Neglecting to screen women between the ages of 40 and 49 years with mammography: What is the impact on breast cancer diagnosis?

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 198, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 1218-1222

  Kremer, Mallory E ^a,b   Downs Holmes, Catherine ^c   Novak, Ronald D ^c   Lyons, Janice A ^c   Silverman, Paula ^c   Pham, Ramya M ^c   Plecha, Donna M ^c  

^a CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b METROHEALTH MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS OF CLEVELAND   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; High risk lesions; Screening guidelines; Screening mammography

Indexed keywords

EPIDERMAL GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR 2; ESTROGEN RECEPTOR; PROGESTERONE RECEPTOR;

ADULT; AGE; ARTICLE; ATYPICAL DUCTAL HYPERPLASIA; BIOPSY TECHNIQUE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER INVASION; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER SIZE; CANCER STAGING; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGING GUIDED CORE NEEDLE BIOPSY; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIMARY TUMOR; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SYMPTOM;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; BIOPSY, NEEDLE; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM STAGING; PATIENT SELECTION; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84860319204     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: 15463141     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.11.7200     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, Bougatsos C, Chan BK, Humphrey L. Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151:727-737
2. Collins G. Medicine on the move. New York Times Website. www.nytimes.com/2011/04/07/opinion/07collint.html. Published April 7, 2011. Accessed May 11, 2011
3. Tabár L, Fagerberg CJ, Gad A, et al. Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography: randomised trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Lancet 1985; 13:829-832
4. Tabár L, Vitak B, Chen HH, Yen MF, Duffy SW, Smith RA. Beyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality. Cancer 2001; 91:1724-1731 (Pubitemid 32377958)
5. Duffy SW, Tabár L, Chen HH, et al. The impact of organized mammography service screening on breast carcinoma mortality in seven Swedish counties. Cancer 2002; 95:458-469 (Pubitemid 34810170)
6. Otto SJ, Fracheboud J, Looman CW, et al. Initiation of population-based mammography screening in Dutch municipalities and effect on breastcancer mortality: a systematic review. Lancet 2003; 361:1411-1417 (Pubitemid 36515040)
7. Hendrick RE, Smith RA, Rutledge JH 3rd, Smart CR. Benefit of screening mammography in women aged 40-49: a new meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997; 22:87-92
8. Tabár L, Yen MF, Vitak B, Chen HH, Smith RA, Duffy SW. Mammography service screening and mortality in breast cancer patients: 20-year follow-up before and after introduction of screening. Lancet 2003; 361:1405-1410 (Pubitemid 36515039)
9. Jonsson H, Bordas P, Wallin H, Nystrom L, Lenner P. Service screening with mammography in Northern Sweden: effects on breast cancer mortality - an update. J Med Screen 2007; 14:87-93 (Pubitemid 47067763)
10. Hellquist BN, Duffy SW, Abdsaleh S, et al. Effectiveness of population-based service screening with mammography for women ages 40 to 49 years: evaluation of the Swedish Mammography Screening in Young Women (SCRY) cohort. Cancer 2011; 117:714-722
11. Feig SA. Ductal carcinoma in situ: implications for screening mammography. Radiol Clin North Am 2000; 38:653-668 [vii] (Pubitemid 30640057)
12. Gloeckler Ries LA, Eisner MP. Cancer of the Female Breast. National Cancer Institute Website. Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results: SEER survival monograph - cancer survival among adults - U.S. SEER program 1988-2001. seer.cancer.gov/publications/survival/surv-breast.pdf. Accessed April 17, 2011
13. Mandelblatt JS, Cronin KA, Bailey S, et al. Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: model estimates of potential benefits and harms. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151:738-747
14. Hendrick RE, Helvie MA. United States Preventive Services Task Force screening mammography recommendations: science ignored. AJR 2011; 196:338; [web]W112-W116
15. Li CI, Malone KE, Saltzman BS, Daling JR. Risk of invasive breast carcinoma among women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ and lobular carcinoma in situ, 1988-2001. Cancer 2006; 106:2104-2112 (Pubitemid 43673230)
16. Chuba PJ, Hamre MR, Yap J, et al. Bilateral risk for subsequent breast cancer after lobular carcinoma-in-situ: analysis of surveillance, epidemiology, and end results data. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23:5534-5541
17. Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al. Tamoxifen for the prevention of breast cancer: current status of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97:1652-1662 (Pubitemid 41672231)
18. Tchou J, Hou N, Rademaker A, Jordan VC, Morrow M. Acceptance of tamoxifen chemoprevention by physicians and women at risk. Cancer 2004; 100:1800-1806 (Pubitemid 38529556)
19. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:1773-1783 (Pubitemid 41549889)
20. Perry NM, Patani N, Milner SE, et al. The impact of digital mammography on screening a young cohort of women for breast cancer in an urban specialist breast unit. Eur Radiol 2011; 21:676-682