Literature DB >> 6707563

Repeated screening for breast cancer.

J Chamberlain, R E Clifford, B E Nathan, J L Price, I Burn.   

Abstract

In a screening service for breast cancer the results of routine repeat tests of women will contribute more than the results of their initial tests. A comparison of first and subsequent screens in a group of high risk women suggests that the sensitivity of screening declines between first and subsequent visits, whereas its specificity improves. Despite improved specificity, the ratio of benign biopsies to cancer was worse at repeated screening (21 to 1) than at first screening (6 to 1). This was because between first and subsequent screens the yield of cancers fell to a greater extent than the yield of benign disease. The patients with breast cancer diagnosed during this study were remarkable for their good prognosis, 92% being still alive and 86% free from recurrence at their last follow up, the follow up intervals ranging from four to eight years.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1984        PMID: 6707563      PMCID: PMC1052316          DOI: 10.1136/jech.38.1.54

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health        ISSN: 0143-005X            Impact factor:   3.710


  7 in total

1.  Choice of screening tests.

Authors:  P R Simpson; J Chamberlain
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health (1978)       Date:  1978-09

2.  Breast cancer screening and health service costs.

Authors:  H S Gravelle; P R Simpson; J Chamberlain
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  1982-08       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  Evidence on screening for breast cancer from a randomized trial.

Authors:  S Shapiro
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1977-06       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Error-rates in screening for breast cancer by clinical examination and mammography.

Authors:  J Chamberlain; R E Clifford; B E Nathan; J L Price; I Burn
Journal:  Clin Oncol       Date:  1979-06

5.  Breast cancer screening results as viewed by the clinician.

Authors:  C R Smart; O H Beahrs
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1979-03       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Validity of clinical examination and mammography as screening tests for breast cancer.

Authors:  J Chamberlain; P Rogers; J L Price; S Ginks; B E Nathan; I Burn
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1975-11-22       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Basic issues in population screening for cancer.

Authors:  P Cole; A S Morrison
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1980-05       Impact factor: 13.506

  7 in total
  5 in total

1.  Mammography, Martin Yaffe, and me: response and appreciation.

Authors:  Constantine Kaniklidis
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 3.677

2.  Estimating the sensitivity of a screening test.

Authors:  N E Day
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1985-12       Impact factor: 3.710

3.  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

4.  A proposal for short-term quality control in breast cancer screening.

Authors:  A L Verbeek; M C Van den Ban; J H Hendriks
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1991-02       Impact factor: 7.640

5.  The predictive value of positive test results in screening for breast cancer by mammography in the Nijmegen programme.

Authors:  P H Peeters; A L Verbeek; J H Hendriks; R Holland; M Mravunac
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1987-11       Impact factor: 7.640

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.