Literature DB >> 19920272

Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

.   

Abstract

DESCRIPTION: Update of the 2002 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation statement on screening for breast cancer in the general population.
METHODS: The USPSTF examined the evidence on the efficacy of 5 screening modalities in reducing mortality from breast cancer: film mammography, clinical breast examination, breast self-examination, digital mammography, and magnetic resonance imaging in order to update the 2002 recommendation. To accomplish this update, the USPSTF commissioned 2 studies: 1) a targeted systematic evidence review of 6 selected questions relating to benefits and harms of screening, and 2) a decision analysis that used population modeling techniques to compare the expected health outcomes and resource requirements of starting and ending mammography screening at different ages and using annual versus biennial screening intervals. RECOMMENDATIONS: The USPSTF recommends against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years. The decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take into account patient context, including the patient's values regarding specific benefits and harms. (Grade C recommendation) The USPSTF recommends biennial screening mammography for women between the ages of 50 and 74 years. (Grade B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of clinical breast examination beyond screening mammography in women 40 years or older. (I statement) The USPSTF recommends against clinicians teaching women how to perform breast self-examination. (Grade D recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess additional benefits and harms of either digital mammography or magnetic resonance imaging instead of film mammography as screening modalities for breast cancer. (I statement).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19920272     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-10-200911170-00008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  511 in total

1.  Association between persistence with mammography screening and stage at diagnosis among elderly women diagnosed with breast cancer.

Authors:  Ami Vyas; Suresh Madhavan; Usha Sambamoorthi
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2014-11-16       Impact factor: 4.872

2.  Risk-specific optimal cancer screening schedules: an application to breast cancer early detection.

Authors:  Charlotte Hsieh Ahern; Yi Cheng; Yu Shen
Journal:  Stat Biosci       Date:  2011-12

3.  Breast cancer screening trends in the United States and ethnicity.

Authors:  Patricia Y Miranda; Wassim Tarraf; Patricia González; Michelle Johnson-Jennings; Hector M González
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2011-12-06       Impact factor: 4.254

4.  Annual screening strategies in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers: a comparative effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Kathryn P Lowry; Janie M Lee; Chung Y Kong; Pamela M McMahon; Michael E Gilmore; Jessica E Cott Chubiz; Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Paula D Ryan; Elissa M Ozanne; G Scott Gazelle
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2011-09-20       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  A semiparametric censoring bias model for estimating the cumulative risk of a false-positive screening test under dependent censoring.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2013-02-05       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  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

7.  Down-regulation of miRNA-30a in human plasma is a novel marker for breast cancer.

Authors:  Rui-chao Zeng; Wei Zhang; Xing-qiang Yan; Zhi-qiang Ye; En-dong Chen; Du-ping Huang; Xiao-hua Zhang; Guan-li Huang
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2013-02-07       Impact factor: 3.064

8.  Individual, provider, and system risk factors for breast and cervical cancer screening among underserved Black, Latina, and Arab women.

Authors:  Leeanne Roman; Cristian Meghea; Sabrina Ford; Louis Penner; Hiam Hamade; Tamika Estes; Karen Patricia Williams
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2013-11-27       Impact factor: 2.681

9.  Breast cancer screening initiation after turning 40 years of age within the PROSPR consortium.

Authors:  Elisabeth F Beaber; Anna N A Tosteson; Jennifer S Haas; Tracy Onega; Brian L Sprague; Donald L Weaver; Anne Marie McCarthy; Chyke A Doubeni; Virginia P Quinn; Celette Sugg Skinner; Ann G Zauber; William E Barlow
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2016-09-24       Impact factor: 4.872

10.  Structure, Function, and Applications of the Georgetown-Einstein (GE) Breast Cancer Simulation Model.

Authors:  Clyde B Schechter; Aimee M Near; Jinani Jayasekera; Young Chandler; Jeanne S Mandelblatt
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 2.583

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.