Using mammographic density to improve breast cancer screening outcomes

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention

Volumn 17, Issue 10, 2008, Pages 2818-2824

  Kavanagh, Anne M ^a   Byrnes, Graham B ^b   Nickson, Carolyn ^a   Cawson, Jennifer N ^c   Giles, Graham G ^d   Hopper, John L ^e   Gertig, Dorota M ^f   English, Dallas R ^d,e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^b INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER   (France)

^c ST VINCENT S HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^d CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY CENTRE   (Australia)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^f Victorian Cervical Cytology Registry Melbourne   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; BREAST CANCER; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; FEMALE; GROUPS BY AGE; HORMONAL THERAPY; HUMAN; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAMMOGRAPHY; POPULATION RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; AUSTRALIA; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; FEMALE; HORMONE REPLACEMENT THERAPY; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; QUESTIONNAIRES; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC;

EID: 54249134971     PISSN: 10559965     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-2835     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, National Breast Cancer Centre, Australasian Association Society of Cancer Registries. Breast Cancer in Australian Women 1982-1996. In: AIHW, editor. Cancer Series. Canberra, 1999.
2. Beral V, Collaborators MWS. Breast cancer and hormone-replacement therapy in the Million Women Study. Lancet 2003;362:419-27.
3. Boyd NF, Byng JW, Jong RA, et al. Quantitative classification of mammographic densities and breast cancer risk: results from the Canadian national breast screening study. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87:670-5.
4. Byrne C, Schairer C, Wolfe J, et al. Mammographic features and breast cancer risk: effects with time, age, and menopause status. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87:1622-9.
5. Chelbowski R, Hendrix S, Langer R, et al. Influence of estrogen plus progestin on breast cancer and mammography on health postmenopausal women: the Women's Health Initiative Randomized Trial. JAMA 2003;289:3243-53.
6. Banks E, Reeves G, Beral V, et al. Influence of personal characteristics of individual women on the sensitivity and specificity of mammography in the Million Women: cohort study. Br Med J 2004;329:477.
7. Carney P, Miglioretti D, Yankaskas B, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 2003;138:168-75.
8. Kavanagh A, Cawson J, Byrnes G, et al. Hormone replacement therapy, percent mammographic density, and sensitivity of mammography. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005;14:1060-4.
9. Kavanagh A, Mitchell H, Giles G. Hormone replacement therapy and the accuracy of mammographic screening. Lancet 2000;355:270-4.
10. Litherland J, Stallard S, Hole D, Cordiner C. The effect of hormone replacement therapy on the sensitivity of screening mammograms. Clin Radiol 1999;54:285-8.
11. Rosenberg R, Hunt W, Williamson M, et al. Effects of age, breast density, ethinicity, and estrogen replacement therapy on the sensitivity and cancer stage at diagnosis: review of 183,134 screening mammograms in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Radiology 1998;209:511-8.
12. Thurfjell EL, Holmberg LH, Persson IR. Screening mammography: sensitivity and specificity in relation to hormone replacement therapy. Radiology 1997;203:339-41.
13. Boyd NF, Guo H, Nartin L, et al. Mammographic density and risk of detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007;356:227-36.
14. BreastScreen Australia CBA, 2002. National Accreditation Standards. BreastScreen Australia Quality Improvement Program. In: Australia B, editor. Canberra: Department of Health and Ageing, 2002.
15. Kavanagh A, Amos A, Marr G. The ascertainment and reporting of interval cancers within the BreastScreen Australia Program. Sydney: National Breast Cancer Centre, 1999.
16. Kavanagh A, Mitchell H, Farrugia H, Giles G. Interval cancers in the Victorian mammographic screening program. Journal of Medical Screening 1999;6:139-43.
17. Statacorp. Stata statistical software release 8. College Station, Texas: Statacorp, 2002.
18. Royston P, Sauerbrei W. Multivariable modelling with cubic regression splines: a principled approach. The Stata Journal 2007;7:45-70.
19. van Gils C, Otten J, Verbeek A, Hendriks J. Mammographic breast density and risk of breast cancer: masking bias or causality? Eur J Epidemiol 1998;14:315-20.
20. Kolb T, Lichy J, Newhouse J. 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 2002;225:165-75.
21. Buchberger W, DeKoekkoek-Doll O, Springer P, Orbost P, Dunser M. Incidental findings on sonography of the breast: clinical significance and diagnostic workup. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;173:921-7.
22. Irwig I, Houssami N, van Vliet C. New technologies in screening for breast cancer: a systematic review of their accuracy. Br J Cancer 2004;90:2118-22.
23. The American College of Radiology Imaging Network. Screening breast ultrasound in high risk women: ACRIN, 2004.
24. Pisano E, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic Performance of Digital versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1773-83.
25. Stoutjesdijk M, Boetes C, Jager G, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging and mammography in women with a hereditary risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:1095-102.