scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Topic

Mammography

About: Mammography is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 20643 publications have been published within this topic receiving 513679 citations.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Cancer detection rate with US is comparable with mammography, with a greater proportion of invasive and node-negative cancers among US detections and False positives are more common with US screening.
Abstract: BACKGROUND Mammography is not widely available in all countries, and breast cancer incidence is increasing. We considered performance characteristics using ultrasound (US) instead of mammography to screen for breast cancer. METHODS Two thousand eight hundred nine participants were enrolled at 20 sites in the United States, Canada, and Argentina in American College of Radiology Imaging 6666. Two thousand six hundred sixty-two participants completed three annual screens (7473 examinations) with US and film-screen (n = 4351) or digital (n = 3122) mammography and had biopsy or 12-month follow-up. Cancer detection, recall, and positive predictive values were determined. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS One hundred ten women had 111 breast cancer events: 89 (80.2%) invasive cancers, median size 12 mm. The number of US screens to detect one cancer was 129 (95% bootstrap confidence interval [CI] = 110 to 156), and for mammography 127 (95% CI = 109 to 152). Cancer detection was comparable for each of US and mammography at 58 of 111 (52.3%) vs 59 of 111 (53.2%, P = .90), with US-detected cancers more likely invasive (53/58, 91.4%, median size 12 mm, range = 2-40 mm), vs mammography at 41 of 59 (69.5%, median size 13 mm, range = 1-55 mm, P < .001). Invasive cancers detected by US were more frequently node-negative, 34 of 53 (64.2%) vs 18 of 41 (43.9%) by mammography (P = .003). For 4814 incidence screens (years 2 and 3), US had higher recall and biopsy rates and lower PPV of biopsy (PPV3) than mammography: The recall rate was 10.7% (n = 515) vs 9.4% (n = 453, P = .03), the biopsy rate was 5.5% (n = 266) vs 2.0% (n = 97, P < .001), and PPV3 was 11.7% (31/266) vs 38.1% (37/97, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS Cancer detection rate with US is comparable with mammography, with a greater proportion of invasive and node-negative cancers among US detections. False positives are more common with US screening.

191 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The presented BCSC outcomes data and performance benchmarks may be used by mammography facilities and individual radiologists to evaluate their own performance for diagnostic mammography as determined by means of periodic comprehensive audits.
Abstract: PURPOSE: To evaluate a range of performance parameters pertinent to the comprehensive auditing of diagnostic mammography examinations, and to derive performance benchmarks therefrom, by pooling data collected from large numbers of patients and radiologists that are likely to be representative of mammography practice in the United States MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval was met, informed consent was not required, and this study was Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant Six mammography registries contributed data to the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC), providing patient demographic and clinical information, mammogram interpretation data, and biopsy results from defined population-based catchment areas The study involved 151 mammography facilities and 646 interpreting radiologists The study population included women 18 years of age or older who underwent at least one diagnostic mammography examination between 1996 and 2001 Collected data wer

191 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Tailored interventions, particularly those that employ the Health Belief Model and use a physician recommendation, are effective in promoting mammography screening.

190 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
08 Jan 2012-BMJ
TL;DR: The results suggest that screening for breast and colorectal cancer is most appropriate for patients with a life expectancy greater than 10 years, and incorporation of time lag estimates into screening guidelines would encourage a more explicit consideration of the risks and benefits of screening for mammography.
Abstract: Objectives To determine a pooled, quantitative estimate of the length of time needed after breast or colorectal cancer screening before a survival benefit is observed. Design Meta-analysis of survival data from population based, randomized controlled trials comparing populations screened and not screened for breast or colorectal cancer. Trials were identified as high quality by reviews from the Cochrane Collaboration and United States Preventive Services Task Force. Setting Trials undertaken in the United States, Denmark, United Kingdom, and Sweden. Population Screened patients older than 40 years. Primary outcome measures Time to death from breast or colorectal cancer in screened and control populations. Interventions Fecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening, mammography for breast cancer screening. Results Our study included five and four eligible trials of breast and colorectal cancer screening, respectively. For breast cancer screening, 3.0 years (95% confidence interval 1.1 to 6.3) passed before one death from breast cancer was prevented for every 5000 women screened. On average across included studies, it took 10.7 years (4.4 to 21.6) before one death from breast cancer was prevented for 1000 women screened. For colorectal cancer screening, 4.8 years (2.0 to 9.7) passed before one death from colorectal cancer was prevented for 5000 patients screened. On average across included studies, it took 10.3 years (6.0 to 16.4) before one death from colorectal cancer was prevented for 1000 patients screened. Conclusions Our results suggest that screening for breast and colorectal cancer is most appropriate for patients with a life expectancy greater than 10 years. Incorporating time lag estimates into screening guidelines would encourage a more explicit consideration of the risks and benefits of screening for breast and colorectal cancer.

190 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Breast ultrasound for the detection of breast cancer in the screening environment, as well as strategies for integrating screening breast ultrasound, including automated breast ultrasound are discussed.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE. This article discusses breast ultrasound for the detection of breast cancer in the screening environment, as well as strategies for integrating screening breast ultrasound, including automated breast ultrasound. CONCLUSION. Breast density is an increasingly pertinent issue in breast cancer diagnosis. Breast density results in a decrease in the sensitivity of mammography for cancer detection, with a significant increase in the risk of breast cancer. Ultrasound detects additional cancers.

189 citations


Network Information
Related Topics (5)
Breast cancer
214.3K papers, 6.4M citations
86% related
Radiation therapy
76.3K papers, 2M citations
83% related
Cancer
339.6K papers, 10.9M citations
80% related
Magnetic resonance imaging
61K papers, 1.5M citations
80% related
Carcinoma
78.2K papers, 2.2M citations
79% related
Performance
Metrics
No. of papers in the topic in previous years
YearPapers
2023970
20221,954
2021847
2020852
2019865
2018852