Literature DB >> 3523590

Sensitivity and specificity of first screen mammography in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: a preliminary report from five centers.

C J Baines, A B Miller, C Wall, D V McFarlane, I S Simor, R Jong, B J Shapiro, L Audet, M Petitclerc, D Ouimet-Oliva.   

Abstract

Sensitivity and specificity of first screen mammography in a randomized screening trial at five centers are reported. A total of 23,101 women underwent mammography; in 139, breast cancer was detected at first screening; in 20, less than 12 months after first screening; and in 47, at second screening. All 206 cancer cases were histologically confirmed, and 174 were defined as being detectable at first screening. Average length of follow-up for all women was 3.2 years. Interpretations of first screen mammograms by the center radiologists were matched to known outcomes. Simultaneous blind review was performed by a single reference radiologist with mammograms from all 206 cancer cases and those of a random sample of 739 women not known to have breast cancer at 15 months or more after initial screening. Overall, the five screening centers achieved a sensitivity of 69% (range, 60%-78%), a specificity of 94% (range, 93%-96%), a positive predictive value of 8.6% (range, 3%-16%), and a negative predictive value of 99.7% (range, 99.6%-99.9%).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1986        PMID: 3523590     DOI: 10.1148/radiology.160.2.3523590

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


  24 in total

1.  The Canadian National Breast Screening Study: a clinician's perspective.

Authors:  A A Starreveld
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1992-11-15       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  The positive predictive value of the breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) as a method of quality assessment in breast imaging in a hospital population.

Authors:  Harmine M Zonderland; Thomas L Pope; Arend J Nieborg
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2004-07-09       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Study of the performance of a novel 1 mm resolution dual-panel PET camera design dedicated to breast cancer imaging using Monte Carlo simulation.

Authors:  Jin Zhang; Peter D Olcott; Garry Chinn; Angela M K Foudray; Craig S Levine
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Computer-aided detection of clustered microcalcifications on digital mammograms.

Authors:  R M Nishikawa; M L Giger; K Doi; C J Vyborny; R A Schmidt
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 2.602

5.  Screening for breast cancer: current attitudes and practice.

Authors:  E J Noulty
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  1989-04       Impact factor: 3.275

6.  Mammography screening practices among primary care physicians.

Authors:  B Warshawsky; M H Tabib; D White
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  1989-05       Impact factor: 3.275

7.  The debate over mass mammography in Britain. The case against.

Authors:  P Skrabanek
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1988-10-15

8.  Controversy over mammography screening.

Authors:  J Reidy; O Hoskins
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1988-10-15

9.  Standardized uptake values of normal breast tissue with 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D: -glucose positron emission tomography: variations with age, breast density, and menopausal status.

Authors:  Rakesh Kumar; Anil Chauhan; Hongming Zhuang; Prem Chandra; Mitchell Schnall; Abass Alavi
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2006 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.488

10.  A nurse-delivered intervention to reduce barriers to breast and cervical cancer screening in Chicago inner city clinics.

Authors:  D Ansell; L Lacey; S Whitman; E Chen; C Phillips
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  1994 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.792

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.