8%. Three factors had an adverse effect on both measures: use of hormone replacement therapy (sensitivity: 83.0% (95% confidence interval 77.4% to 87.6%), 84.7% (73.9% to 91.6%), and 92.1% (87.6% to 95.0%); specificity: 96.8% (96.6% to 97.0%), 97.8% (97.5% to 98.0%), and 98.1% (98.0% to 98.2%), respectively, for current, past, and never use); previous breast surgery v no previous breast surgery (sensitivity: 83.5% (75.7% to 89.1%) v 89.4% (86.5% to 91.8%); specificity: 96.2% (95.8% to 96.5%) v 97.4% (97.3% to 97.5%), respectively); and body mass index < 25 v > or = 25 (sensitivity: 85.7% (81.2% to 89.3%) v 91.0% (87.5% to 93.6%); specificity: 97.2% (97.0% to 97.3%) v 97.4% (97.3% to 97.6%), respectively). Neither sensitivity nor specificity varied significantly according to age, family history of breast cancer, parity, past oral contraceptive use, tubal ligation, physical activity, smoking, or alcohol consumption. CONCLUSIONS: The efficiency, and possibly the effectiveness, of mammographic screening is lower in users of hormone replacement therapy, in women with previous breast surgery, and in thin women compared with other women.
Authors: E Banks; G Reeves; V Beral; D Bull; B Crossley; M Simmonds; E Hilton; S Bailey; N Barrett; P Briers; R English; A Jackson; E Kutt; J Lavelle; L Rockall; M G Wallis; M Wilson Journal: J Med Screen Date: 2002 Impact factor: 2.136
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: 2004-05-29
Authors: B L de Stavola; I H Gravelle; D Y Wang; D S Allen; R D Bulbrook; I S Fentiman; J L Hayward; M C Chaudary Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 1990-06 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: P L Porter; A Y El-Bastawissi; M T Mandelson; M G Lin; N Khalid; E A Watney; L Cousens; D White; S Taplin; E White Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1999-12-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: G A Greendale; B A Reboussin; A Sie; H R Singh; L K Olson; O Gatewood; L W Bassett; C Wasilauskas; T Bush; E Barrett-Connor Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1999-02-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: R D Rosenberg; W C Hunt; M R Williamson; F D Gilliland; P W Wiest; C A Kelsey; C R Key; M N Linver Journal: Radiology Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Brian L Sprague; Ronald E Gangnon; John M Hampton; Kathleen M Egan; Linda J Titus; Karla Kerlikowske; Patrick L Remington; Polly A Newcomb; Amy Trentham-Dietz Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2015-05-05 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Annie Tang; Caitlin M Cohan; Keith S Hansen; Genna Beattie; Heather I Greenwood; Rita A Mukhtar Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-03-27 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Stephen H Taplin; L Abraham; B M Geller; B C Yankaskas; D S M Buist; R Smith-Bindman; C Lehman; D Weaver; P A Carney; W E Barlow Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2010-07-02 Impact factor: 13.506
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
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
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: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2005-12-23 Impact factor: 6.466