Literature DB >> 24037812

Mammographic screening interval in relation to tumor characteristics and false-positive risk by race/ethnicity and age.

Ellen S O'Meara1, Weiwei Zhu, Rebecca A Hubbard, Dejana Braithwaite, Karla Kerlikowske, Kim L Dittus, Berta Geller, Karen J Wernli, Diana L Miglioretti.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Biennial screening mammography retains most of the benefits of annual breast cancer screening with reduced harms. Whether screening guidelines based on race/ethnicity and age would be more effective than age-based guidelines is unknown.
METHODS: Mammography data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium were linked to pathology and tumor databases. The authors identified women aged 40 to 74 years who underwent annual, biennial, or triennial screening mammography between 1994 and 2008. Logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) of adverse tumor characteristics among 14,396 incident breast cancer cases and 10-year cumulative risks of false-positive recall and biopsy recommendation among 1,276,312 noncases.
RESULTS: No increased risk of adverse tumor characteristics associated with biennial versus annual screening were noted in white women, black women, Hispanic women aged 40 to 49 years, or Asian women aged 50 to 74 years. Hispanic women aged 50 to 74 years who screened biennially versus annually were found to have an increased risk of late-stage disease (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.0-2.5) and large tumors (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.4). Asian women aged 40 to 49 years who underwent biennial screening had an elevated risk of positive lymph nodes (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.3-7.1). No elevated risks were associated with triennial versus biennial screening. Cumulative false-positive risks decreased markedly with a longer screening interval.
CONCLUSIONS: The authors found limited evidence of elevated risks of adverse tumor characteristics with biennial versus annual screening, whereas cumulative false-positive risks were lower. However, elevated risks of late-stage disease in Hispanic women and lymph node-positive disease in younger Asian women who screened less often than annually warrant consideration and replication.
Copyright © 2013 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast cancer; ethnicity; mammography; race; screening

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24037812      PMCID: PMC3935985          DOI: 10.1002/cncr.28310

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  27 in total

1.  Age-specific incidence of breast cancer subtypes: understanding the black-white crossover.

Authors:  Christina A Clarke; Theresa H M Keegan; Juan Yang; David J Press; Allison W Kurian; Anish H Patel; James V Lacey
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2012-07-05       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Differences in screening mammography outcomes among White, Chinese, and Filipino women.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Jennifer Creasman; Jessica W T Leung; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Virginia L Ernster
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2005-09-12

3.  Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database.

Authors:  R Ballard-Barbash; S H Taplin; B C Yankaskas; V L Ernster; R D Rosenberg; P A Carney; W E Barlow; B M Geller; K Kerlikowske; B K Edwards; C F Lynch; N Urban; C A Chrvala; C R Key; S P Poplack; J K Worden; L G Kessler
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Disparities in adherence to recommended followup on screening mammography: interaction of sociodemographic factors.

Authors:  Jadwiga Jodi Strzelczyk; Mark B Dignan
Journal:  Ethn Dis       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 1.847

5.  Ethnicity and breast cancer: factors influencing differences in incidence and outcome.

Authors:  Rowan T Chlebowski; Zhao Chen; Garnet L Anderson; Thomas Rohan; Aaron Aragaki; Dorothy Lane; Nancy C Dolan; Electra D Paskett; Anne McTiernan; F Alan Hubbell; Lucile L Adams-Campbell; Ross Prentice
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2005-03-16       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  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

7.  Diagnostic mammography performance and race: outcomes in Black and White women.

Authors:  Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karminder S Gill
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2005-12-15       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Biennial versus annual mammography and the risk of late-stage breast cancer.

Authors:  Emily White; Diana L Miglioretti; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Berta M Geller; Robert D Rosenberg; Karla Kerlikowske; Laura Saba; Pamela M Vacek; Patricia A Carney; Diana S M Buist; Nina Oestreicher; William Barlow; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Stephen H Taplin
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2004-12-15       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Screening mammography performance and cancer detection among black women and white women in community practice.

Authors:  Karminder S Gill; Bonnie C Yankaskas
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2004-01-01       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  Comparison of 1- and 2-year screening intervals for women undergoing screening mammography.

Authors:  E S Wai; Y D'yachkova; I A Olivotto; S Tyldesley; N Phillips; L J Warren; A J Coldman
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2005-03-14       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  9 in total

1.  Factors Associated With Rates of False-Positive and False-Negative Results From Digital Mammography Screening: An Analysis of Registry Data.

Authors:  Heidi D Nelson; Ellen S O'Meara; Karla Kerlikowske; Steven Balch; Diana Miglioretti
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Racial differences in false-positive mammogram rates: results from the ACRIN Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST).

Authors:  Anne Marie McCarthy; Philip Yamartino; Jianing Yang; Mirar Bristol; Emily F Conant; Katrina Armstrong
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  Is mammography screening history a predictor of future breast cancer risk?

Authors:  Sune Bangsbøll Andersen; Sven Törnberg; Sini Kilpeläinen; My Von Euler-Chelpin; Sisse Helle Njor
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2014-11-25       Impact factor: 8.082

4.  Comparison of cumulative false-positive risk of screening mammography in the United States and Denmark.

Authors:  Katja Kemp Jacobsen; Linn Abraham; Diana S M Buist; Rebecca A Hubbard; Ellen S O'Meara; Brian L Sprague; Karla Kerlikowske; Ilse Vejborg; My Von Euler-Chelpin; Sisse Helle Njor
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol       Date:  2015-05-23       Impact factor: 2.984

5.  Cumulative Advanced Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Model Developed in a Screening Mammography Population.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Shuai Chen; Marzieh K Golmakani; Brian L Sprague; Jeffrey A Tice; Anna N A Tosteson; Garth H Rauscher; Louise M Henderson; Diana S M Buist; Janie M Lee; Charlotte C Gard; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2022-05-09       Impact factor: 11.816

Review 6.  Is the false-positive rate in mammography in North America too high?

Authors:  Michelle T Le; Carmel E Mothersill; Colin B Seymour; Fiona E McNeill
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-06-08       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Breast Tumor Prognostic Characteristics and Biennial vs Annual Mammography, Age, and Menopausal Status.

Authors:  Diana L Miglioretti; Weiwei Zhu; Karla Kerlikowske; Brian L Sprague; Tracy Onega; Diana S M Buist; Louise M Henderson; Robert A Smith
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 31.777

8.  Benefits and harms of annual, biennial, or triennial breast cancer mammography screening for women at average risk of breast cancer: a systematic review for the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC).

Authors:  Carlos Canelo-Aybar; Margarita Posso; Nadia Montero; Ivan Solà; Zuleika Saz-Parkinson; Stephen W Duffy; Markus Follmann; Axel Gräwingholt; Paolo Giorgi Rossi; Pablo Alonso-Coello
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2021-11-26       Impact factor: 9.075

9.  Cumulative Probability of False-Positive Results After 10 Years of Screening With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography.

Authors:  Thao-Quyen H Ho; Michael C S Bissell; Karla Kerlikowske; Rebecca A Hubbard; Brian L Sprague; Christoph I Lee; Jeffrey A Tice; Anna N A Tosteson; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2022-03-01
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.