Literature DB >> 8230621

Positive predictive value of screening mammography by age and family history of breast cancer.

K Kerlikowske1, D Grady, J Barclay, E A Sickles, A Eaton, V Ernster.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the positive predictive value (PPV) of low-cost screening mammography according to age and family history of breast cancer.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional.
SETTING: Six counties in northern California. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 31,814 women aged 30 years and older referred for mammography to the University of California, San Francisco, Mobile Mammography Screening Program from April 18, 1985, through November 20, 1992. MEASUREMENTS: Breast cancer risk profile, two standard mammographic views per breast, and follow-up of abnormal screening examinations.
RESULTS: Although women aged 50 years or older constituted only 38.3% of all women who received first-screening mammography, 74% of breast cancers were detected in this group. Ten cancers were diagnosed per 1000 first-screening examinations in women aged 50 years or older, with 14.8 diagnostic procedures per cancer diagnosed compared with two cancers per 1000 screening examinations and 48.3 diagnostic tests per cancer diagnosed in women younger than 50 years. The PPV of first-screening mammography (number of breast cancers detected per abnormal examination) increased with age: .03 for those aged 30 to 39 years; .04 for those aged 40 to 49; .09 for those aged 50 to 59; .17 for those aged 60 to 69; and .19 for those aged 70 years or older (chi 2 for trend, P < .001). Women aged 50 to 59 years had a higher PPV for first-screening mammography than women aged 40 to 49 years (.09 vs. .04; P = .004), and women with a family history of breast cancer had higher PPVs compared with women without history (40 to 49 years of age, .13 vs .04, P = .01; and 50 to 59 years of age, .22 vs .09, P = .01).
CONCLUSION: Five times as many cancers per 1000 first-screening mammographic examinations were diagnosed in women aged 50 years or older compared with women aged less than 50 years. The highest PPVs for mammography were in women aged 50 years or older and in women aged 40 years or older with a family history of breast cancer. Efforts to promote screening mammography should focus on women in these groups, in whom the majority of breast cancers occur and for whom mammography has the highest PPVs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8230621

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  55 in total

Review 1.  Integration of breast imaging into cancer management.

Authors:  L J Esserman; D Wolverton; N Hylton
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 5.075

2.  Women should be fully informed of the potential benefits and harms before screening mammography.

Authors:  K Kerlikowske; V L Ernster
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  2000-11

3.  Joint modeling of sensitivity and specificity.

Authors:  Gavino Puggioni; Alan E Gelfand; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2008-05-10       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Addressing women's breast cancer risk and perceptions of control in medical settings.

Authors:  R Royak-Schaler; B Cheuvront; K R Wilson; C M Williams
Journal:  J Clin Psychol Med Settings       Date:  1996-09

5.  Timeliness of follow-up after abnormal screening mammography.

Authors:  K Kerlikowske
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 4.872

6.  Informed decision making before initiating screening mammography: does it occur and does it make a difference?

Authors:  Larissa Nekhlyudov; Rong Li; Suzanne W Fletcher
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 7.  Screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Katrina Armstrong; Constance D Lehman; Suzanne W Fletcher
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2005-03-09       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  New modalities in breast imaging: digital mammography and magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  M P Braeuning; E D Pisano
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 4.872

9.  Methods for Assessing Improvement in Specificity when a Biomarker is Combined with a Standard Screening Test.

Authors:  Pamela A Shaw; Margaret S Pepe; Todd A Alonzo; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Stat Biopharm Res       Date:  2009-02-01       Impact factor: 1.452

10.  Cumulative false positive recall rate and association with participant related factors in a population based breast cancer screening programme.

Authors:  Xavier Castells; Eduard Molins; Francesc Macià
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 3.710

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.