Literature DB >> 30739738

Redefining the sensitivity of screening mammography: A review.

Alan B Hollingsworth1.   

Abstract

From its inception, screening mammography has enjoyed a perceived level of sensitivity that is inconsistent with available evidence. The original data that imparted erroneous beliefs about sensitivity were based on a variety of misleading definitions and approaches, such as the inclusion of palpable tumors, using the inverse of interval cancer rates (often tied to an arbitrary 12 month interval), and quoting prevalence screen sensitivity wherein tumors are larger than those found on incidence screens. This review addresses the background for the overestimation of mammographic sensitivity, and how a major adjustment in our thinking is overdue now that multi-modality imaging allows us to determine real time mammographic sensitivity. Although a single value for mammographic sensitivity is disingenuous, given the wide range based on background density, it is important to realize that a sensitivity gap between belief and reality still exists in the early detection of breast cancer using mammography alone, in spite of technologic advances. Failure to recognize this gap diminishes the acceptance of adjunct methods of breast imaging that greatly complement detection rates.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30739738      PMCID: PMC6640096          DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2019.01.039

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Surg        ISSN: 0002-9610            Impact factor:   2.565


  40 in total

1.  The delayed diagnosis of breast cancer: medicolegal implications and risk prevention for surgeons.

Authors:  K A Kern
Journal:  Breast Dis       Date:  2001

2.  Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; R Edward Hendrick; Martin J Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Jean B Cormack; Lucy A Hanna; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence W Bassett; Carl J D'Orsi; Roberta A Jong; Murray Rebner; Anna N A Tosteson; Constantine A Gatsonis
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  The subtle and atypical mammographic features of invasive lobular carcinoma.

Authors:  E A Sickles
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1991-01       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 4.  Effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis to Update the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation.

Authors:  Heidi D Nelson; Rochelle Fu; Amy Cantor; Miranda Pappas; Monica Daeges; Linda Humphrey
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography vs. mammography and MRI - clinical performance in a multi-reader evaluation.

Authors:  Eva M Fallenberg; Florian F Schmitzberger; Heba Amer; Barbara Ingold-Heppner; Corinne Balleyguier; Felix Diekmann; Florian Engelken; Ritse M Mann; Diane M Renz; Ulrich Bick; Bernd Hamm; Clarisse Dromain
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-11-28       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  The Connecticut Experiment; The Third Installment: 4 Years of Screening Women with Dense Breasts with Bilateral Ultrasound.

Authors:  Jean M Weigert
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2016-09-19       Impact factor: 2.431

7.  Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-09-16       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Supplemental Breast MR Imaging Screening of Women with Average Risk of Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Christiane K Kuhl; Kevin Strobel; Heribert Bieling; Claudia Leutner; Hans H Schild; Simone Schrading
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-02-21       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  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

10.  Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, a population-based study.

Authors:  Kristina Lång; Ingvar Andersson; Aldana Rosso; Anders Tingberg; Pontus Timberg; Sophia Zackrisson
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-05-01       Impact factor: 5.315

View more
  9 in total

1.  A Practical, Clinical User-Friendly Format for Breast Ultrasound Report.

Authors:  Sadaf Alipour; Bita Eslami; Mahboubeh Abedi; Nasrin Ahmadinejad; Ali Arabkheradmand; Arvin Aryan; Khadijeh Bakhtavar; Leila Bayani; Ahmad Elahi; Masoumeh Gity; Maryam Rahmani; Nahid Sedighi; Adel Yazdankhahkenari; Ramesh Omranipour
Journal:  Eur J Breast Health       Date:  2021-03-31

2.  Breast density in dedicated breast computed tomography: Proposal of a classification system and interreader reliability.

Authors:  Jann Wieler; Nicole Berger; Thomas Frauenfelder; Magda Marcon; Andreas Boss
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2021-05-07       Impact factor: 1.889

3.  The effect of breast density on the missed lesion rate in screening digital mammography determined using an adjustable-density breast phantom tailored to Japanese women.

Authors:  Mika Yamamuro; Yoshiyuki Asai; Naomi Hashimoto; Nao Yasuda; Yoshiaki Ozaki; Kazunari Ishii; Yongbum Lee
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-01-07       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  The effectiveness of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography and magnetic resonance imaging in dense breasts.

Authors:  Wojciech Rudnicki; Tomasz Piegza; Natalia Rozum-Liszewska; Mateusz Górski; Tadeusz J Popiela; Pawel Basta; Sylwia Heinze; Elzbieta Luczynska
Journal:  Pol J Radiol       Date:  2021-03-15

5.  Radiomics in photon-counting dedicated breast CT: potential of texture analysis for breast density classification.

Authors:  Anna Landsmann; Carlotta Ruppert; Jann Wieler; Patryk Hejduk; Alexander Ciritsis; Karol Borkowski; Moritz C Wurnig; Cristina Rossi; Andreas Boss
Journal:  Eur Radiol Exp       Date:  2022-07-20

Review 6.  Breast Cancer in Asia: Incidence, Mortality, Early Detection, Mammography Programs, and Risk-Based Screening Initiatives.

Authors:  Yu Xian Lim; Zi Lin Lim; Peh Joo Ho; Jingmei Li
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-30       Impact factor: 6.575

7.  The relationship between breast density, age, and mammographic lesion type among Chinese breast cancer patients from a large clinical dataset.

Authors:  Yu Ji; Boxin Li; Rui Zhao; Ying Zhang; Junjun Liu; Hong Lu
Journal:  BMC Med Imaging       Date:  2021-03-08       Impact factor: 1.930

8.  Historical Origins for the Overestimation of Mammographic Sensitivity.

Authors:  Alan Hollingsworth; Abraham N Morse
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2021-06-26

9.  Applied Machine Learning in Spiral Breast-CT: Can We Train a Deep Convolutional Neural Network for Automatic, Standardized and Observer Independent Classification of Breast Density?

Authors:  Anna Landsmann; Jann Wieler; Patryk Hejduk; Alexander Ciritsis; Karol Borkowski; Cristina Rossi; Andreas Boss
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-01-13
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.