Literature DB >> 8861833

Age-specific sensitivities of mammographic screening for breast cancer.

P G Peer1, A L Verbeek, H Straatman, J H Hendriks, R Holland.   

Abstract

The sensitivity of the mammographic screening test in the biennial screening program of Nijmegen is assessed by analyzing the occurrence of interval cancers, i.e. cancers surfacing clinically in the interval between a negative screening examination and the subsequent scheduled examination. The difference between the observed number of interval cancers and the expected number of clinically manifest cancers in the absence of screening for the interval period reflects the number of cancers detected by screening. The expected number should be limited by the number of those cancers that were not detectable at the time of the screening examination because their size was under the threshold of mammographic detectability (5 mm). In contrast to other sensitivity studies we took these 'fast growing' cancers into consideration, the numbers of which are estimated in each of the six-month periods of the two-year interval using age-specific tumor volume growth rates for three age groups: < 50, 50-69, and > or = 70 years. In patients under age 50, the sensitivity was 64% for cancers which would become clinically manifest within one year after screening. This sensitivity was lower than those obtained from the 50-69 and > or = 70 age groups, being 85% and 80%, respectively. For cancers that would become clinically manifest 12-18 months after screening, sensitivity decreases to 22% in the under age 50 group, and to 56% and 65% in the two above age 50 groups, respectively. We conclude that even when adjusted for growth rate, the mammographic screening test has a poor performance in the under age 50 group.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8861833     DOI: 10.1007/bf01806669

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.872


  24 in total

Review 1.  The benefits and risks of mammographic screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  S F Hurley; J M Kaldor
Journal:  Epidemiol Rev       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 6.222

2.  A model-based analysis of the HIP project for breast cancer screening.

Authors:  G J van Oortmarssen; J D Habbema; J T Lubbe; P J van der Maas
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  1990-08-15       Impact factor: 7.396

3.  Evaluation of overdiagnosis of breast cancer in screening with mammography: results of the Nijmegen programme.

Authors:  P H Peeters; A L Verbeek; H Straatman; R Holland; J H Hendriks; M Mravunac; C Rothengatter; A Van Dijk-Milatz; J M Werre
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  1989-06       Impact factor: 7.196

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.  Breast cancer after a negative screen: follow-up of women participating in the DOM Screening Programme.

Authors:  C T Brekelmans; H J Collette; C Collette; J Fracheboud; F de Waard
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 9.162

6.  Randomized study of mammography screening--preliminary report on mortality in the Stockholm trial.

Authors:  J Frisell; G Eklund; L Hellström; E Lidbrink; L E Rutqvist; A Somell
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  1991-03       Impact factor: 4.872

7.  Estimating the sensitivity of breast cancer screening--experience with the Honolulu BCDDP data.

Authors:  J S Grove; M J Goodman; F I Gilbert; G Low
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  1991-05       Impact factor: 4.872

8.  Report of the International Workshop on Screening for Breast Cancer.

Authors:  S W Fletcher; W Black; R Harris; B K Rimer; S Shapiro
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1993-10-20       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Breast cancer screening programmes: the development of a monitoring and evaluation system.

Authors:  N E Day; D R Williams; K T Khaw
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1989-06       Impact factor: 7.640

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
  12 in total

Review 1.  Mammographic screening in older women. Is it worthwhile?

Authors:  J A van Dijck; M J Broeders; A L Verbeek
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 3.923

2.  Accuracy of screening mammography varies by week of menstrual cycle.

Authors:  Diana L Miglioretti; Rod Walker; Donald L Weaver; Diana S M Buist; Stephen H Taplin; Patricia A Carney; Robert D Rosenberg; Mark B Dignan; Zhuo Tracy Zhang; Emily White
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-12-03       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  A new approach to develop computer-aided detection schemes of digital mammograms.

Authors:  Maxine Tan; Wei Qian; Jiantao Pu; Hong Liu; Bin Zheng
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2015-05-18       Impact factor: 3.609

4.  Moderators of psychological recovery from benign cancer screening results.

Authors:  M Pelletier; B Knäuper; C G Loiselle; R Perreault; C Mizrahi; L Dubé
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 3.677

5.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of mammography and clinical breast examination strategies: a comparison with current guidelines.

Authors:  Charlotte Hsieh Ahern; Yu Shen
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2009-03-03       Impact factor: 4.254

6.  Classification of Breast Masses Using a Computer-Aided Diagnosis Scheme of Contrast Enhanced Digital Mammograms.

Authors:  Gopichandh Danala; Bhavika Patel; Faranak Aghaei; Morteza Heidari; Jing Li; Teresa Wu; Bin Zheng
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2018-05-10       Impact factor: 3.934

7.  Mammographic screening after the age of 65 years: early outcomes in the Nijmegen programme.

Authors:  J van Dijck; A Verbeek; J Hendriks; R Holland; M Mravunac
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 7.640

8.  Screen-detected breast cancers have a lower mitotic activity index.

Authors:  R P Groenendijk; P Bult; L Tewarie; P G Peer; R F van der Sluis; T J Ruers; T Wobbes
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 7.640

9.  Which screening strategy should be offered to women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations? A simulation of comparative cost-effectiveness.

Authors:  G H de Bock; K M Vermeulen; L Jansen; J C Oosterwijk; S Siesling; M D Dorrius; T Feenstra; N Houssami; M J W Greuter
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2013-04-11       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Developing global image feature analysis models to predict cancer risk and prognosis.

Authors:  Bin Zheng; Yuchen Qiu; Faranak Aghaei; Seyedehnafiseh Mirniaharikandehei; Morteza Heidari; Gopichandh Danala
Journal:  Vis Comput Ind Biomed Art       Date:  2019-11-19
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.