Literature DB >> 15968496

Predicting biopsy outcome after mammography: what is the likelihood the patient has invasive or in situ breast cancer?

Donald L Weaver1, Pamela M Vacek, Joan M Skelly, Berta M Geller.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: As many as 1,000,000 breast biopsies are performed annually in the United States. Although substantial effort has been devoted to estimating breast cancer risk, there have been no studies to predict outcome in women undergoing breast biopsy.
METHODS: A population-based study was undertaken to develop and test models for predicting the probability of invasive breast cancer and/or ductal carcinoma-in-situ in 7670 women undergoing breast biopsy after mammography. Logistical prediction models were developed by using data from 6129 randomly selected women and tested with data from the remaining women.
RESULTS: The overall cancer prevalence among women undergoing biopsy was 22.4%. Prevalence in women with mammograms highly suggestive of malignancy (category 5) was 84.6%, with minimal variation in individual cancer probabilities due to age. A total of 24.6% of women with suspicious mammograms (category 4) had cancer, but individual probability estimates ranged from .01 to .86, depending on age, presence of a lump, previous biopsy, menopausal status, and use of postmenopausal hormone therapy. These variables also influenced biopsy outcome in women with other mammography assessments (categories 0-3), but the overall prevalence was lower (8.6%), and estimated probabilities ranged from .01 to .45. When cancer was present, the probability of invasive disease was influenced by mammogram assessment category, absence of mammogram calcifications, and presence of a lump.
CONCLUSIONS: The probabilities of invasive cancer and ductal carcinoma-in-situ in women undergoing biopsy can be more accurately predicted by using clinical characteristics in addition to mammography findings. This information could potentially influence decisions regarding immediate biopsy or continued surveillance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15968496     DOI: 10.1245/ASO.2005.09.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol        ISSN: 1068-9265            Impact factor:   5.344


  12 in total

1.  Quantifying predictive capability of electronic health records for the most harmful breast cancer.

Authors:  Yirong Wu; Jun Fan; Peggy Peissig; Richard Berg; Ahmad Pahlavan Tafti; Jie Yin; Ming Yuan; David Page; Jennifer Cox; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng       Date:  2018-03-07

2.  How Many of the Biopsy Decisions Taken at Inexperienced Breast Radiology Units Were Correct?

Authors:  Özlem Demircioğlu; Meral Uluer; Erkin Arıbal
Journal:  J Breast Health       Date:  2017-01-01

Review 3.  Ductal Carcinoma In Situ of the Breast.

Authors:  Yash Vaidya; Pradeep Vaidya; Tanvi Vaidya
Journal:  Indian J Surg       Date:  2013-10-12       Impact factor: 0.656

4.  Comparison of mammographic density assessed as volumes and areas among women undergoing diagnostic image-guided breast biopsy.

Authors:  Gretchen L Gierach; Berta M Geller; John A Shepherd; Deesha A Patel; Pamela M Vacek; Donald L Weaver; Rachael E Chicoine; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Bo Fan; Amir Pasha Mahmoudzadeh; Jeff Wang; Jason M Johnson; Sally D Herschorn; Louise A Brinton; Mark E Sherman
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2014-08-19       Impact factor: 4.254

5.  Breast cancer detection with short-interval follow-up compared with return to annual screening in patients with benign stereotactic or US-guided breast biopsy results.

Authors:  Jason M Johnson; Alisa K Johnson; Ellen S O'Meara; Diana L Miglioretti; Berta M Geller; Elise N Hotaling; Sally D Herschorn
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-11-25       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Clinical, demographic, and situational factors linked to distress associated with benign breast biopsy.

Authors:  Rachel F Steffens; Heather R Wright; Molly Y Hester; Michael A Andrykowski
Journal:  J Psychosoc Oncol       Date:  2011

7.  Probabilistic computer model developed from clinical data in national mammography database format to classify mammographic findings.

Authors:  Elizabeth S Burnside; Jesse Davis; Jagpreet Chhatwal; Oguzhan Alagoz; Mary J Lindstrom; Berta M Geller; Benjamin Littenberg; Katherine A Shaffer; Charles E Kahn; C David Page
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-04-14       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  The use of the Gail model, body mass index and SNPs to predict breast cancer among women with abnormal (BI-RADS 4) mammograms.

Authors:  Anne Marie McCarthy; Brad Keller; Despina Kontos; Leigh Boghossian; Erin McGuire; Mirar Bristol; Jinbo Chen; Susan Domchek; Katrina Armstrong
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2015-01-08       Impact factor: 6.466

9.  Development of a diagnostic test set to assess agreement in breast pathology: practical application of the Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS).

Authors:  Natalia V Oster; Patricia A Carney; Kimberly H Allison; Donald L Weaver; Lisa M Reisch; Gary Longton; Tracy Onega; Margaret Pepe; Berta M Geller; Heidi D Nelson; Tyler R Ross; Aanna N A Tosteson; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2013-02-05       Impact factor: 2.809

10.  Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a surgical perspective.

Authors:  Mohammed Badruddoja
Journal:  Int J Surg Oncol       Date:  2012-09-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.