Screening for breast cancer

Seminars in Roentgenology

Volumn 38, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 19-33

  Philpotts, Liane E ^a   Smith, Robert A ^b  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BREAST; BREAST CANCER; BREAST EXAMINATION; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; CAUSE OF DEATH; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; MORTALITY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TUMOR GROWTH;

EID: 0037244361     PISSN: 0037198X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0037-198X(03)00004-X     Document Type: Review

References (106)

1. American Cancer Society: American Cancer Society Facts and Figures. Atlanta, GA, American Cancer Society, 2003
2. Ries L, Eisner M, Kosary C, et al: SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1973-1999. Bethesda, MD, National Cancer Institute, 2002
3. Committee on technologies for the early detection of breast cancer. Mammography and Beyond: Developing Technologies for the Early Detection of Breast Cancer. Washington DC, National Academy Press, 2001
4. Hendrick RE: Quality control in mammography: The American College of Radiology's Mammography Screening Accreditation Program. Curr Opin Radiol 1:203-211, 1989
5. Hendrick RE. Quality assurance in mammography. Accreditation, legislation, and compliance with quality assurance standards. Radiol Clin North Am 30:243-255, 1992
6. May DS, Lee NC, Nadel MR, et al: The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program: report on the first 4 years of mammography provided to medically underserved women [see comments]. Am J Roentgenol 170:97-104, 1998
7. American College of Radiology BI-RADS Committee: Illustrated breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). Reston, VA, American College of Radiology, 1998
8. Food and Drug Administration: Quality mammography standards; final rule. Vol. 62. Rockville, MD, Department of Health and Human Services, 1997, pp 55851-55901
9. Shapiro S, Strax P, Venet L: Periodic breast cancer screening in reducing mortality from breast cancer. JAMA 215:1777-1785, 1971
10. Shapiro S, Venet W, Strax P, et al: Periodic screening for breast cancer: The Health Insurance Plan Project and its sequelae. Baltimore, MD. Johns Hopkins Press, 1988
11. Shapiro S, Venet W, Strax P, et al: Ten- to fourteen-year effect of screening on breast cancer mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst 69:349-355, 1982
12. Baker L: Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Project: Five year summary report. CA Cancer J Clin 32:196-229, 1982
13. Smart CR, Byrne C, Smith RA, et al: Twenty-year follow-up of the breast cancers diagnosed during the Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Project [see comments]. CA Cancer J Clin 47:134-149, 1997
14. Alexander FE, Anderson TJ, Brown HK, et al: 14 years of follow-up from the Edinburgh randomised trial of breast-cancer screening [see comments]. Lancet 353:1903-1908, 1999
15. Andersson I, Aspegren K, Janzon L, et al: Mammographic screening and mortality from breast cancer: the Malmo mammographic screening trial. BMJ 297:943-948, 1988
16. Bjurstam N, Bjorneld L, Duffy SW, et al: The Gothenburg breast screening trial: First results on mortality, incidence, and mode of detection for women ages 39-49 years at randomization [see comments]. Cancer 80:2091-2099, 1997
17. Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, et al: Canadian national breast screening study-2: 13-year results of a randomized trial in women aged 50-59 years. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92:1490-1499, 2000
18. Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, et al: The Canadian National Breast Screening Study-1: Breast cancer mortality after 11 to 16 years of follow-up. A randomized screening trial of mammography in women age 40 to 49 years. Ann Intern Med 137:305-312, 2002
19. Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen HH, et al: The Swedish Two-County Trial twenty years later. Updated mortality results and new insights from long-term follow-up. Radiol Clin North Am 38:625-651, 2000
20. Elwood JM, Cox B, Richardson AK: The effectiveness of breast cancer screening by mammography in younger women [published errata appear in Online J Curr Clin Trials 1993 Mar 5;Doc No 34:[295 words; 2 paragraphs] and 1994 Mar 31;Doc No 121:[385 words; 4 paragraphs]] [see comments]. Online J Curr Clin Trials 1993; Doc No 32:[23,227 words; 195 paragraphs].
