Age-specific interval breast cancers in Japan: Estimation of the proper sensitivity of screening using a population-based cancer registry

Cancer Science

Volumn 99, Issue 11, 2008, Pages 2264-2267

  Suzuki, Akihiko ^a   Kuriyama, Shinichi ^a   Kawai, Masaaki ^a   Amari, Masakazu ^a   Takeda, Motohiro ^a   Ishida, Takanori ^a   Ohnuki, Koji ^b   Nishino, Yoshikazu ^c   Tsuji, Ichiro ^a   Shibuya, Daisuke ^d   Ohuchi, Noriaki ^a  

^a TOHOKU UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Japan)

^b IWATE PREFECTURAL CENTRAL HOSPITAL   (Japan)

^c MIYAGI CANCER CENTER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Japan)

^d Miyagi Cancer Center   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST EXAMINATION; CANCER REGISTRY; CANCER SCREENING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; JAPAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; POPULATION RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; JAPAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASMS; REGISTRIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 55449114568     PISSN: 13479032     EISSN: 13497006     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1349-7006.2008.00926.x     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Ajiki W, Tsukuma H, Oshima A. Cancer incidence and incidence rates in Japan in 1999: Estimates based on data from 11 population-based cancer registries. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2004; 34: 352-6.
2. Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Chen HH et al. Efficacy of breast cancer screening by age. New results from the Swedish two-county trial. Cancer 1995; 75: 2507-17.
3. Shapiro S. Periodic screening for breast cancer: The HIP randomized controlled trial. Health Insurance Plan. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997; 22: 27-30.
4. Smart CR. Mammographic screening: Efficacy and guidelines. Curr Opin Radiol 1992; 4: 108-17.
5. Day NE, Williams DR, Khaw KT. Breast cancer screening programmes: The development of a monitoring and evaluation system. Br J Cancer 1989; 59: 954-8.
6. Ohnuki K, Kuriyama S, Shoji N, Nishino Y, Tsuji I, Ohuchi N. Cost-effectiveness analysis of screening modalities for breast cancer in Japan with special reference to women aged 40-49. Cancer Sci 2006; 97: 1242-7.
7. Liberman L, Menell JH. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). Radio Clin North Am 2002; 40: 409-30.
8. American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, Breast Imaging Atlas, 4th edn. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2003.
9. Curado MP, Edwards B, Shin HR et al. Cancer Incidence in Five Continents, Vol. IX. IARC Scientific Publications no. 160, Lyon: IARC, 2007.
10. Moss S, Thomas I, Evans A, Thomas B, Johns L. Randomised controlled trial of mammographic screening in women from age 40: Results of screening in the first 10.years. Br J Cancer 2005; 92: 949-54.
11. Fracheboud J, de Koning HJ, Beemsterboer PM et al. Interval cancers in the Dutch breast cancer screening programme. Br J Cancer 1999; 81: 912-7.
12. 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 2002; 225: 165-75.
13. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 1773-8.
14. Weedon-Fekjaer HH, Lindqvist BH, Aalen OO, Vatten LJ, Tretli SS. Breast cancer tumor growth estimated through mammography screening data. Breast Cancer Res 2008; 10: R41.
15. Moy L, Slanetz PJ, Moore R et al. Specificity of mammography and US in the evaluation of a palpable abnormality: Retrospective review. Radiology 2002; 225: 176-81.
16. Berg WA. Rationale for a trial of screening breast ultrasound: American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6666. Am J Roentgenol 2003; 180: 1225-8.