 |
 |
|
Home |
Current Issue |
Past Issues |
In the Clinic |
ACP Journal Club |
CME |
Collections |
Audio/Video |
Mobile |
Subscribe |
Tools |
Help |
ACP Online
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 December 2000 | Volume 133 Issue 11 | Pages 855-863
Background: Although it is recommended that women with a family history of breast cancer begin screening mammography at a younger age than average-risk women, few studies have evaluated the performance of mammography in this group.
Objective: To compare the performance of screening mammography in women with a first-degree family history of breast cancer and women of similar age without such history.
Design: Cross-sectional.
Setting: Mammography registries in California (n = 1), New Hampshire (n = 1), New Mexico (n = 1), Vermont [n = 1], Washington State n = 2), and Colorado (n = 1).
Participants: 389 533 women 30 to 69 years of age who were referred for screening mammography from April 1985 to November 1997.
Measurements: Risk factors for breast cancer; results of first screening examination captured for a woman by a registry; and any invasive cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ identified by linkage to a pathology database, the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program, or a state tumor registry.
Results: The number of cancer cases per 1000 examinations increased with age and was higher in women with a family history of breast cancer than in those without (3.2 vs. 1.6 for ages 30 to 39 years, 4.7 vs. 2.7 for ages 40 to 49 years, 6.6 vs. 4.6 for ages 50 to 59 years, and 9.3 vs. 6.9 for ages 60 to 69 years). The sensitivity of mammography increased significantly with age (P = 0.001 [chi-square test for trend]) in women with a family history and in those without (63.2% [95% CI, 41.5% to 84.8%] vs. 69.5% [CI, 57.7% to 81.2%] for ages 30 to 39 years, 70.2% [CI, 61.0% to 79.5%] vs. 77.5% [CI, 73.3% to 81.8%] for ages 40 to 49 years, 81.3% [CI, 73.3% to 89.3%] vs. 80.2% [CI, 76.5% to 83.9%] for ages 50 to 59 years, and 83.8% [CI, 76.8% to 90.9%] vs. 87.7% [CI, 84.8% to 90.7%] for ages 60 to 69 years). Sensitivity was similar for each decade of age regardless of family history. The positive predictive value of mammography was higher in women with a family history than in those without (3.7% vs. 2.9%; P = 0.001).
Conclusions: Cancer detection rates in women who had a first-degree relative with a history of breast cancer were similar to those in women a decade older without such a history. The sensitivity of screening mammography was influenced primarily by age.
Author and Article Information
From University of California, San Francisco, California; Dartmouth Medical School, Lebanon, New Hampshire; University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, Vermont; Center for Health Studies, Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington; AMC Cancer Research Center, Denver, Colorado; University of New Mexico Medical Center, New Mexico Tumor Registry, Albuquerque, New Mexico; and National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Grant Support: By a Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium cooperative agreement funded by the National Cancer Institute (1 U01 CA 63740), by the Department of Health and Human Services (K07CA71869), by the National Cancer Institute (CA63146), and by the Department of Defense (DAMD17-96-1-6288).
Requests for Single Reprints: Karla Kerlikowske, MD, General Internal Medicine Section, 111A1, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 4150 Clement Street, San Francisco, CA 94121; e-mail, kerliko{at}itsa.ucsf.edu.
Current Author Addresses: Dr. Kerlikowske: General Internal Medicine Section, 111A1, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 4150 Clement Street, San Francisco, CA 94121.
Dr. Carney: Department of Community and Family Medicine, Dartmouth Medical School, 1 Medical Center Drive, HB 7925, Lebanon, NH 03756.
Dr. Geller: Health Promotion Research, University of Vermont, 1 South Prospect Street, Burlington, VT 05401-3444.
Drs. Mandelson and Taplin: Center for Health Studies, Group Health Cooperative, 1730 Minor Avenue, Suite 1600, Seattle, WA 98101.
Ms. Malvin: University of California, San Francisco, 74 New Montgomery Street, #600, San Francisco, CA 94105.
Dr. Ernster: University of California, San Francisco, 500 Parnassus Avenue, Box 0560, MU 420W, San Francisco, CA 94143.
Dr. Urban: Cancer Prevention Research Program, 1100 Fairview Avenue North, MP900, Box 19024, Seattle, WA 98109-1024.
Dr. Cutter: AMC Cancer Research Center, Center for Research Methods and Biometrics, 1600 Pierce Street, Lakewood, CO 80214.
Dr. Rosenberg: Department of Radiology, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, 915 Camino de Salod NE, Albuquerque, NM 87131-5336.
Dr. Ballard-Barbash: Applied Research Program, National Cancer Institute, EPN 4005, 6130 Executive Boulevard, MSC 7344, Bethesda, MD 20892-7344.
