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

JAMA

Volumn 276, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 33-38

  Kerlikowske, Karla ^a,b   Grady, Deborah ^a,b   Barclay, John ^a   Sickles, Edward A ^a   Ernster, Virginia ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b SAN FRANCISCO VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DENSITY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FAMILY HISTORY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

EID: 0029902170     PISSN: 00987484     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jama.276.1.33     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Duffy SW, Day NE, Gas A, Grontoft O. Update of the Swedish two-county program of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am. 1992;30:187-210.
2. Peeters PHM, Verbeek ALM, Hendriks JHCL, van Bon MJH. Screening for breast cancer in Nijmegen: report of 6 screening rounds, 1975-1986. Int J Cancer. 1989;43:226-230.
3. Elwood JM, Cox B, Richardson AK. The effectiveness of breast cancer screening by mammography in younger women [serial online]. Online J Curr Clin Trials. 1993;2:Doc NR 32.
4. Fletcher SW, Black W, Harris R, Rimer B, Shapiro S. Report of the international workshop on screening for breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85:1644-1656.
5. Tabar L, Faberberg G, Day NE, et al. 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. Int J Cancer. 1987;55:547-551.
6. Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Chen H, et al. Efficacy of breast cancer screening by age: new results from the Swedish two-county trial. Cancer. 1995;75:2507-2517.
7. Moskowitz M. Breast cancer: age-specific growth rates and screening strategies. Radiology. 1986; 161:37-41.
8. Spratt JS, Greenberg RA, Heuser LS. Geometry, growth rates, and duration of cancer and carcinoma in situ of the breast before detection by screening. Cancer Res. 1986;46:970-974.
9. Bird RE. Low-cost screening mammography: report on finances and review of 21,716 consecutive cases. Radiology. 1989;171:87-90.
10. Linver MN, Paster SB, Rosenberg RD, Key CR, Stidley CA, King WV. Improvement in mammography interpretation skills in a community radiology practice after dedicated teaching courses: 2-year medical audit of 38,633 cases. Radiology. 1992;184:39-43.
11. Burhenne HJ, Burhenne LW, Goldberg F, et al. Interval breast cancers in the screening mammography program of British Columbia: analysis and classification. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1994;162:1067-1071.
12. Robertson CL. A private breast imaging practice: medical audit of 25,788 screening and 1,077 diagnostic examinations. Radiology. 1993;187:75-79.
13. Sienko DG, Hahn RA, Mills EM, et al. Mammography use and outcomes in a community: the greater Lansing area mammography study. Cancer. 1993;71:1801-1809.
14. Frankel SD, Sickles EA, Curpen BN, Sollitto RA, Ominsky SH, Galvin HB. Initial versus subsequent screening mammography: comparison of findings and their prognostic significance. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995;164:1107-1109.
15. Sickles EA, Weber WN, Galvin HB, Ominsky SH, Sollitto RA. Mammographie screening: how to operate successfully at low cost. Radiology. 1986; 160:95-97.
16. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Eaton A, Ernster V. Positive predictive value of screening mammography by age and family history of breast cancer. JAMA. 1993;270:2444-2450.
17. Sickles EA. The use of computers in mammography screening. Radiol Clin North Am. 1987;25: 1015-1029.
18. D'Orsi CJ, Kopans DB. Mammographic feature analysis. Semin Roentgenol. 1993;28:204-230.
19. Sickles EA, Ominsky SH, Sollitto RA, Galvin HB, Monticciolo DL. Medical audit of a rapid-through-put mammography screening practice: methodology and results of 27,114 examinations. Radiology. 1990; 176:323-327.
20. Monticciolo DL, Sickles EA. Computerized follow-up of abnormalities detected at mammography screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1990;155:751-753.
21. Mettlin C, Smart CR. Breast cancer detection guidelines for women aged 40 to 49 years: rationale for the American Cancer Society reaffirmation of recommendations. CA Cancer J Clin. 1994;44:248-255.
22. Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. Canadian Guide to Clinical Preventive Health Care. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Communication Group; 1994.
23. US Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to Clinical Preventive Services. 2nd ed. Baltimore, Md: Williams & Wilkins; 1996.
24. American College of Radiology. Policy Statement: Guidelines for Mammography. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology; 1982.
25. Bartow SA, Pathak DR, Mettler FA, Key CR, Pike MC. Breast mammographic pattern: a concatenation of confounding and breast cancer risk factors. Am J Epidemiol. 1995;142:813-819.
26. Bird RE, Wallace TW, Yankaskas BC. Analysis of cancer missed at screening mammography. Radiology. 1992;184:613-617.
27. Ma L, Fishell E, Wright B, Hanna W, Allan S, Boyd NF. Case-control study of factors associated with failure to detect breast cancer by mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1992;84:781-785.
28. Brekelmans CTM, Collette HJA, Collette C, Fracheboud J, de Warrd F. Breast cancer after a negative screen: follow-up of women participating in the DOM screening programme. Eur J Cancer. 1992;28A:893-895.
29. Dershaw DD, Abramson A, Kinne DW. Ductal carcinoma in situ: mammographic findings and clinical implications. Radiology. 1989;170:411-415.
30. Stomper PC, Connoly JL. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: correlation between mammographic calcification and tumor subtype. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1992;159:483-485.
31. Page DL, Dupont WD, Rogers LW, et al. Intraductal carcinoma of the breast: follow-up after biopsy only. Cancer. 1982;49:751-758.
32. Farrow JH. Current concepts in the detection of the earliest of the early breast cancers. Cancer. 1970;25:468-477.
33. Lagios MD, Margolin FR, Westdahl PR, Rose MR. Mammographically detected ductal carcinoma in situ: frequency of local recurrence following tylectomy and prognostic effect of nuclear grade on local recurrence. Cancer. 1989;63:618-624.
34. Arnesson LG, Smeds S, Fagerberg G, et al. Follow-up of two treatment modalities for ductal cancer in situ of the breast. Br J Surg. 1989;76: 672-675.
35. Hetelekidis S, Schmitt SF, Morrow M, Harris JR. Management of ductal carcinoma in situ. CA Cancer J Clin. 1995;45:244-253.
36. Calle EE, Martin LM, Thun MJ, Miracle HL, Heath CW. Family history, age, and risk of fatal breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol. 1993;138:675-681.
37. Brown ML, Houn F, Sickles EA, Kessler LG. Screening mammography in community practice: positive predictive value of abnormal findings and yield of follow-up diagnostic procedures. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995;165:1373-1377.
38. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Rubin SM, et al. Efficacy of screening mammography: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 1995;273:149-154.
39. Sox HC. Screening mammography in women younger than 50 years of age. Ann Intern Med. 1995;122:550-552.
40. Smart CR, Hendrick RE, Rutledge JH III, Smith RA. Benefit of mammography screening in women aged 40-49: current evidence from randomized controlled trials. Cancer. 1995;75:1619-1626. Erratum: Cancer. 1995;76:2788.
41. Sickles EA, Kopans DB. Deficiencies in the analysis of breast cancer screening data. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85:1621-1624.
42. Harris R, Leininger L. Clinical strategies for breast cancer screening: weighing and using the evidence. Ann Intern Med. 1995;122:550-552.
43. Shapiro S. The call for change in breast cancer screening guidelines. Am J Public Health. 1994; 84:10-11.