Literature DB >> 25944711

Comparing sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography in the United States and Denmark.

Katja Kemp Jacobsen1, Ellen S O'Meara2, Dustin Key2, Diana S M Buist2, Karla Kerlikowske3,4, Ilse Vejborg5, Brian L Sprague6, Elsebeth Lynge1, My von Euler-Chelpin1.   

Abstract

Delivery of screening mammography differs substantially between the United States (US) and Denmark. We evaluated whether there are differences in screening sensitivity and specificity. We included screens from women screened at age 50-69 years during 1996-2008/2009 in the US Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) (n = 2,872,791), and from two population-based mammography screening programs in Denmark (Copenhagen, n = 148,156 and Funen, n = 275,553). Women were followed-up for 1 year. For initial screens, recall rate was significantly higher in BCSC (17.6%) than in Copenhagen (4.3%) and Funen (3.1%). Sensitivity was fairly similar in BCSC (91.8%) and Copenhagen (90.5%) and Funen (92.5%). At subsequent screens, recall rates were 8.8%, 1.8% and 1.4% in BCSC, Copenhagen and Funen, respectively. The BCSC sensitivity (82.3%) was lower compared with that in Copenhagen (88.9%) and Funen (86.9%), but when stratified by time since last screen, the sensitivity was similar. For both initial and subsequent screenings, the specificity of screening in BCSC (83.2% and 91.6%) was significantly lower than that in Copenhagen (96.6% and 98.8%) and Funen (97.9% and 99.2%). By taking time since last screen into account, it was found that American and Danish women had the same probability of having their asymptomatic cancers detected at screening. However, the majority of women free of asymptomatic cancers experienced more harms in terms of false-positive findings in the US than in Denmark.
© 2015 UICC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium; mammographic performance; mass screening; sensitivity; specificity

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25944711      PMCID: PMC4537675          DOI: 10.1002/ijc.29593

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Cancer        ISSN: 0020-7136            Impact factor:   7.396


  29 in total

Review 1.  Improving mammographic interpretation: double reading and computer-aided diagnosis.

Authors:  Mark Helvie
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 2.303

2.  Comparing the performance of mammography screening in the USA and the UK.

Authors:  Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Diana L Miglioretti; Julietta Patnick; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.136

3.  Ascertainment and evaluation of interval cancers in population-based mammography screening programmes: a collaborative study in four European centres.

Authors:  Sven Törnberg; Mary Codd; Vitor Rodrigues; Nereo Segnan; Antonio Ponti
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.136

4.  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

5.  Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography.

Authors:  Joshua J Fenton; Stephen H Taplin; Patricia A Carney; Linn Abraham; Edward A Sickles; Carl D'Orsi; Eric A Berns; Gary Cutter; R Edward Hendrick; William E Barlow; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-04-05       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 6.  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

Review 7.  The psychological impact of mammographic screening. A systematic review.

Authors:  J Brett; C Bankhead; B Henderson; E Watson; J Austoker
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 3.894

8.  International comparison of performance measures for screening mammography: can it be done?

Authors:  B C Yankaskas; C N Klabunde; R Ancelle-Park; G Renner; H Wang; J Fracheboud; G Pou; J-L Bulliard
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 2.136

9.  Using the European guidelines to evaluate the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program.

Authors:  Solveig Hofvind; Berta Geller; Pamela M Vacek; Steinar Thoresen; Per Skaane
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2007-06-27       Impact factor: 8.082

10.  Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study.

Authors:  Per Skaane; Solveig Hofvind; Arnulf Skjennald
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  19 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.  National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Diagnostic Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

Authors:  Brian L Sprague; Robert F Arao; Diana L Miglioretti; Louise M Henderson; Diana S M Buist; Tracy Onega; Garth H Rauscher; Janie M Lee; Anna N A Tosteson; Karla Kerlikowske; Constance D Lehman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-02-28       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 3.  Association Between Lifestyle Changes, Mammographic Breast Density, and Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Sara P Lester; Aparna S Kaur; Suneela Vegunta
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2022-07-05       Impact factor: 5.837

Review 4.  Population-based screening for cancer: hope and hype.

Authors:  Yiwey Shieh; Martin Eklund; George F Sawaya; William C Black; Barnett S Kramer; Laura J Esserman
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-04-13       Impact factor: 66.675

5.  Circulating cell-free DNA-based epigenetic assay can detect early breast cancer.

Authors:  Natsue Uehiro; Fumiaki Sato; Fengling Pu; Sunao Tanaka; Masahiro Kawashima; Kosuke Kawaguchi; Masahiro Sugimoto; Shigehira Saji; Masakazu Toi
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2016-12-19       Impact factor: 6.466

6.  Retrospective observation on contribution and limitations of screening for breast cancer with mammography in Korea: detection rate of breast cancer and incidence rate of interval cancer of the breast.

Authors:  Kunsei Lee; Hyeongsu Kim; Jung Hyun Lee; Hyoseon Jeong; Soon Ae Shin; Taehwa Han; Young Lan Seo; Youngbum Yoo; Sang Eun Nam; Jong Heon Park; Yoo Mi Park
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2016-11-18       Impact factor: 2.809

7.  Function-related Indicators and Outcomes of Screening Mammography in Older Women: Evidence from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Cohort.

Authors:  Dongyu Zhang; Linn Abraham; Joshua Demb; Diana L Miglioretti; Shailesh Advani; Brian L Sprague; Louise M Henderson; Tracy Onega; Karen J Wernli; Louise C Walter; Karla Kerlikowske; John T Schousboe; Ellen S O'Meara; Dejana Braithwaite
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2021-06-02       Impact factor: 4.254

8.  COST-RISK-BENEFIT ANALYSIS IN DIAGNOSTIC RADIOLOGY: A THEORETICAL AND ECONOMIC BASIS FOR RADIATION PROTECTION OF THE PATIENT.

Authors:  B Michael Moores
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2015-12-24       Impact factor: 0.972

9.  False positives in breast cancer screening with one-view breast tomosynthesis: An analysis of findings leading to recall, work-up and biopsy rates in the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial.

Authors:  Kristina Lång; Matilda Nergården; Ingvar Andersson; Aldana Rosso; Sophia Zackrisson
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-03-04       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Antibody-Guided In Vivo Imaging for Early Detection of Mammary Gland Tumors.

Authors:  Laura Jeffords Moore; Lopamudra Das Roy; Ru Zhou; Priyanka Grover; Shu-Ta Wu; Jennifer M Curry; Lloye M Dillon; Priya M Puri; Mahboubeh Yazdanifar; Rahul Puri; Pinku Mukherjee; Didier Dréau
Journal:  Transl Oncol       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 4.243

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.