Biasing the interpretation of mammography screening data by age grouping: Nothing changes abruptly at age 50

Breast Journal

Volumn 4, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 139-145

  Kopans, Daniel B ^a   Moore, Richard H ^a   McCarthy, Kathleen A ^a   Hall, Deborah A ^a   Hulka, Carol ^b   Whitman, Gary J ^c   Slanetz, Priscilla J ^a   Halpern, Elkan F ^a  

^a MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Screening

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER SCREENING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PREVALENCE;

EID: 0031746738     PISSN: 1075122X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1524-4741.1998.430139.x     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Kopans DB, Halpern E, Hulka CA. Statistical power in breast cancer screening trials and mortality reduction among women 40-49 with particular emphasis on the National Breast Screening Study of Canada. Cancer 1994;74:1196-1203.
2. Sickles EA, Kopans DB. Deficiencies in the analysis of breast cancer screening data. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85: 1621-24.
3. House Committee on Government Operations. Misused science: the National Cancer Institutes elimination of mammography guidelines for women in their forties. Union Calendar No. 480. House Report 103-863. October 20, 1994.
4. Fletcher SW, Black W, Harris R, Rimer BK, Shapiro S. Report of the International Workshop on Screening for Breast Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85:1644-56.
5. Chalmers TC. Screening for breast cancer: what should national health policy be? J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85:1619-21.
6. Peer PG, Holland R, Jan HCL, Hendrik, Mravunac M, Verbeek ALM. Age-specific effectiveness of Nijmegen population-based breast cancer-screening program: assessment of early indicators of screening effectiveness. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86:436-41.
7. Harris R. Breast cancer among women in their forties: toward a reasonable research agenda. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994; 86:410-12.
8. Kaluzny AD, Rimer B, Harris R. The National Cancer Institute and guideline development: lessons from the breast cancer screening controversy. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86:901-3.
9. Black WC, Nease RF, Tosteson ANA. Perceptions of breast cancer risk and screening effectiveness in women younger than 50 years of age. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87:720-31.
10. Rimer B. Putting the "informed" in informed consent about mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87:703-4.
11. Harris R. Response to efficacy of screening mammography for women in their forties - letter to the editor. JNCI 1994;86:1722-25.
12. de Konig HJ, Boer R, Warmerdam PG, Beemsterboer PMM, van der Maas PJ. Quantitative interpretation of age-specific mortality reductions from the Swedish breast cancer-screening trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87:1217-23.
13. Lee Davis D, Love SM. Mammographic screening. JAMA 1994;271:152-53.
14. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Rubin SM, Sandrock C, Ernster VL. Efficacy of screening mammography: a meta-analysis. JAMA 1995;273:149-53.
15. Kattlove H, Alessandro L, Keeler E, Brook RH. Benefits and costs of screening for early breast cancer: development of a basic benefit package. JAMA 1995;273:142-48.
16. Fletcher SW, Fletcher RH. The breast is close to the heart. Ann Intern Med 1992;117:969-71.
17. Baines CJ. The Canadian National Breast Screening Study: a perspective on criticisms. Ann Intern Med 1994;120: 326-34.
18. Harris R, Leininger L. Clinical strategies for breast cancer screening: weighing and using the evidence. Ann Intern Med. 1995;122:539-47.
19. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Eaton A, Ernster V. Positive predictive value of screening mammogrpahy by age and family history of breast cancer. JAMA 1993;270:2444-50.
20. Kopans DB. The use of mammography for screening. JAMA 1994;271:982.
21. Kerlikowske K. Presentation to the Board of Scientific Counsellors, October 22, 1993. Bethesda, Maryland.
22. Sox H. Screening mammography in women younger than 50 years of age. Ann Inter Med. 1995;122:550-52.
23. Kopans DB, Moore RH, McCarthy KA, et al. The positive predictive value of mammographically intitated breast biopsy: there is no abrupt change at age 50 years. Radiology 1996;200:357-60.
24. National Institutes of Health. National Cancer Institute Statistics Review 1975-1988. Bethseda, MD. NIH Pub. No. 91-2789, 1991.
25. Manton KG, Stallard E. A two-disease model of female breast cancer: mortality in 1969 among white females in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst 1980;64:9-16.
26. Moskowttz M. Breast cancer: age-specific growth rates and screening strategies. Radiology 1986;161:37-41.
27. Tabar L, Faberberg G, Day NE, Holmberg L. What is the optimum interval between screening examinations? - An analysis based on the latest results of the Swedish Two-County Breast Cancer Screening Trial. Br J Cancer 1987;55:547-51.
28. Kopans DB. Re: interval breast cancers in the screening mammography program of British Columbia: analysis and classification. AJR 1995;164:1298.
29. Smart CR, Hendrick RE, Rutledge JH, Smith RA. Benefit of mammography screening in women ages 40-49: current evidence from randomized, controlled trials. Cancer 1995;75: 1619-26.