Literature DB >> 8762357

Age specific sensitivity and sojourn time in a breast cancer screening programme (DOM) in The Netherlands: a comparison of different methods.

C T Brekelmans1, P Westers, J A Faber, P H Peeters, H J Collette.   

Abstract

STUDY
OBJECTIVE: To estimate age dependent sensitivity and sojourn time in a breast cancer screening programme by different methods. POPULATION AND METHODS: The study population comprised women participating in the DOM project--the Utrecht screening programme for the early detection of breast cancer. Breast cancer screening prevalence data and incidence rates after a negative screen were used to estimate age specific sensitivity and mean sojourn time by different methods. MAIN
RESULTS: Maximum likelihood estimates of the mean sojourn time varied from one year for women aged 40-49 years to three years for women over the age of 54. Sensitivity was calculated by two different methods. Both pointed to a high sensitivity (around 100%) in the age groups 40-49 and over 55 years. For women aged 50-54, the sensitivity varied from 63% to 100%, depending on the method used and the value of the baseline incidence rate.
CONCLUSIONS: Different methods of estimating sensitivity pointed at an acceptable level in women over and under 50 years of age. Sojourn time, and thus the tumour growth rate, seemed to be age dependent. This could mean that the until now disappointing screening results in women under 50 years of age are not so much a result of low sensitivity as of a relatively high tumour growth rate in younger women.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8762357      PMCID: PMC1060207          DOI: 10.1136/jech.50.1.68

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


  18 in total

1.  Modelling the analysis of breast cancer screening programmes: sensitivity, lead time and predictive value in the Florence District Programme (1975-1986).

Authors:  E Paci; S W Duffy
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  1991-12       Impact factor: 7.196

2.  Estimation of the duration of a pre-clinical disease state using screening data.

Authors:  S D Walter; N E Day
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1983-12       Impact factor: 4.897

3.  Simplified models of screening for chronic disease: estimation procedures from mass screening programmes.

Authors:  N E Day; S D Walter
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1984-03       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Estimating the sensitivity of a screening test.

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

5.  Risk factors for breast cancer by mode of diagnosis: some results from a breast cancer screening study.

Authors:  J Whitehead; J Cooper
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1989-06       Impact factor: 3.710

6.  Breast cancer: age-specific growth rates and screening strategies.

Authors:  M Moskowitz
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1986-10       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Mammography screening guidelines for women 40 to 49 and over 65 years old.

Authors:  A B Miller
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 3.797

8.  Geometry, growth rates, and duration of cancer and carcinoma in situ of the breast before detection by screening.

Authors:  J S Spratt; R A Greenberg; L S Heuser
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  1986-02       Impact factor: 12.701

9.  Update of the Swedish two-county program of mammographic screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  L Tabàr; G Fagerberg; S W Duffy; N E Day; A Gad; O Gröntoft
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  1992-01       Impact factor: 2.303

10.  What is the optimum interval between mammographic screening examinations? An analysis based on the latest results of the Swedish two-county breast cancer screening trial.

Authors:  L Tabár; G Faberberg; N E Day; L Holmberg
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1987-05       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  5 in total

1.  Estimating key parameters in periodic breast cancer screening-application to the Canadian National Breast Screening Study data.

Authors:  Yinlu Chen; Guy Brock; Dongfeng Wu
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 2.984

2.  Are breast cancer navigation programs cost-effective? Evidence from the Chicago Cancer Navigation Project.

Authors:  Talar W Markossian; Elizabeth A Calhoun
Journal:  Health Policy       Date:  2010-08-04       Impact factor: 2.980

3.  Thermography based breast cancer detection using texture features and Support Vector Machine.

Authors:  U Rajendra Acharya; E Y K Ng; Jen-Hong Tan; S Vinitha Sree
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2010-10-19       Impact factor: 4.460

4.  Toward optimal screening strategies for older women. Costs, benefits, and harms of breast cancer screening by age, biology, and health status.

Authors:  Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Clyde B Schechter; K Robin Yabroff; William Lawrence; James Dignam; Martine Extermann; Sarah Fox; Gretchen Orosz; Rebecca Silliman; Jennifer Cullen; Lodovico Balducci
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Modelling the overdiagnosis of breast cancer due to mammography screening in women aged 40 to 49 in the United Kingdom.

Authors:  Necdet B Gunsoy; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Sue M Moss
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2012-11-29       Impact factor: 6.466

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.