Literature DB >> 25537958

Performance of digital screening mammography among older women in the United States.

Louise M Henderson1, Ellen S O'Meara, Dejana Braithwaite, Tracy Onega.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although healthy women aged 65 years have a life expectancy of 20 years, there is a paucity of data on the performance of digital screening mammography among these women. The authors examined the performance and outcomes of digital screening mammography among a national group of women aged ≥65 years.
METHODS: From Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium data for the years 2005 to 2011, the authors included 296,496 full-field digital screening mammograms among 133,042 women ages ≥65 years without a history of breast cancer. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV1 ), recall rates, and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated across the spectrum of age and breast density. Multivariate logistic regression was used to compare mammography accuracy, cancer-detection rates (CDRs), and tumor characteristics by age and breast density.
RESULTS: Multivariate analyses revealed a significant decrease in the recall rate with age (P for linear trend [Ptrend ] < .001) and significant increases in specificity, PPV1 , and CDR with age (Ptrend  < .001, Ptrend  < .001, and Ptrend  = .01, respectively). Sensitivity did not vary significantly with age. Among women with cancer, the proportion with invasive disease increased with age from 76% at ages 65 to 74 years to 81% at ages ≥80 years. There was a higher proportion of late stage cancers and positive lymph nodes among women ages 65 to 74 years compared with women in the older age groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The specificity, PPV1 , recall rate, and CDR of digital screening mammography improved with increased age. In addition, as age increased, the proportion of women with invasive versus ductal carcinoma in situ rose, whereas the proportion of women with positive lymph nodes decreased.
© 2014 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast cancer; cancer-detection rate; digital mammography; older women; positive predictive value; screening; sensitivity; specificity

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25537958      PMCID: PMC4409463          DOI: 10.1002/cncr.29214

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


  28 in total

1.  Effect of variations in operational definitions on performance estimates for screening mammography.

Authors:  R D Rosenberg; B C Yankaskas; W C Hunt; R Ballard-Barbash; N Urban; V L Ernster; K Kerlikowske; B Geller; P A Carney; S Taplin
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 3.173

2.  Screening mammography in elderly women

Authors: 
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2000-06-28       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Case-control study of factors associated with failure to detect breast cancer by mammography.

Authors:  L Ma; E Fishell; B Wright; W Hanna; S Allan; N F Boyd
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1992-05-20       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Cancer screening in elderly patients: a framework for individualized decision making.

Authors:  L C Walter; K E Covinsky
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001-06-06       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  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

6.  The natural history of breast carcinoma in the elderly: implications for screening and treatment.

Authors:  Rachana Singh; Samuel Hellman; Ruth Heimann
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2004-05-01       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 7.  Breast cancer in the elderly.

Authors:  Diana Crivellari; Matti Aapro; Robert Leonard; Gunter von Minckwitz; Etienne Brain; Aron Goldhirsch; Andrea Veronesi; Hyman Muss
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-05-10       Impact factor: 44.544

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

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

9.  Effects of age, breast density, ethnicity, and estrogen replacement therapy on screening mammographic sensitivity and cancer stage at diagnosis: review of 183,134 screening mammograms in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Authors:  R D Rosenberg; W C Hunt; M R Williamson; F D Gilliland; P W Wiest; C A Kelsey; C R Key; M N Linver
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  A significant proportion of elderly patients develop hormone-dependant "luminal-B" tumours associated with aggressive characteristics.

Authors:  V Durbecq; L Ameye; I Veys; M Paesmans; C Desmedt; N Sirtaine; C Sotiriou; C Bernard-Marty; J M Nogaret; M Piccart; D Larsimont
Journal:  Crit Rev Oncol Hematol       Date:  2008-03-03       Impact factor: 6.312

View more
  10 in total

Review 1.  Cancer Screening in the Elderly: A Review of Breast, Colorectal, Lung, and Prostate Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Ashwin A Kotwal; Mara A Schonberg
Journal:  Cancer J       Date:  2017 Jul/Aug       Impact factor: 3.360

Review 2.  Breast Cancer Screening in Older Women: The Importance of Shared Decision Making.

Authors:  Sarina Schrager; Viktoriya Ovsepyan; Elizabeth Burnside
Journal:  J Am Board Fam Med       Date:  2020 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.657

3.  Decision-Making Regarding Mammography Screening for Older Women.

Authors:  Mara A Schonberg
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2016-12-05       Impact factor: 5.562

Review 4.  The Landmark Series-Addressing Disparities in Breast Cancer Screening: New Recommendations for Black Women.

Authors:  Oluwadamilola M Fayanju; Christine E Edmonds; Sylvia A Reyes; Cletus Arciero; Vivian J Bea; Angelena Crown; Kathie-Ann Joseph
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2022-10-03       Impact factor: 4.339

5.  Association of Breast Density With Breast Cancer Risk Among Women Aged 65 Years or Older by Age Group and Body Mass Index.

Authors:  Shailesh M Advani; Weiwei Zhu; Joshua Demb; Brian L Sprague; Tracy Onega; Louise M Henderson; Diana S M Buist; Dongyu Zhang; John T Schousboe; Louise C Walter; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti; Dejana Braithwaite
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-08-02

6.  A cost-effective handheld breast scanner for use in low-resource environments: a validation study.

Authors:  Robyn B Broach; Rula Geha; Brian S Englander; Lucy DeLaCruz; Holly Thrash; Ari D Brooks
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2016-10-28       Impact factor: 2.754

Review 7.  Optimal breast cancer screening strategies for older women: current perspectives.

Authors:  Dejana Braithwaite; Joshua Demb; Louise M Henderson
Journal:  Clin Interv Aging       Date:  2016-02-03       Impact factor: 4.458

Review 8.  Breast cancer in Mongolia: an increasingly important health policy issue.

Authors:  Delgermaa Demchig; Claudia Mello-Thoms; Patrick C Brennan
Journal:  Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press)       Date:  2017-01-20

9.  Features of breast cancer initially assessed as probably benign on ultrasound: A retrospective study.

Authors:  Hye Ji Ryu; Joo Hee Cha; Hak Hee Kim; Hee Jung Shin; Eun Young Chae; Woo Jung Choi
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2022-08-05       Impact factor: 1.817

10.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis as a Breast Cancer Screening Tool for Women with Gynecologic Cancer.

Authors:  Da-Hoon Kim; Jin Chung; Eun-Suk Cha; Jee Eun Lee; Jeoung Hyun Kim
Journal:  Taehan Yongsang Uihakhoe Chi       Date:  2020-07-23
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.