Literature DB >> 8627640

Effect of estrogen replacement therapy on the specificity and sensitivity of screening mammography.

M B Laya1, E B Larson, S H Taplin, E White.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated that mammographic breast density increases following the initiation of estrogen replacement therapy (ERT). The effect, if any, that this increase in density has on the specificity (related to false-positive readings) and the sensitivity (related to false-negative readings) of screening mammography is unknown.
PURPOSE: Using a retrospective cohort study design, we assessed the effects of ERT on the specificity and the sensitivity of screening mammography.
METHODS: Participants (n = 8779) were postmenopausal women, aged 50 years or older, who were enrolled in a health maintenance organization located in western Washington state and who entered a breast cancer screening program between January 1988 and June 1993. Two-view mammography was performed as part of a comprehensive breast cancer screening visit. Menopausal status, as well as demographic and risk-factor information, was recorded via self-administered questionnaires. Hormonal replacement therapy type and use were determined from questionnaire data and from an automated review of pharmacy records. Individuals diagnosed with breast cancer within 12 months of their first screening-program mammograms were identified through use of a regional cancer registry. Risk ratios (RRs) plus 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of false-positive as well as false-negative examinations among current and former ERT users (with never users as the reference group) were calculated. Reported P values are two-sided.
RESULTS: The specificity of mammographic screening was lower for current users of ERT than for never users or former users. Defining a positive mammographic reading as any non-normal reading (either suspicious for cancer or indeterminate), the adjusted RR (95% CI) of a false-positive reading for current users versus never users was 1.33 (1.15-1.54) (P < .001); for former users versus never users, the RR (95% CI) was 1.00 (0.87-1.15). The adjusted mammographic specificities (95% CIs) for never users, former users, and current users of ERT were 86% (84%-88%), 86% (84%-87%), and 82% (80%-84%), respectively. Defining a positive reading more rigorously (i.e., as suspicious for cancer only), the adjusted RRs (95% CIs) of false-positive readings for current users and former users (versus never users) were 1.71 (1.37-2.14) (P < .001) and 1.16 (0.93-1.45), respectively. Sensitivity was also lower in women currently receiving ERT. The unadjusted RR (95% CI) of a false-negative reading for current users versus never users was 5.23 (1.09-25.02) (P = .04); for former users versus never users, the RR (95% CI) was 1.06 (0.10-10.87). The unadjusted mammographic sensitivities (95% CI) for never users, former users, and current users of ERT were 94% (80%-99%), 94% (69%-99%), and 69% (38%-91%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Current use of ERT is associated with lower specificity and lower sensitivity of screening mammography. Lower specificity could increase the cost of breast cancer screening, and lower sensitivity may decrease its effectiveness.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8627640     DOI: 10.1093/jnci/88.10.643

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  27 in total

Review 1.  Clinical practice. Mammographic screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  Suzanne W Fletcher; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-04-24       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists.

Authors:  William E Barlow; Chen Chi; Patricia A Carney; Stephen H Taplin; Carl D'Orsi; Gary Cutter; R Edward Hendrick; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2004-12-15       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Image artifacts in digital breast tomosynthesis: investigation of the effects of system geometry and reconstruction parameters using a linear system approach.

Authors:  Yue-Houng Hu; Bo Zhao; Wei Zhao
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 4.  Hormone replacement therapy.

Authors:  E Barrett-Connor
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-08-15

5.  The effect of angular dose distribution on the detection of microcalcifications in digital breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Yue-Houng Hu; Wei Zhao
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Non-invasive measurements of breast tissue optical properties using frequency-domain photon migration.

Authors:  B J Tromberg; O Coquoz; J B Fishkin; T Pham; E R Anderson; J Butler; M Cahn; J D Gross; V Venugopalan; D Pham
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  1997-06-29       Impact factor: 6.237

7.  Application of breast tomosynthesis in screening: incremental effect on mammography acquisition and reading time.

Authors:  D Bernardi; S Ciatto; M Pellegrini; V Anesi; S Burlon; E Cauli; M Depaoli; L Larentis; V Malesani; L Targa; P Baldo; N Houssami
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Screening mammograms by community radiologists: variability in false-positive rates.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Diana L Miglioretti; Lisa M Reisch; Mary B Barton; William Kreuter; Cindy L Christiansen; Suzanne W Fletcher
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2002-09-18       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Prediagnostic use of hormone therapy and mortality after breast cancer.

Authors:  Polly A Newcomb; Kathleen M Egan; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Linda Titus-Ernstoff; John A Baron; John M Hampton; Meir J Stampfer; Walter C Willett
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2008-04-01       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 10.  Update in women's health.

Authors:  Judith M E Walsh; Mary S Beattie; Pamela Charney
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2009-12-18       Impact factor: 5.128

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.