Literature DB >> 15601639

Biennial versus annual mammography and the risk of late-stage breast cancer.

Emily White1, Diana L Miglioretti, Bonnie C Yankaskas, Berta M Geller, Robert D Rosenberg, Karla Kerlikowske, Laura Saba, Pamela M Vacek, Patricia A Carney, Diana S M Buist, Nina Oestreicher, William Barlow, Rachel Ballard-Barbash, Stephen H Taplin.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mammography screening may reduce breast cancer mortality by detecting cancers at an earlier stage. However, certain questions remain, including the ideal interval between mammograms.
METHODS: We conducted an observational study using information collected by seven mammography registries across the United States to investigate whether women diagnosed with breast cancer after having screening mammograms separated by a 2-year interval (n = 2440) are more likely to be diagnosed with late-stage disease (positive lymph nodes or metastases) than women diagnosed with breast cancer after having screening mammograms separated by a 1-year interval (n = 5400). Analyses were stratified by age and breast density to clarify whether groups that have the poorest mammography sensitivity (i.e., women under age 50 years and those with mammographically dense breasts) would benefit most from annual screening. The subjects were women diagnosed with breast cancer between 1996 and 2001 who were 40-89 years old at their index mammographic examination (i.e., the most recent screen at or before breast cancer diagnosis). Data were analyzed by logistic regression, adjusting for race, ethnicity, family history of breast cancer, and mammography registry.
RESULTS: Among women age 40-49 years at the index mammogram, those with a 2-year screening interval were more likely to have late-stage disease at diagnosis than those with a 1-year screening interval (28% versus 21%; odds ratio [OR] = 1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.01 to 1.81). There was no increase in late-stage disease for women 50 years or older with a 2-year versus a 1-year screening interval (women age 50-59 years at index mammogram: OR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.75 to 1.25; women age 60-69 years at index mammogram: OR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.72 to 1.35; women age 70 years or older at index mammogram: OR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.64 to 1.19). There was no indication that women with dense breasts would benefit more from a 1-year versus 2-year screening interval than women with fatty breasts.
CONCLUSION: These findings may be useful for policy decisions about appropriate screening intervals and for use in statistical models that estimate the costs and benefits of mammography by age and screening interval.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15601639     DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djh337

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


  36 in total

1.  A reality check for overdiagnosis estimates associated with breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Ruth Etzioni; Jing Xia; Rebecca Hubbard; Noel S Weiss; Roman Gulati
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-10-31       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: a cohort study.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Karla Kerlikowske; Chris I Flowers; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Weiwei Zhu; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Annual vs Biennial Screening: Diagnostic Accuracy Among Concurrent Cohorts Within the Ontario Breast Screening Program.

Authors:  Anna M Chiarelli; Kristina M Blackmore; Lucia Mirea; Susan J Done; Vicky Majpruz; Ashini Weerasinghe; Linda Rabeneck; Derek Muradali
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2020-04-01       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 4.  The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review.

Authors:  M G Marmot; D G Altman; D A Cameron; J A Dewar; S G Thompson; M Wilcox
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2013-06-06       Impact factor: 7.640

5.  Annual mammography at age 45-49 years and biennial mammography at age 50-69 years: comparing performance measures in an organised screening setting.

Authors:  Lauro Bucchi; Alessandra Ravaioli; Flavia Baldacchini; Orietta Giuliani; Silvia Mancini; Rosa Vattiato; Fabio Falcini; Paolo Giorgi Rossi; Cinzia Campari; Debora Canuti; Enza Di Felice; Priscilla Sassoli de Bianchi; Stefano Ferretti; Nicoletta Bertozzi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-03-18       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Longitudinal predictors of nonadherence to maintenance of mammography.

Authors:  Jennifer M Gierisch; Jo Anne Earp; Noel T Brewer; Barbara K Rimer
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2010-03-30       Impact factor: 4.254

7.  Screening outcomes in older US women undergoing multiple mammograms in community practice: does interval, age, or comorbidity score affect tumor characteristics or false positive rates?

Authors:  Dejana Braithwaite; Weiwei Zhu; Rebecca A Hubbard; Ellen S O'Meara; Diana L Miglioretti; Berta Geller; Kim Dittus; Dan Moore; Karen J Wernli; Jeanne Mandelblatt; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2013-02-05       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Comparing screening mammography for early breast cancer detection in Vermont and Norway.

Authors:  Solveig Hofvind; Pamela M Vacek; Joan Skelly; Donald L Weaver; Berta M Geller
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2008-07-29       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 9.  Breast cancer screening: review of benefits and harms, and recommendations for developing and low-income countries.

Authors:  Meteb Al-Foheidi; Mubarak M Al-Mansour; Ezzeldin M Ibrahim
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2013-02-19       Impact factor: 3.064

10.  Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: model estimates of potential benefits and harms.

Authors:  Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Kathleen A Cronin; Stephanie Bailey; Donald A Berry; Harry J de Koning; Gerrit Draisma; Hui Huang; Sandra J Lee; Mark Munsell; Sylvia K Plevritis; Peter Ravdin; Clyde B Schechter; Bronislava Sigal; Michael A Stoto; Natasha K Stout; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; John Venier; Marvin Zelen; Eric J Feuer
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 25.391

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.