21. Wald N, Chamberlain J, Hackshaw A: Report of the European Society of Mastology Breast Cancer Screening Evaluation Committee [published erratum appears in Tumori 80(4): 314, 1994]. Tumori 79:371-379, 1993
22. Kerlikowske K: Efficacy of screening mammography among women aged 40 to 49 years and 50 to 69 years: Comparison of relative and absolute benefit. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 22:79-86, 1997
23. Hendrick RE, Smith RA, Rutledge JH 3rd, et al: Benefit of screening mammography in women aged 40-49: A new meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 22:87-92, 1997
24. Kopans DB: An overview of the breast cancer screening controversy. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 22:I-3, 1997
25. Organizing Committee and Collaborators: Breast cancer screening with mammography in women aged 40-49 Years. Report of the organizing oommittee and collaborators. Falun meeting, Falun, Sweden (21and 22 March, 1996). Int J Cancer 68:693-699, 1996
26. Smith RA: Breast cancer screening among women younger than age 50: A current assessment of the issues. CA Cancer J Clin 50:312-336, 2000
27. Ballard-Barbash R, Taplin SH, Yankaskas BC, et al: Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: A national mammography screening and outcomes database. Am J Roentgenol 169:1001-1008, 1997
28. Tabar L, Vitak B, Tony HH, et al: Beyond randomized controlled trials: Organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality. Cancer 91:1724-1731, 2001
29. Duffy S, Tabar L, Chen HH, et al: The impact of organized mammographic service screening on breast cancer mortality in seven Swedish counties. Cancer 95:458-469, 2002
30. Sjonell G, Stahle L: [Mammographic screening does not reduce breast cancer mortality]. Lakartidningen 96:904-905, 908-913, 1998
31. Paci E, Duffy SW, Giorgi D, et al: Quantification of the effect of mammographic screening on fatal breast cancers: The Florence Programme 1990-96. Br J Cancer 87:65-69, 2002
32. Barton MB, Harris R. Fletcher SW: The rational clinical examination. Does this patient have breast cancer? The screening clinical breast examination: should it be done? How? JAMA 282:1270-1280, 1999
33. Leitch AM, Dodd GD, Costanza M, et al: American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of breast cancer: update 1997. CA Cancer J Clin 47:150-153, 1997
34. Bassett L, Hendrick R, Bassford T, et al: Quality Determinants of Mammography. Clinical Practice Guideline No. 13. Rockville, MD, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Public Health Service, US Department of Health and Human Services, 1994
35. US Preventive Services Task Force: Screening for breast cancer: Recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med 137:344-346, 2002
36. O'Malley MS, Fletcher SW: US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer with breast self-examination. A critical review. JAMA 257:2196-203, 1987
37. Baxter N: Preventive health care, 2001 update: Should women be routinely taught breast self-examination to screen for breast cancer? CMAJ 164:1837-1846, 2001
38. Newcomb PA, Weiss NS, Storer BE, et al: Breast self-examination in relation to the occurrence of advanced breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 83:260-265, 1991
39. Dowle CS, Mitchell A, Elston CW, et al: Preliminary results of the Nottingham breast self-examination education programme. Br J Surg 74:217-219, 1987
40. Smith EM, Burns TL: The effects of breast self-examination in a population-based cancer registry. A report of differences in extent of disease. Cancer 55:432-437, 1985
41. Senie RT, Rosen PP, Lesser ML, et al: Breast self-examination and medical examination related to breast cancer stage. Am J Public Health 71:583-590, 1981
42. Mant D, Vessey MP, Neil A, et al: Breast self examination and breast cancer stage at diagnosis. Br J Cancer 55:207-211, 1987
43. Thomas DB, Gao DL, Ray RM, et al: Randomized trial of breast self-examination in shanghai: final results. J Natl Cancer Inst 94:1445-1457, 2002
44. Harvey BJ, Miller AB, Baines CJ, et al: Effect of breast self-examination techniques on the risk of death from breast cancer. Can Med Assoc J 157:1205-1212, 1997
45. Steggles S, Lightfoot N, Sellick SM: Psychological distress associated with organized breast cancer screening. Cancer Prev Control 2:213-220, 1998
46. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH: Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 225:165-175, 2002
47. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, et al: Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography [see comments]. JAMA 276:33-38, 1996
48. Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, et al: Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: Comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:1081-1087, 2000
