Literature DB >> 23552817

Outcomes of screening mammography by frequency, breast density, and postmenopausal hormone therapy.

Karla Kerlikowske1, Weiwei Zhu, Rebecca A Hubbard, Berta Geller, Kim Dittus, Dejana Braithwaite, Karen J Wernli, Diana L Miglioretti, Ellen S O'Meara.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Controversy exists about the frequency women should undergo screening mammography and whether screening interval should vary according to risk factors beyond age.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the benefits and harms of screening mammography frequencies according to age, breast density, and postmenopausal hormone therapy (HT) use.
DESIGN: Prospective cohort.
SETTING: Data collected January 1994 to December 2008 from mammography facilities in community practice that participate in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) mammography registries. PARTICIPANTS: Data were collected prospectively on 11,474 women with breast cancer and 922,624 without breast cancer who underwent mammography at facilities that participate in the BCSC. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We used logistic regression to calculate the odds of advanced stage (IIb, III, or IV) and large tumors (>20 mm in diameter) and 10-year cumulative probability of a false-positive mammography result by screening frequency, age, breast density, and HT use. The main predictor was screening mammography interval.
RESULTS: Mammography biennially vs annually for women aged 50 to 74 years does not increase risk of tumors with advanced stage or large size regardless of women's breast density or HT use. Among women aged 40 to 49 years with extremely dense breasts, biennial mammography vs annual is associated with increased risk of advanced-stage cancer (odds ratio [OR], 1.89; 95% CI, 1.06-3.39) and large tumors (OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.37-4.18). Cumulative probability of a false-positive mammography result was high among women undergoing annual mammography with extremely dense breasts who were either aged 40 to 49 years (65.5%) or used estrogen plus progestogen (65.8%) and was lower among women aged 50 to 74 years who underwent biennial or triennial mammography with scattered fibroglandular densities (30.7% and 21.9%, respectively) or fatty breasts (17.4% and 12.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Women aged 50 to 74 years, even those with high breast density or HT use, who undergo biennial screening mammography have similar risk of advanced-stage disease and lower cumulative risk of false-positive results than those who undergo annual mammography. When deciding whether to undergo mammography, women aged 40 to 49 years who have extremely dense breasts should be informed that annual mammography may minimize their risk of advanced-stage disease but the cumulative risk of false-positive results is high.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23552817      PMCID: PMC3699693          DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.307

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Intern Med        ISSN: 2168-6106            Impact factor:   21.873


  36 in total

1.  Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography.

Authors:  Virginia L Ernster; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; William E Barlow; Yingye Zheng; Donald L Weaver; Gary Cutter; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Robert Rosenberg; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Stephen H Taplin; Nicole Urban; Berta M Geller
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2002-10-16       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Postmenopausal hormone therapy and change in mammographic density.

Authors:  Gail A Greendale; Beth A Reboussin; Stacey Slone; Carol Wasilauskas; Malcolm C Pike; Giske Ursin
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2003-01-01       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Reproducibility of BI-RADS breast density measures among community radiologists: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Mary C Spayne; Charlotte C Gard; Joan Skelly; Diana L Miglioretti; Pamela M Vacek; Berta M Geller
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2012-05-21       Impact factor: 2.431

4.  Efficacy of screening mammography. A meta-analysis.

Authors:  K Kerlikowske; D Grady; S M Rubin; C Sandrock; V L Ernster
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-01-11       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Case-control study of increased mammographic breast density response to hormone replacement therapy.

