Literature DB >> 9059292

Do non-specific minimal signs in a biennial mammographic breast cancer screening programme need further diagnostic assessment?

R M Maes1, D J Dronkers, J H Hendriks, M A Thijssen, H W Nab.   

Abstract

Mammographic features such as small vague densities, indefinable microcalcifications, subtle architectural distortions, alone or in combination, are non-specific appearances for breast cancer. These features sometimes precede malignancy and a decisive strategy on how to deal with non-specific minimal signs in a breast cancer screening programme is therefore desirable. After studying the prevalence of these signs in a Dutch Breast Cancer Screening Centre and estimating the risk of participants with these signs acquiring breast cancer within 2 years, we have developed such a strategy. Non-specific minimal signs were seen on the mammograms of 53 of 500 (10.6%) participants, aged 50-70 years, in this programme. After retrospective analysis of the mammograms of 254 patients with screen-detected or interval carcinoma, non-specific minimal signs were detected in 77 cases. Combining the incidence of breast cancer with the difference between the expected number of non-specific minimal signs in the screening programme and its actual occurrence in previous mammograms of patients with breast cancer, the risk of cancer in women with these signs, additional to that of screened women in general (additional risk), is calculated as being 0.5%. Invasive breast cancer in women with previously detected non-specific minimal signs demonstrated a favourable stage at diagnosis (axillary metastasis in 23% vs 37% in cancers without these previous signs, p < or = 0.05). Our strategy for follow-up in case of non-specific minimal signs remains unchanged because of the low additional risk and favourable staging, and is restricted to an invitation for the next screening round in 2 years time.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9059292     DOI: 10.1259/bjr.70.829.9059292

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  12 in total

1.  Screening for breast and cervical cancer as a common cause for litigation. A false negative result may be one of an irreducible minimum of errors.

Authors:  R M Wilson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-05-20

Review 2.  Digital mammography: what do we and what don't we know?

Authors:  Ulrich Bick; Felix Diekmann
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-02-14       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Nonpalpable, probably benign breast lesions in general practice: the role of follow-up mammography.

Authors:  L E Duijm; J O Zaat; G L Guit
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 5.386

4.  Variations in screening outcome among pairs of screening radiologists at non-blinded double reading of screening mammograms: a population-based study.

Authors:  E G Klompenhouwer; L E M Duijm; A C Voogd; G J den Heeten; J Nederend; F H Jansen; M J M Broeders
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-02-06       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Characteristics and screening outcome of women referred twice at screening mammography.

Authors:  Wikke Setz-Pels; Lucien E M Duijm; Marieke W J Louwman; Rudi M H Roumen; Frits H Jansen; Adri C Voogd
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-06-13       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Screening outcome in women repeatedly recalled for the same mammographic abnormality before, during and after the transition from screen-film to full-field digital screening mammography.

Authors:  Rob van Bommel; Adri C Voogd; Marieke W Louwman; Luc J Strobbe; Dick Venderink; Lucien E M Duijm
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-05-14       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Trends in incidence and detection of advanced breast cancer at biennial screening mammography in The Netherlands: a population based study.

Authors:  Joost Nederend; Lucien Em Duijm; Adri C Voogd; Johanna H Groenewoud; Frits H Jansen; Marieke Wj Louwman
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2012-01-09       Impact factor: 6.466

8.  Mammography screening in the Netherlands: delay in the diagnosis of breast cancer after breast cancer screening.

Authors:  L E M Duijm; J H Groenewoud; F H Jansen; J Fracheboud; M van Beek; H J de Koning
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2004-11-15       Impact factor: 7.640

9.  Identification of women with early breast cancer by analysis of p43-positive lymphocytes.

Authors:  L Auerbach; M Hellan; M Stierer; A C Rosen; C Ausch; R Obwegeser; E Kubista; G Wolf; H R Rosen; S Panzer
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Re-attendance after false-positive screening mammography: a population-based study in the Netherlands.

Authors:  W Setz-Pels; L E M Duijm; J W Coebergh; M Rutten; J Nederend; A C Voogd
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2013-09-19       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.