49. Rosenberg RD, Hunt WC, Williamson MR, et al: Effects of age, breast density, ethnicity, and estrogen replacement therapy on screening mammographic sensitivity and cancer stage at diagnosis: review of 183.134 screening mammograms in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Radiology 209:511-518, 1998
50. Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Chen HH, et al: Efficacy of breast cancer screening by age. New results from the Swedish Two-County Trial. Cancer 75:2507-2517, 1995
51. 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. Br J Cancer 55:547-551, 1987
52. Duffy SW, Day NE, Tabar L, et al: Markov models of breast tumor progression: some age-specific results. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 22:93-97, 1997
53. Thurfjell EL, Holmberg LH, Persson IR: Screening mammography: sensitivity and specificity in relation to hormone replacement therapy. Radiology 203:339-341, 1997
54. Kavanagh AM, Mitchell H, Giles GG: Hormone replacement therapy and accuracy of mammographic screening. Lancet 355:270-274, 2000
55. Laya MB, Larson EB, Taplin SH, et al: Effect of estrogen replacement therapy on the specificity and sensitivity of screening mammography [see comments]. J Natl Cancer Inst 88:643-649, 1996
56. Duffy SW, Tabar L, Smith RA, et al: Risk of breast cancer and risks with breast cancer: the relationship between histologic type and conventional risk factors, disease progression, and survival. Semin Breast Dis 2:292-300, 1999
57. Brekelmans CT, Collette HJ, Collette C, et al: Breast cancer after a negative screen: follow-up of women participating in the DOM Screening Programme. Eur J Cancer 1992:893-895, 1992
58. Michaelson JS, Halpern E, Kopans DB: Breast cancer: Computer simulation method for estimating optimal intervals for screening. Radiology 1999; 212:551-560, 1999
59. Elmore JG, Barton MB, Moceri VM, et al: Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations [see comments]. N Engl J Med 338:1089-1096, 1998
60. Elmore JG, Miglioretti DL, Reisch LM, et al: Screening mammograms by community radiologists: variability in false-positive rates. J Natl Cancer Inst 94:1373-1380, 2002
61. Birdwell RL, Ikeda DM, O'Shaughnessy KF, et al: Mammographic characteristics of 115 missed cancers later detected with screening mammography and the potential utility of computer-aided detection. Radiology 219:192-202, 2001
62. Taplin SH, Rutter CM, Finder C, et al: Screening mammography: clinical image quality and the risk of interval breast cancer. Am J Roentgenol 178:797-803, 2002
63. Goergen SK, Evans J, Cohen GP, et al: Characteristics of breast carcinomas missed by screening radiologists. Radiology 204:131-135, 1997
64. Dullum JR, Lewis EC, Mayer JA: Rates and correlates of discomfort associated with mammography. Radiology 214:547-552, 2000
65. Aro AR, Pilvikki Absetz S, van Elderen TM, et al: False-positive findings in mammography screening induces short-term distress - breast cancer - specific concern prevails longer. Eur J Cancer 36:1089-1097, 2000
66. Lerman C, Trock B, Rimer BK, et al: Psychological and behavioral implications of abnormal mammograms. Ann Intern Med 114:657-661, 1991
67. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Sox HC, et al: US women's attitudes to false positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: Cross sectional survey. BMJ 320:1635-1640, 2000
68. Burman ML, Taplin SH, Herta DF, et al: Effect of false-positive mammograms on interval breast cancer screening in a health maintenance organization [see comments]. Ann Intern Med 131:1-6, 1999
69. Gilbert FJ, Cordiner CM, Affleck IR, et al: Breast screening: the psychological sequelae of false-positive recall in women with and without a family history of breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 34:2010-2014, 1998
70. Pisano ED, Earp JA. Gallant TL: Screening mammography behavior after a false positive mammogram. Cancer Detect Prev 22:161-167, 1998
71. Tabar L, Duffy SW, Vitak B, et al: The natural history of breast carcinoma: what have we learned from screening? Cancer 86:449-462, 1999
72. Dolan NC, Feinglass J, Priyanath A, et al: Measuring satisfaction with mammography results reporting. J Gen Intern Med 16:157-162, 2001
73. Wilson TE, Wallace C, Roubidoux MA, et al: Patient satisfaction with screening mammography: Online vs off-line interpretation. Acad Radiol 5:771-778, 1998
74. Lindfors KK, O'Connor J, Parker RA: False-positive screening mammograms: Effect of immediate versus later work-up on patient stress. Radiology 218:247-253, 2001
75. Hulka CA, Slanetz PJ, Halpern EF, et al: Patients' opinion of mammography screening services: immediate results versus delayed results due to interpretation by two observers. Am J Roentgenol 168:1085-1089, 1997
76. Evans WP 3rd, Starr AL, Bennos ES: Comparison of the relative incidence of impalpable invasive breast carcinoma and ductal carcinoma in situ in cancers detected in patients older and younger than 50 years of age. Radiology 204:489-491, 1997