Authors:  Celine M Vachon; Thomas A Sellers; Robert A Vierkant; Fang-Fang Wu; Kathleen R Brandt
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 4.254

6.  Size, node status and grade of breast tumours: association with mammographic parenchymal patterns.

Authors:  E Sala; L Solomon; R Warren; J McCann; S Duffy; R Luben; N Day
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Diana L Miglioretti; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske; Robert Rosenberg; Carolyn M Rutter; Berta M Geller; Linn A Abraham; Steven H Taplin; Mark Dignan; Gary Cutter; Rachel Ballard-Barbash
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2003-02-04       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Influence of estrogen plus progestin on breast cancer and mammography in healthy postmenopausal women: the Women's Health Initiative Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Rowan T Chlebowski; Susan L Hendrix; Robert D Langer; Marcia L Stefanick; Margery Gass; Dorothy Lane; Rebecca J Rodabough; Mary Ann Gilligan; Michele G Cyr; Cynthia A Thomson; Janardan Khandekar; Helen Petrovitch; Anne McTiernan
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-06-25       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Invasive cancers detected after breast cancer screening yielded a negative result: relationship of mammographic density to tumor prognostic factors.

Authors:  Marilyn A Roubidoux; Janet E Bailey; Linda A Wray; Mark A Helvie
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Prognostic characteristics of breast cancer among postmenopausal hormone users in a screened population.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Donald L Weaver; Diana S M Buist; William E Barlow; Gary Cutter; Berta M Geller; Bonnie Yankaskas; Stephen H Taplin; Patricia A Carney
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-12-01       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  65 in total

1.  Listening to Women: Expectations and Experiences in Breast Imaging.

Authors:  Susan Harvey; Aimee M Gallagher; Martha Nolan; Christine M Hughes
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 2.681

2.  Collaborative Modeling of the Benefits and Harms Associated With Different U.S. Breast Cancer Screening Strategies.

Authors:  Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Natasha K Stout; Clyde B Schechter; Jeroen J van den Broek; Diana L Miglioretti; Martin Krapcho; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Diego Munoz; Sandra J Lee; Donald A Berry; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Oguzhan Alagoz; Karla Kerlikowske; Anna N A Tosteson; Aimee M Near; Amanda Hoeffken; Yaojen Chang; Eveline A Heijnsdijk; Gary Chisholm; Xuelin Huang; Hui Huang; Mehmet Ali Ergun; Ronald Gangnon; Brian L Sprague; Sylvia Plevritis; Eric Feuer; Harry J de Koning; Kathleen A Cronin
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-12       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

4.  Aggregate cost of mammography screening in the United States: comparison of current practice and advocated guidelines.

Authors:  Cristina O'Donoghue; Martin Eklund; Elissa M Ozanne; Laura J Esserman
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2014-02-04       Impact factor: 25.391

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.  Combined Benefit of Quantitative Three-Compartment Breast Image Analysis and Mammography Radiomics in the Classification of Breast Masses in a Clinical Data Set.

Authors:  Karen Drukker; Maryellen L Giger; Bonnie N Joe; Karla Kerlikowske; Heather Greenwood; Jennifer S Drukteinis; Bethany Niell; Bo Fan; Serghei Malkov; Jesus Avila; Leila Kazemi; John Shepherd
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-12-11       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Quantitative contrast-enhanced spectral mammography based on photon-counting detectors: A feasibility study.

Authors:  Huanjun Ding; Sabee Molloi
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2017-06-28       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts.

Authors:  Brian L Sprague; Natasha K Stout; Clyde Schechter; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Mucahit Cevik; Oguzhan Alagoz; Christoph I Lee; Jeroen J van den Broek; Diana L Miglioretti; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Harry J de Koning; Karla Kerlikowske; Constance D Lehman; Anna N A Tosteson
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2015-02-03       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Convolutional Neural Network Based Breast Cancer Risk Stratification Using a Mammographic Dataset.

Authors:  Richard Ha; Peter Chang; Jenika Karcich; Simukayi Mutasa; Eduardo Pascual Van Sant; Michael Z Liu; Sachin Jambawalikar
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2018-07-31       Impact factor: 3.173

10.  To screen or not to screen older women for breast cancer: a conundrum.

Authors:  Dejana Braithwaite; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Future Oncol       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 3.404

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.