Literature DB >> 15755947

Screening for breast cancer.

Joann G Elmore1, Katrina Armstrong, Constance D Lehman, Suzanne W Fletcher.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Breast cancer screening in community practices may be different from that in randomized controlled trials. New screening modalities are becoming available.
OBJECTIVES: To review breast cancer screening, especially in the community and to examine evidence about new screening modalities. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: English-language articles of randomized controlled trials assessing effectiveness of breast cancer screening were reviewed, as well as meta-analyses, systematic reviews, studies of breast cancer screening in the community, and guidelines. Also, studies of newer screening modalities were assessed. DATA SYNTHESIS: All major US medical organizations recommend screening mammography for women aged 40 years and older. Screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality by about 20% to 35% in women aged 50 to 69 years and slightly less in women aged 40 to 49 years at 14 years of follow-up. Approximately 95% of women with abnormalities on screening mammograms do not have breast cancer with variability based on such factors as age of the woman and assessment category assigned by the radiologist. Studies comparing full-field digital mammography to screen film have not shown statistically significant differences in cancer detection while the impact on recall rates (percentage of screening mammograms considered to have positive results) was unclear. One study suggested that computer-aided detection increases cancer detection rates and recall rates while a second larger study did not find any significant differences. Screening clinical breast examination detects some cancers missed by mammography, but the sensitivity reported in the community is lower (28% to 36%) than in randomized trials (about 54%). Breast self-examination has not been shown to be effective in reducing breast cancer mortality, but it does increase the number of breast biopsies performed because of false-positives. Magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound are being studied for screening women at high risk for breast cancer but are not recommended for screening the general population. Sensitivity of magnetic resonance imaging in high-risk women has been found to be much higher than that of mammography but specificity is generally lower. Effect of the magnetic resonance imaging on breast cancer mortality is not known. A balanced discussion of possible benefits and harms of screening should be undertaken with each woman.
CONCLUSIONS: In the community, mammography remains the main screening tool while the effectiveness of clinical breast examination and self-examination are less. New screening modalities are unlikely to replace mammography in the near future for screening the general population.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15755947      PMCID: PMC3149836          DOI: 10.1001/jama.293.10.1245

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  115 in total

Review 1.  Explaining risks: turning numerical data into meaningful pictures.

Authors:  Adrian Edwards; Glyn Elwyn; Al Mulley
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-04-06

2.  Quality mammography standards--FDA. Final rule.

Authors: 
Journal:  Fed Regist       Date:  1997-10-28

Review 3.  Clinical practice. Mammographic screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  Suzanne W Fletcher; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-04-24       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003.

Authors:  Robert A Smith; Debbie Saslow; Kimberly Andrews Sawyer; Wylie Burke; Mary E Costanza; W Phil Evans; Roger S Foster; Edward Hendrick; Harmon J Eyre; Steven Sener
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2003 May-Jun       Impact factor: 508.702

5.  Women's attitudes to screening after participation in the National Breast Screening Study. A questionnaire survey.

Authors:  C J Baines; T To; C Wall
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1990-04-01       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound. A retrospective review.

Authors:  P B Gordon; S L Goldenberg
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1995-08-15       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Comparison of breast mammography, sonography and physical examination for screening women at high risk of breast cancer in taiwan.

Authors:  Ming-Feng Hou; Hung-Yi Chuang; Fu Ou-Yang; Chen-Ya Wang; Chyi-Lie Huang; Hui-Mei Fan; Chieh-Han Chuang; Jaw-Yuan Wang; Jan-Singh Hsieh; Gin-Chung Liu; Tsung-Jen Huang
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 2.998

8.  14 years of follow-up from the Edinburgh randomised trial of breast-cancer screening.

Authors:  F E Alexander; T J Anderson; H K Brown; A P Forrest; W Hepburn; A E Kirkpatrick; B B Muir; R J Prescott; A Smith
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1999-06-05       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Incidental findings on sonography of the breast: clinical significance and diagnostic workup.

Authors:  W Buchberger; P DeKoekkoek-Doll; P Springer; P Obrist; M Dünser
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Improved detection of human breast lesions following experimental training.

Authors:  D C Hall; C K Adams; G H Stein; H S Stephenson; M K Goldstein; H S Pennypacker
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1980-07-15       Impact factor: 6.860

View more
  192 in total

Review 1.  Review of screening for pancreatic cancer in high risk individuals.

Authors:  Alina Stoita; Ian D Penman; David B Williams
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-05-21       Impact factor: 5.742

2.  The quantitative potential for breast tomosynthesis imaging.

Authors:  Christina M Shafer; Ehsan Samei; Joseph Y Lo
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 4.071

3.  "No respecter of youth": over-representation of young women in Australian television coverage of breast cancer.

Authors:  Ross MacKenzie; Simon Chapman; Simon Holding; Annie Stiven
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 2.037

4.  Clinical Imaging Characteristics of the Positron Emission Mammography PEM Flex Solo II.

Authors:  Lawrence Macdonald; John Edwards; Thomas Lewellen; James Rogers; Paul Kinahan
Journal:  IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Conf Rec (1997)       Date:  2008-10

Review 5.  Technology as a force for improved diagnosis and treatment of breast disease.

Authors:  Claire M B Holloway; Alexandra Easson; Jaime Escallon; Wey Liang Leong; May Lynn Quan; Michael Reedjik; Frances C Wright; David R McCready
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 2.089

6.  Evaluating Two Evidence-Based Intervention Strategies to Promote CRC Screening Among Latino Adults in a Primary Care Setting.

Authors:  Sheila F Castañeda; Balambal Bharti; Rebeca Aurora Espinoza-Giacinto; Valerie Sanchez; Shawne O'Connell; Fatima Muñoz; Sylvia Mercado; Marie Elena Meza; Wendy Rojas; Gregory A Talavera; Samir Gupta
Journal:  J Racial Ethn Health Disparities       Date:  2017-06-20

7.  Knowledge Assessment and Screening Barriers for Breast Cancer in an Arab American Community in Dearborn, Michigan.

Authors:  Mariam Ayyash; Marwa Ayyash; Sheena Bahroloomi; Hiam Hamade; Mona Makki; Samar Hassouneh; R Alexander Blackwood
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2019-10

8.  Up-regulated proteins in the fluid bathing the tumour cell microenvironment as potential serological markers for early detection of cancer of the breast.

Authors:  Pavel Gromov; Irina Gromova; Jakob Bunkenborg; Teresa Cabezon; José M A Moreira; Vera Timmermans-Wielenga; Peter Roepstorff; Fritz Rank; Julio E Celis
Journal:  Mol Oncol       Date:  2009-11-23       Impact factor: 6.603

9.  "Hippocrates-mst": a prototype for computer-aided microcalcification analysis and risk assessment for breast cancer.

Authors:  George Spyrou; Smaragda Kapsimalakou; Antonis Frigas; Konstantinos Koufopoulos; Stamatios Vassilaros; Panos Ligomenides
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2006-10-27       Impact factor: 2.602

10.  Breast cancer risk prediction and mammography biopsy decisions: a model-based study.

Authors:  Katrina Armstrong; Elizabeth A Handorf; Jinbo Chen; Mirar N Bristol Demeter
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 5.043

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.