77. Ernster VL, Barclay J, Kerlikowske K, et al: Incidence of and treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast [see comments]. JAMA 275:913-918, 1996
78. Morrow M: Understanding ductal carcinoma in situ: A step in the right direction. Cancer 86:375-377, 1999
79. Betsill WL Jr, Rosen PP, Lieberman PH, et al: Intraductal carcinoma. Long-term follow-up after treatment by biopsy alone. JAMA 239:1863-1867, 1978
80. Wazer DE, Gage I, Homer MJ, et al: Age-related differences in patients with nonpalpable breast carcinomas. Cancer 78:1432-1437, 1996
81. Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD, Groshen S, et al: The influence of margin width on local control of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. N Engl J Med 340:1455-1461, 1999
82. Dupont EL, Ku NN, McCann C, et al: Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Cancer Control 6:264-271, 1999
83. Duffy S, Tabar L, Vitak B, et al: The relative contributions of screen-detected in situ and invasive carcinomas in reducing mortality from the disease. Eur J Oncol 2003 (in press)
84. Zaugg K, Bodis S: Is there a role for molecular prognostic factors in the clinical management of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast? Radiother Oncol 55:95-99, 2000
85. Thurfjell EL, Lernevall KA, Taube AA: Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program [see comments]. Radiology 191:241-244, 1994
86. Beam CA, Sullivan DC, Layde PM: Effect of human variability on independent double reading in screening mammography. Acad Radiol 3:891-897, 1996
87. Denton ER, Field S: Just how valuable is double reporting in screening mammography? Clin Radiol 52:466-468, 1997
88. Warren Burhenne LJ, Wood SA, D'Orsi CJ, et al: Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography. Radiology 215:554-562, 2000
89. Freer TW, Ulissey MJ: Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology 220:781-786, 2001
90. Beam CA, Layde PM, Sullivan DC: Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Findings from a national sample. Arch Intern Med 156:209-213, 1996
91. Elmore JG, Wells CK, Lee CH, et al: Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms [see comments]. N Engl J Med 331:1493-1499, 1994
92. Jiang Y, Nishikawa RM, Schmidt RA, et al: Potential of computer-aided diagnosis to reduce variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms depicting microcalcifications. Radiology 220:787-794, 2001
93. Food and Drug Administration (CDRH): Compliance guidance: The mammography quality standards act final regulations. Washington DC, US Department of Health and Human Services, 1999
94. Sohlich RE, Sickles EA, Burnside ES, et al: Interpreting data from audits when screening and diagnostic mammography outcomes are combined. Am J Roentgenol 178:681-686, 2002
95. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Small entity compliance guide and overview of the final regulations implementing the Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992, 1997:16-19
96. National Health Services Breast Screening Programme. Quality assurance guidelines for radiologists. The Royal College of Radiologists. Oxford, United Kingdom, 1990
97. Kan L, Olivotto IA, Warren Burhenne LJ, et al: Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening program. Radiology 215:563-567, 2000
98. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH: Occult cancer in women with dense breasts: Detection with screening ultrasound - Diagnostic yield and tumor characteristics. Radiology 207:191-198, 1998
99. Berg WA, Gilbreath PL: Multicentric and multifocal cancer: whole-breast US in preoperative evaluation. Radiology 214:59-66, 2000
100. Buchberger W, DeKoekkoek-Doll P, Springer P, et al: Incidental findings on sonography of the breast: clinical significance and diagnostic workup. Am J Roentgenol 173:921-927, 1999
101. Orel SG, Schnall MD, LiVolsi VA, et al: Suspicious breast lesions: MR imaging with radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 190:485-493, 1994
102. Orel SG, Schnall MD, Powell CM, et al: Staging of suspected breast cancer: Effect of MR imaging and MR-guided biopsy. Radiology 196:115-122, 1995
103. Lee CH, Smith RC, Levine JA, et al: Clinical usefulness of MR imaging of the breast in the evaluation of the problematic mammogram. Am J Roentgenol 173:1323-1329, 1999
104. Orel SG, Mendonca MH, Reynolds C, et al: MR imaging of ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiology 202:413-420, 1997
105. Gilles R. Zafrani B, Guinebretiere JM, et al: Ductal carcinoma in situ: MR imaging-histopathologic correlation. Radiology 196:415-419, 1995
106. Warner E, Plewes DB, Shumak RS, et al: Comparison of breast magnetic resonance imaging, mammography, and ultrasound for surveillance of women at high risk for hereditary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 19:3524-3531, 2001