Literature DB >> 24800915

Accuracy of screening mammography in women with a history of lobular carcinoma in situ or atypical hyperplasia of the breast.

Nehmat Houssami1, Linn A Abraham, Tracy Onega, Laura C Collins, Brian L Sprague, Deirdre A Hill, Diana L Miglioretti.   

Abstract

Women with lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS), atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH), atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), or atypical hyperplasia (AH) are at increased breast cancer (BC) risk. We investigated the accuracy and outcomes of mammography screening in women with histology-proven LCIS, ALH, ADH, or AH history who had screening through Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium-affiliated mammography facilities. Screens from two cohorts, defined by LCIS/ALH or ADH/AH history, were compared to two cohorts without such history mammogram-matched for age-group, breast density, family history, screen-year, and mammography registry. Overall 359 BCs (277 invasive BC) occurred within 1 year from screening among 52,380 screens. In the LCIS/ALH cohort [versus comparator screens] cancer incidence rates, cancer detection rates (CDR), and interval cancer rates (ICR) were significantly higher (all P < 0.001); although ICR was 4.4/1,000 screens [versus 0.9/1,000; P < 0.001] the proportion that were interval cancers did not differ between compared cohorts (P = 0.43); screening sensitivity was 76.1 % [versus 82.3 %; P = 0.43], however, specificity was significantly lower at 85.1 % [versus 90.7 %; P < 0.0001]. In the ADH/AH cohort [versus comparator] cancer rates and CDR were significantly higher (P < 0.001); although ICR was 2.6/1,000 screens [versus 0.9/1,000; P = 0.002] the proportion that were interval cancers did not differ between cohorts (P = 0.74); screening sensitivity was 81.0 % [versus 82.6 %; P = 0.74] and specificity was lower at 86.2 % [versus 90.2 %; P < 0.0001]. Mammography screening sensitivity in LCIS/ALH and ADH/AH cohorts did not significantly differ from that of matched screens, however, specificity was lower, and ICRs were higher (reflecting underlying cancer rates). Adjunct screening may be of value in these women if it reduces ICR without substantially reducing specificity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24800915      PMCID: PMC4111461          DOI: 10.1007/s10549-014-2965-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.872


  19 in total

1.  Association between mammography timing and measures of screening performance in the United States.

Authors:  Bonnie C Yankaskas; Stephen H Taplin; Laura Ichikawa; Berta M Geller; Robert D Rosenberg; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Gary R Cutter; William E Barlow
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 2.  The management of lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS). Is LCIS the same as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)?

Authors:  Sunil R Lakhani; Werner Audretsch; Anne-Marie Cleton-Jensen; Bruno Cutuli; Ian Ellis; Vincenzo Eusebi; Marco Greco; Richard S Houslton; Christiane K Kuhl; John Kurtz; Jose Palacios; Hans Peterse; France Rochard; E Rutgers
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2006-07-28       Impact factor: 9.162

3.  Underestimation of malignancy of breast core-needle biopsy: concepts and precise overall and category-specific estimates.

Authors:  Nehmat Houssami; Stefano Ciatto; Ian Ellis; Daniela Ambrogetti
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2007-02-01       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Performance benchmarks for screening mammography.

Authors:  Robert D Rosenberg; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Linn A Abraham; Edward A Sickles; Constance D Lehman; Berta M Geller; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Donald L Weaver; William E Barlow; Rachel Ballard-Barbash
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Results of MRI screening for breast cancer in high-risk patients with LCIS and atypical hyperplasia.

Authors:  Elisa Rush Port; Anna Park; Patrick I Borgen; Elizabeth Morris; Leslie L Montgomery
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2007-01-07       Impact factor: 5.344

6.  American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography.

Authors:  Debbie Saslow; Carla Boetes; Wylie Burke; Steven Harms; Martin O Leach; Constance D Lehman; Elizabeth Morris; Etta Pisano; Mitchell Schnall; Stephen Sener; Robert A Smith; Ellen Warner; Martin Yaffe; Kimberly S Andrews; Christy A Russell
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2007 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 508.702

7.  Relative risk of breast cancer varies with time since diagnosis of atypical hyperplasia.

Authors:  W D Dupont; D L Page
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  1989-08       Impact factor: 3.466

8.  Magnitude and laterality of breast cancer risk according to histologic type of atypical hyperplasia: results from the Nurses' Health Study.

Authors:  Laura C Collins; Heather J Baer; Rulla M Tamimi; James L Connolly; Graham A Colditz; Stuart J Schnitt
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2007-01-15       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 9.  A systematic review of the effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as an addition to mammography and ultrasound in screening young women at high risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  S J Lord; W Lei; P Craft; J N Cawson; I Morris; S Walleser; A Griffiths; S Parker; N Houssami
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2007-08-02       Impact factor: 9.162

10.  Lobular neoplasia of the breast: higher risk for subsequent invasive cancer predicted by more extensive disease.

Authors:  D L Page; T E Kidd; W D Dupont; J F Simpson; L W Rogers
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  1991-12       Impact factor: 3.466

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Current management of lesions associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  Monica Morrow; Stuart J Schnitt; Larry Norton
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-01-27       Impact factor: 66.675

Review 2.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging as an Adjunct to Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening in Women at Less Than High Risk for Breast Cancer: A Health Technology Assessment.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2016-11-01

3.  Breast Cancer Detection by Preoperative Imaging in Reduction Mammaplasty Patients: A Single Center Study of 918 Patients.

Authors:  Päivi A Merkkola-von Schantz; Susanna M C Kauhanen; Tiina A Jahkola; Leena A Krogerus; Katja S Hukkinen
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 3.352

4.  Frequency and characteristics of contralateral breast abnormalities following recall at screening mammography.

Authors:  Joost R C Lameijer; Angela Mp Coolen; Adri C Voogd; Luc J Strobbe; Marieke W J Louwman; Dick Venderink; Vivian C Tjan-Heijnen; Lucien E M Duijm
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-04-17       Impact factor: 5.315

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.