Literature DB >> 31184557

Age-based versus Risk-based Mammography Screening in Women 40-49 Years Old: A Cross-sectional Study.

Elizabeth S Burnside1, Amy Trentham-Dietz1, Christina M Shafer1, John M Hampton1, Oguz Alagoz1, Jennifer R Cox1, Eric Mischo1, Sarina B Schrager1, Lee G Wilke1.   

Abstract

Background Risk-based screening in women 40-49 years old has not been evaluated in routine screening mammography practice. Purpose To use a cross-sectional study design to compare the trade-offs of risk-based and age-based screening for women 45 years of age or older to determine short-term outcomes. Materials and Methods A retrospective cross-sectional study was performed by using a database of 20 539 prospectively interpreted consecutive digital screening mammograms in 10 280 average-risk women aged 40-49 years who were screened at an academic medical center between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2013. Two hypothetical screening scenarios were compared: an age-based (≥45 years) scenario versus a risk-based (a 5-year risk of breast cancer greater than that of an average 50-year-old) scenario. Risk factors for risk-based screening included family history, race, age, prior breast biopsy, and breast density. Outcomes included breast cancers detected at mammography, false-positive mammograms, and benign biopsy findings. Short-term outcomes were compared by using the χ2 test. Results The screening population included 71 148 screening mammograms in 24 928 women with a mean age of 55.5 years ± 8.9 (standard deviation) (age range, 40-74 years). In women 40-49 years old, usual care included 50 screening-detected cancers, 1787 false-positive mammograms, and 384 benign biopsy results. The age-based (≥45 years) screening strategy revealed more cancers than did the risk-based strategy (34 [68%] vs 13 [26%] of 50; P < .001), while prompting more false-positive mammograms (899 [50.3%] vs 216 [12.1%] of 1787; P < .001) and benign biopsy results (175 [45.6%] vs 49 [12.8%] of 384; P < .001). The risk-based strategy demonstrated low levels of eligibility (few screenings) in the 40-44-year age group. Differences in outcomes in the 45-49-year age group explained the overall hypothetical screening strategy differences. Conclusion Risk-based screening for women 40-49 years old includes few women in the 40-44-year age range. Significant trade-offs in the 45-49-year age group explain the overall difference between hypothetical screening scenarios, both of which reduce the benefits as well as the harms of mammography for women 40-49 years old. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Joe and Hayward in this issue.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31184557      PMCID: PMC6694720          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2019181651

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  26 in total

1.  Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs.

Authors:  J Concato; N Shah; R I Horwitz
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2000-06-22       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: a cohort study.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Karla Kerlikowske; Chris I Flowers; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Weiwei Zhu; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Baseline Mammography: What Is It and Why Is It Important? A Cross-Sectional Survey of Women Undergoing Screening Mammography.

Authors:  Robert K Horsley; Juliana M Kling; Suneela Vegunta; Roxanne Lorans; H'hamed Temkit; Bhavika K Patel
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2018-09-13       Impact factor: 5.532

4.  Empirical comparison of the results of randomized controlled trials and case-control studies in evaluating the effectiveness of screening mammography.

Authors:  K Demissie; O F Mills; G G Rhoads
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  Fifty years of age-based screening: time for a new risk-based screening approach.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Margaret E O'Kane; Laura J Esserman
Journal:  Evid Based Med       Date:  2014-05-01

6.  National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Screening Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

Authors:  Constance D Lehman; Robert F Arao; Brian L Sprague; Janie M Lee; Diana S M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Louise M Henderson; Tracy Onega; Anna N A Tosteson; Garth H Rauscher; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2016-12-05       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Impact of mammography screening interval on breast cancer diagnosis by menopausal status and BMI.

Authors:  Kim Dittus; Berta Geller; Donald L Weaver; Karla Kerlikowske; Weiwei Zhu; Rebecca Hubbard; Dejana Braithwaite; Ellen S O'Meara; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2013-06-13       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Using clinical factors and mammographic breast density to estimate breast cancer risk: development and validation of a new predictive model.

Authors:  Jeffrey A Tice; Steven R Cummings; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Laura Ichikawa; William E Barlow; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-03-04       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Mammographic screening and breast cancer mortality: a case-control study and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Carolyn Nickson; Kate E Mason; Dallas R English; Anne M Kavanagh
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 4.254

10.  Mammographic density adds accuracy to both the Tyrer-Cuzick and Gail breast cancer risk models in a prospective UK screening cohort.

Authors:  Adam R Brentnall; Elaine F Harkness; Susan M Astley; Louise S Donnelly; Paula Stavrinos; Sarah Sampson; Lynne Fox; Jamie C Sergeant; Michelle N Harvie; Mary Wilson; Ursula Beetles; Soujanya Gadde; Yit Lim; Anil Jain; Sara Bundred; Nicola Barr; Valerie Reece; Anthony Howell; Jack Cuzick; D Gareth R Evans
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2015-12-01       Impact factor: 6.466

View more
  3 in total

1.  Preliminary Evaluation of a Breast Cancer Screening Shared Decision-Making Aid Utilized Within the Primary Care Clinical Encounter.

Authors:  Lori DuBenske; Viktoriya Ovsepyan; Terry Little; Sarina Schrager; Elizabeth Burnside
Journal:  J Patient Exp       Date:  2021-07-31

2.  Breast cancer risk stratification for mammographic screening: A nation-wide screening cohort of 24,431 women in Singapore.

Authors:  Peh Joo Ho; Fuh Yong Wong; Wen Yee Chay; Elaine Hsuen Lim; Zi Lin Lim; Kee Seng Chia; Mikael Hartman; Jingmei Li
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2021-10-28       Impact factor: 4.452

Review 3.  The current status of risk-stratified breast screening.

Authors:  Ash Kieran Clift; David Dodwell; Simon Lord; Stavros Petrou; Sir Michael Brady; Gary S Collins; Julia Hippisley-Cox
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2021-10-26       Impact factor: 9.075

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.