Literature DB >> 8667536

Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography.

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

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine factors that influence the sensitivity of modern first screening mammography.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional.
SETTING: Nine counties in northern California. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 28 271 women aged 30 years and older referred for first screening mammography to the Mobile Mammography Screening Program of the University of California, San Francisco, from April 1985 to March 1992, of whom 238 were subsequently diagnosed as having breast cancer. MEASUREMENTS: Breast cancer risk profile, 2 standard mammographic views per breast, breast density, and follow-up of abnormal and normal mammography by contacting women's physicians and by linkage to the regional Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results tumor registry to determine the occurrence of any invasive cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ.
RESULTS: For women aged 50 years and older, the sensitivity of first screening mammography was relatively high and decreased slightly with increasing length of follow-up after mammography: 98.5% for 7 months of follow-up, 93.2% for 13 months, and 85.7% for 25 months. Sensitivity was higher among women aged 50 years and older when breast density was primarily fatty rather than primarily dense (98.4% vs 83.7%; P < .01). For women younger than 50 years, the sensitivity of first screening mammography also decreased with increasing length of follow-up but was significantly lower than for older women: 87.5% for 7 months of follow-up, 83.6% for 13 months, and 71.4% for 25 months. For women younger than 50 years, breast density did not affect the sensitivity of mammography (81.8% for those with primarily fatty breasts vs 85.4% for those with primarily dense breasts) and was lower among those with a family history of breast cancer (68.8%).
CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of modern mammography is highest among women aged 50 years and older who have primarily fatty breast density. Sensitivity is lowest among women younger than 50 years and particularly low when the time between screenings is about 2 years or when women have a family history of breast cancer, possibly because of rapid tumor growth.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8667536

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


  122 in total

Review 1.  Evidence based case report: Advice about mammography for a young woman with a family history of breast cancer.

Authors:  A Lucassen; E Watson; D Eccles
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-04-28

2.  How women with a family history of breast cancer and their general practitioners act on genetic advice in general practice: prospective longitudinal study.

Authors:  G H de Bock; C J van Asperen; J M de Vries; G C Hageman; M P Springer; J Kievit
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-01-06

Review 3.  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

4.  US-guided diffuse optical tomography for breast lesions: the reliability of clinical experience.

Authors:  Min Jung Kim; Ji Youn Kim; Jung Hyun Youn; Myung Hyun Kim; Hye Ryoung Koo; Soo Jin Kim; Yu-Mee Sohn; Hee Jung Moon; Eun-Kyung Kim
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-01-28       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Perceived sensitivity of mammographic screening: women's views on test accuracy and financial compensation for missed cancers.

Authors:  A Barratt; J Cockburn; C Furnival; A McBride; L Mallon
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 3.710

6.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: State of the Art.

Authors:  Srinivasan Vedantham; Andrew Karellas; Gopal R Vijayaraghavan; Daniel B Kopans
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Collaborative Modeling of the Benefits and Harms Associated With Different U.S. Breast Cancer Screening Strategies.

Authors:  Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Natasha K Stout; Clyde B Schechter; Jeroen J van den Broek; Diana L Miglioretti; Martin Krapcho; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Diego Munoz; Sandra J Lee; Donald A Berry; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Oguzhan Alagoz; Karla Kerlikowske; Anna N A Tosteson; Aimee M Near; Amanda Hoeffken; Yaojen Chang; Eveline A Heijnsdijk; Gary Chisholm; Xuelin Huang; Hui Huang; Mehmet Ali Ergun; Ronald Gangnon; Brian L Sprague; Sylvia Plevritis; Eric Feuer; Harry J de Koning; Kathleen A Cronin
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts.

Authors:  Brian L Sprague; Natasha K Stout; Clyde Schechter; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Mucahit Cevik; Oguzhan Alagoz; Christoph I Lee; Jeroen J van den Broek; Diana L Miglioretti; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Harry J de Koning; Karla Kerlikowske; Constance D Lehman; Anna N A Tosteson
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2015-02-03       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Influence of personal characteristics of individual women on sensitivity and specificity of mammography in the Million Women Study: cohort study.

Authors:  Emily Banks; Gillian Reeves; Valerie Beral; Diana Bull; Barbara Crossley; Moya Simmonds; Elizabeth Hilton; Stephen Bailey; Nigel Barrett; Peter Briers; Ruth English; Alan Jackson; Elizabeth Kutt; Janet Lavelle; Linda Rockall; Matthew G Wallis; Mary Wilson; Julietta Patnick
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-08-28

10.  Correlation between breast density in mammography and background enhancement in MR mammography.

Authors:  R Cubuk; N Tasali; B Narin; F Keskiner; L Celik; S Guney
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2010-01-15       Impact factor: 3.469

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.