Performance of digital screening mammography in a population-based cohort of black and white women

Cancer Causes and Control

Volumn 26, Issue 10, 2015, Pages 1495-1499

  Henderson, Louise M ^a,b   Benefield, Thad ^a   Nyante, Sarah J ^a   Marsh, Mary W ^a   Greenwood Hickman, Mikael Anne ^a   Schroeder, Bruce F ^a,c,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b IL   (United States)

^c Carolina Breast Imaging Specialists   (United States)

^d EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Disparities; Positive predictive value; Screening mammography; Sensitivity; Specificity

Indexed keywords

HORMONE RECEPTOR;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BLACK PERSON; BREAST CANCER; CANCER GRADING; CANCER STAGING; CAUCASIAN; COHORT ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MIDDLE AGED; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RACE DIFFERENCE; SCREENING TEST; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TUMOR DIFFERENTIATION; UNITED STATES; YOUNG ADULT; AFRICAN AMERICAN; BREAST TUMOR; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; EARLY CANCER DIAGNOSIS; ETHNOLOGY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PATHOLOGY; REGISTER; STATISTICAL MODEL; VERY ELDERLY;

ADULT; AFRICAN AMERICANS; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; EUROPEAN CONTINENTAL ANCESTRY GROUP; FEMALE; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; REGISTRIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84941425625     PISSN: 09575243     EISSN: 15737225     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10552-015-0631-3     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Wheeler SB, Reeder-Hayes KE, Carey LA (2013) Disparities in breast cancer treatment and outcomes: biological, social, and health system determinants and opportunities for research. Oncologist 18(9):986–993. doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2013-0243Epub 2013 Aug 12
2. Gill KS, Yankaskas BC (2004) Screening mammography performance and cancer detection among black women and white women in community practice. Cancer 100(1):139–148
3. Bluekens AM, Holland R, Karssenmeijer N, Broeders MJ, den Heeten GJ (2012) Comparison of digital screening mammography and screen-film mammography in the early detection of clinically relevant cancers: a multicenter study. Radiology 265(3):707–714
4. Pisano ED, Gastonis C, Hendrick E et al (2005) Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353(17):1773–1783
5. American Cancer Society (2013) Breast cancer facts and figures 2013–2014. American Cancer Society, Inc., Atlanta
6. Habel LA, Capra AM, Oestreicher N et al (2007) Mammographic density in a multiethnic cohort. Menopause 14(5):891–899
7. Conroy SM, Butler LM, Harvey D et al (2010) Physical activity and change in mammographic density: the study of women’s health across the nation. Am J Epidemiol 171(9):960–968 PMID: 20354074. PMCID: PMC2877475
8. American College of Radiology (2003) The American College of Radiology breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS), 4th edn. American Coll Radiology, Reston
9. Yankaskas BC, Taplin SH, Ichikawa L, Geller BM, Rosenberg RD, Carney PA et al (2005) Association between mammography timing and measures of screening performance in the United States. Radiology 234:363–373 [PMID: 15670994]
10. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) (2015) Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. http://breastscreening.cancer.gov/data/benchmarks/screening/
11. McLean RA, Sanders WL, Stroup WW (1991) A unified approach to mixed linear models. Am Stat 45:54–64
12. Kerlikowske K, Hubbard RA, Miglioretti DL et al (2011) Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 155:493–502