Author Contributions: Conception and design: K. Kerlikowske, M.T. Mandelson, S.H. Taplin, N. Urban, R. Ballard-Barbash.
Analysis and interpretation of the data: K. Kerlikowske, B. Geller, M.T. Mandelson, S.H. Taplin, K. Malvin, V. Ernster, N. Urban, G. Cutter, R. Ballard-Barbash.
Drafting of the article: K. Kerlikowske, P.A. Carney, S.H. Taplin.
Critical revision of the article for important intellectual content: K. Kerlikowske, P.A. Carney, B. Geller, M.T. Mandelson, S.H. Taplin, V. Ernster, N. Urban, R. Rosenberg, R. Ballard-Barbash.
Final approval of the article: K. Kerlikowske, P.A. Carney, B. Geller, M.T. Mandelson, S.H. Taplin, V. Ernster, N. Urban, G. Cutter, R. Rosenberg, R. Ballard-Barbash.
Provision of study materials or patients: K. Kerlikowske, P.A. Carney, B. Geller, M.T. Mandelson, S.H. Taplin, N. Urban, R. Rosenberg.
Statistical expertise: K. Malvin, G. Cutter.
Obtaining of funding: K. Kerlikowske, P.A. Carney, V. Ernster.
Administrative, technical, or logistic support: P.A. Carney.
Collection and assembly of data: K. Kerlikowske, P.A. Carney, B. Geller, G. Cutter, R. Rosenberg. ARTICLE
Performance of Screening Mammography among Women with and without a First-Degree Relative with Breast Cancer
Related articles in Annals:
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  C. D. Lehman, C. M. Rutter, P. R. Eby, E. White, D. S. M. Buist, and S. H. Taplin Lesion and Patient Characteristics Associated with Malignancy After a Probably Benign Finding on Community Practice Mammography Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2008; 190(2): 511 - 515. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Robson and K. Offit Management of an Inherited Predisposition to Breast Cancer N. Engl. J. Med., July 12, 2007; 357(2): 154 - 162. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. Armstrong, E. Moye, S. Williams, J. A. Berlin, and E. E. Reynolds Screening Mammography in Women 40 to 49 Years of Age: A Systematic Review for the American College of Physicians Ann Intern Med, April 3, 2007; 146(7): 516 - 526. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. A. Carney, L. A. Abraham, D. L. Miglioretti, K. R. Yabroff, E. A. Sickles, D. S. M. Buist, C. J. Kasales, B. M. Geller, R. D. Rosenberg, M. B. Dignan, et al. Factors Associated with Imaging and Procedural Events Used to Detect Breast Cancer After Screening Mammography Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2007; 188(2): 385 - 392. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. A. Carney, E. Steiner, M. E. Goodrich, A. J. Dietrich, C. J. Kasales, J. E. Weiss, and T. MacKenzie Discovery of Breast Cancers Within 1 Year of a Normal Screening Mammogram: How Are They Found? Ann. Fam. Med, November 1, 2006; 4(6): 512 - 518. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. D. Rosenberg, B. C. Yankaskas, L. A. Abraham, E. A. Sickles, C. D. Lehman, B. M. Geller, P. A. Carney, K. Kerlikowske, D. S. M. Buist, D. L. Weaver, et al. Performance Benchmarks for Screening Mammography Radiology, October 1, 2006; 241(1): 55 - 66. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. Fritschi, S. A. Dye, and P. Katris Validity of Melanoma Diagnosis in a Community-based Screening Program Am. J. Epidemiol., August 15, 2006; 164(4): 385 - 390. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Bradbury and O. I. Olopade The Case for Individualized Screening Recommendations for Breast Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., July 20, 2006; 24(21): 3328 - 3330. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. K. Stout, M. A. Rosenberg, A. Trentham-Dietz, M. A. Smith, S. M. Robinson, and D. G. Fryback Retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis of screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst, June 7, 2006; 98(11): 774 - 782. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. K. Lindfors, M. C. McGahan, C. J. Rosenquist, and G. S. Hurlock Computer-aided Detection of Breast Cancer: A Cost-effectiveness Study Radiology, June 1, 2006; 239(3): 710 - 717. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G J Heyes, A J Mill, and M W Charles Enhanced biological effectiveness of low energy X-rays and implications for the UK breast screening programme. Br. J. Radiol., March 1, 2006; 79(939): 195 - 200. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. Ghosh, L. J. Melton III, V. J. Suman, C. S. Grant, S. Sterioff, K. R. Brandt, C. Branch, T. A. Sellers, and L. C. Hartmann Breast Biopsy Utilization: A Population-Based Study Arch Intern Med, July 25, 2005; 165(14): 1593 - 1598. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. A. Narod and K. Offit Prevention and Management of Hereditary Breast Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., March 10, 2005; 23(8): 1656 - 1663. