Literature DB >> 21108025

Breast cancer screening with mammography.

Bradford R Hirsch1, Gary H Lyman.   

Abstract

There has been a great deal of controversy regarding the change in breast cancer screening recommendations released by the US Preventive Services Task Force in November 2009. Despite limited new data, the Task Force changed their previous recommendations delaying initial screening of asymptomatic women from age 40 to age 50 and recommending biennial rather than annual breast cancer screening. It is important to fully understand the nuances of the analysis and modeling upon which the revisions were based in order to accurately inform patients of the risks and benefits of breast cancer screening. Several new studies as well as additional guidelines have also been released over the past year which further inform the debate, and a number of commentaries have helped to place the risks and benefit in clinical and societal context.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21108025     DOI: 10.1007/s11912-010-0142-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep        ISSN: 1523-3790            Impact factor:   5.075


  30 in total

1.  The benefits and harms of mammography screening: understanding the trade-offs.

Authors:  Steven Woloshin; Lisa M Schwartz
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2010-01-13       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Evidence-based breast cancer prevention: the importance of individual risk.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  The background review for the USPSTF recommendation on screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  Kay Dickersin; David Tovey; Nicholas Wilcken; Davina Ghersi
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2010-02-15       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 4.  Systematic review: the long-term effects of false-positive mammograms.

Authors:  Noel T Brewer; Talya Salz; Sarah E Lillie
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2007-04-03       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations.

Authors:  J G Elmore; M B Barton; V M Moceri; S Polk; P J Arena; S W Fletcher
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1998-04-16       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Linda L Humphrey; Mark Helfand; Benjamin K S Chan; Steven H Woolf
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-09-03       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  The cumulative risk of a false-positive recall in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program.

Authors:  Solveig Hofvind; Steinar Thoresen; Steinar Tretli
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2004-10-01       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Benefits of screening mammography.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2010-01-13       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: overdiagnosis in randomised controlled trials of breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Sue Moss
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2005-08-25       Impact factor: 6.466

10.  Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: estimates of overdiagnosis from two trials of mammographic screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  Stephen W Duffy; Olorunsola Agbaje; Laszlo Tabar; Bedrich Vitak; Nils Bjurstam; Lena Björneld; Jonathan P Myles; Jane Warwick
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2005-11-10       Impact factor: 6.466

View more
  10 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Combined performance of physical examination, mammography, and ultrasonography for breast cancer screening among Chinese women: a follow-up study.

Authors:  Y Huang; M Kang; H Li; J Y Li; J Y Zhang; L H Liu; X T Liu; Y Zhao; Q Wang; C C Li; H Lee
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 3.677

3.  Factors influencing adherence to mammography screening guidelines in Appalachian women participating in a mobile mammography program.

Authors:  Ami Vyas; Suresh Madhavan; Traci LeMasters; Elvonna Atkins; Sara Gainor; Stephenie Kennedy; Kimberly Kelly; Linda Vona-Davis; Scot Remick
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2012-06

4.  Mental illness and use of screening mammography among Medicaid beneficiaries.

Authors:  Siran M Koroukian; Paul M Bakaki; Negar Golchin; Carl Tyler; Sana Loue
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 5.043

5.  Do Appalachian women attending a mobile mammography program differ from those visiting a stationary mammography facility?

Authors:  Ami Vyas; Suresh Madhavan; Kimberly Kelly; Aaron Metzger; Judith Schreiman; Scot Remick
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2013-08

6.  Healthcare access and mammography screening in Michigan: a multilevel cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Tomi F Akinyemiju; Amr S Soliman; May Yassine; Mousumi Banerjee; Kendra Schwartz; Sofia Merajver
Journal:  Int J Equity Health       Date:  2012-03-21

7.  Screening prior to Breast Cancer Diagnosis: The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same.

Authors:  Erica B Friedman; Jennifer Chun; Freya Schnabel; Shira Schwartz; Sidney Law; Jessica Billig; Erin Ivanoff; Linda Moy; Deborah Axelrod; Amber Guth
Journal:  Int J Breast Cancer       Date:  2013-09-18

8.  Comparison of pathologic characteristics of breast cancer in younger and older women.

Authors:  Reza Yazdani-Charati; Karimollah Hajian-Tilaki; Majid Sharbatdaran
Journal:  Caspian J Intern Med       Date:  2019

9.  Night-shift work duration and breast cancer risk: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  E Manouchehri; A Taghipour; V Ghavami; A Ebadi; F Homaei; R Latifnejad Roudsari
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2021-03-02       Impact factor: 2.809

10.  Impact of a decision aid on reducing uncertainty: pilot study of women in their 40s and screening mammography.

Authors:  Paula Scariati; Lisa Nelson; Lindsey Watson; Stephen Bedrick; Karen B Eden
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2015-11-10       Impact factor: 2.796

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.