Literature DB >> 15467032

Factors contributing to mammography failure in women aged 40-49 years.

Diana S M Buist1, Peggy L Porter, Constance Lehman, Stephen H Taplin, Emily White.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Younger women (40-49 years) have lower mammographic sensitivity (i.e., greater proportion of cancers detected after a negative mammogram) than older women (> or =50 years). We explored the effect of tumor growth rate, breast density, mammographic image quality, and breast cancer risk factors on mammographic sensitivity in younger and older women.
METHODS: We studied 576 women (n = 73 aged 40-49 years and n = 503 aged 50 years or older) who were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between 1988 and 1993. Interval cancers were defined as those diagnosed within 12 or 24 months after a negative screening mammogram and before a subsequent mammogram. Tumor growth rate was assessed by mitotic figure count and Ki-67 positivity. The main outcome measures were percentage of women with interval cancer (1 -mammographic sensitivity) by age, odds ratio (OR) of interval cancer by age, and excess odds (i.e., the percentage of the odds ratio for age that was explained by individual covariates).
RESULTS: Interval cancers occurred in 27.7% of younger women and 13.9% of older women within 12 months (OR = 2.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.14 to 4.77) and in 52.1% of younger women and 24.7% of older women within 24 months (OR = 3.58, 95% CI = 2.15 to 5.97). Greater breast density explained 67.6% of the decreased mammographic sensitivity in younger women at 12 months, whereas rapid tumor growth explained 30.6% and breast density explained 37.6% of the decreased sensitivity in younger women at 24 months.
CONCLUSIONS: Breast density largely explained decreased mammographic sensitivity at 12 months, whereas rapid tumor growth contributed to decreased mammographic sensitivity at 24 months. A 12-month versus a 24-month mammography screening interval may therefore reduce the adverse impact of faster growing tumors on mammographic sensitivity in younger women.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15467032     DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djh269

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  97 in total

1.  Interobserver agreement in breast radiological density attribution according to BI-RADS quantitative classification.

Authors:  D Bernardi; M Pellegrini; S Di Michele; P Tuttobene; C Fantò; M Valentini; M Gentilini; S Ciatto
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2012-01-07       Impact factor: 3.469

2.  Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Rebecca A Hubbard; Diana L Miglioretti; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Constance D Lehman; Stephen H Taplin; Edward A Sickles
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 3.  Advances in breast imaging: magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Lia Bartella; Elizabeth A Morris
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 5.075

4.  Five-year risk of interval-invasive second breast cancer.

Authors:  Janie M Lee; Diana S M Buist; Nehmat Houssami; Emily C Dowling; Elkan F Halpern; G Scott Gazelle; Constance D Lehman; Louise M Henderson; Rebecca A Hubbard
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2015-04-22       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Calponin-h2: a potential serum marker for the early detection of human breast cancer?

Authors:  Manuel Debald; Jian-Ping Jin; Andrea Linke; Klaus-Jürgen Walgenbach; Peter Rauch; Angela Zellmer; Rolf Fimmers; Walther Kuhn; Gunther Hartmann; Gisela Walgenbach-Brünagel
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2014-08-07

6.  Benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts.

Authors:  Brian L Sprague; Natasha K Stout; Clyde Schechter; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Mucahit Cevik; Oguzhan Alagoz; Christoph I Lee; Jeroen J van den Broek; Diana L Miglioretti; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Harry J de Koning; Karla Kerlikowske; Constance D Lehman; Anna N A Tosteson
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2015-02-03       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Impact of familial risk and mammography screening on prognostic indicators of breast disease among women from the Ontario site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry.

Authors:  Meghan J Walker; Lucia Mirea; Kristine Cooper; Mitra Nabavi; Gord Glendon; Irene L Andrulis; Julia A Knight; Frances P O'Malley; Anna M Chiarelli
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 2.375

8.  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

9.  A novel functional infrared imaging system coupled with multiparametric computerised analysis for risk assessment of breast cancer.

Authors:  Tamar Sella; Miri Sklair-Levy; Maya Cohen; Mona Rozin; Myra Shapiro-Feinberg; Tanir M Allweis; Eugene Libson; David Izhaky
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-12-06       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Organized screening detects breast cancer at earlier stage regardless of molecular phenotype.

Authors:  Claire M B Holloway; Li Jiang; Marlo Whitehead; Jennifer M Racz; Patti A Groome
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-06-16       Impact factor: 4.553

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.