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Smith-Bindman, P. Chu, D. L. Miglioretti, C. Quale, R. D. Rosenberg, G. Cutter, B. Geller, P. Bacchetti, E. A. Sickles, and K. Kerlikowske Physician Predictors of Mammographic Accuracy J Natl Cancer Inst, March 2, 2005; 97(5): 358 - 367. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Kerlikowske, J. Shepherd, J. Creasman, J. A. Tice, E. Ziv, and S. R. Cummings Are Breast Density and Bone Mineral Density Independent Risk Factors for Breast Cancer? J Natl Cancer Inst, March 2, 2005; 97(5): 368 - 374. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Oestreicher, C. D. Lehman, D. J. Seger, D. S. M. Buist, and E. White The Incremental Contribution of Clinical Breast Examination to Invasive Cancer Detection in a Mammography Screening Program Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2005; 184(2): 428 - 432. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. C. Yankaskas, S. H. Taplin, L. Ichikawa, B. M. Geller, R. D. Rosenberg, P. A. Carney, K. Kerlikowske, R. Ballard-Barbash, G. R. Cutter, and W. E. Barlow Association between Mammography Timing and Measures of Screening Performance in the United States Radiology, February 1, 2005; 234(2): 363 - 373. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. Banks, G. Reeves, V. Beral, D. Bull, B. Crossley, M. Simmonds, E. Hilton, S. Bailey, N. Barrett, P. Briers, et al. Influence of personal characteristics of individual women on sensitivity and specificity of mammography in the Million Women Study: cohort study BMJ, August 28, 2004; 329(7464): 477. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Skaane and A. Skjennald Screen-Film Mammography versus Full-Field Digital Mammography with Soft-Copy Reading: Randomized Trial in a Population-based Screening Program--The Oslo II Study Radiology, July 1, 2004; 232(1): 197 - 204. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. L. Miglioretti, C. M. Rutter, B. M. Geller, G. Cutter, W. E. Barlow, R. Rosenberg, D. L. Weaver, S. H. Taplin, R. Ballard-Barbash, P. A. Carney, et al. Effect of Breast Augmentation on the Accuracy of Mammography and Cancer Characteristics JAMA, January 28, 2004; 291(4): 442 - 450. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. A. Morris, L. Liberman, D. J. Ballon, M. Robson, A. F. Abramson, A. Heerdt, and D. D. Dershaw MRI of Occult Breast Carcinoma in a High-Risk Population Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2003; 181(3): 619 - 626. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. F. Brem, J. Baum, M. Lechner, S. Kaplan, S. Souders, L. G. Naul, and J. Hoffmeister Improvement in Sensitivity of Screening Mammography with Computer-Aided Detection: A Multiinstitutional Trial Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2003; 181(3): 687 - 693. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Kerlikowske, R. Smith-Bindman, B.-M. Ljung, and D. Grady Evaluation of Abnormal Mammography Results and Palpable Breast Abnormalities Ann Intern Med, August 19, 2003; 139(4): 274 - 284. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. A. Hiatt, C. Klabunde, N. Breen, J. Swan, and R. Ballard-Barbash Cancer Screening Practices From National Health Interview Surveys: Past, Present, and Future J Natl Cancer Inst, December 18, 2002; 94(24): 1837 - 1846. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. A. Berg, C. J. D'Orsi, V. P. Jackson, L. W. Bassett, C. A. Beam, R. S. Lewis, and P. E. Crewson Does Training in the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) Improve Biopsy Recommendations or Feature Analysis Agreement with Experienced Breast Imagers at Mammography? Radiology, September 1, 2002; 224(3): 871 - 880. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Stefanek, L. Hartmann, and W. Nelson Risk-Reduction Mastectomy: Clinical Issues and Research Needs J Natl Cancer Inst, September 5, 2001; 93(17): 1297 - 1297. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. C. Yankaskas, R. J. Cleveland, M. J. Schell, and R. Kozar Association of Recall Rates with Sensitivity and Positive Predictive Values of Screening Mammography Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2001; 177(3): 543 - 549. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. C. Walter and K. E. Covinsky Cancer Screening in Elderly Patients: A Framework for Individualized Decision Making JAMA, June 6, 2001; 285(21): 2750 - 2756. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Lucassen, E. Watson, and D. Eccles Evidence based case report: Advice about mammography for a young woman with a family history of breast cancer BMJ, April 28, 2001; 322(7293): 1040 - 1042. [Full Text]
|
|
Article
