 |
 |
|
Home |
Current Issue |
Past Issues |
In the Clinic |
ACP Journal Club |
CME |
Collections |
Audio/Video |
Mobile |
Subscribe |
Tools |
Help |
ACP Online
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Summaries for Patients are a service provided by Annals to help patients better understand the complicated and often mystifying language of modern medicine.
SUMMARIES FOR PATIENTS
How Sensitive Are Screening Mammograms in Women with and without a Family History of Breast Cancer?
5 December 2000 | Volume 133 Issue 11 | Page S56
Summaries for Patients are presented for informational purposes only. These summaries are not a substitute for advice from your own medical provider. If you have questions about this material, or need medical advice about your own health or situation, please contact your physician.
The summary below is from the full report titled "Performance of Screening Mammography among Women with and without a First-Degree Relative with Breast Cancer." It is in the 5 December 2000 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine (volume 133, pages 855-863). The authors are K Kerlikowske, PA Carney, B Geller, MT Mandelson, SH Taplin, K Malvin, V Ernster, N Urban, G Cutter, R Rosenberg, and R Ballard-Barbash.
What is the problem and what is known about it so far?
A mammogram is an x-ray test that looks for (screens) breast cancer at early stages, when it is most treatable. Mammography screening should begin by age 50; some experts recommend that mammograms begin at age 40. Women with a history of breast cancer in a mother, sister, or daughter are at higher risk for breast cancer than women without such a history. Many doctors advise women with a family history of breast cancer to begin mammography during their 30s and 40s, but the benefit of that practice is unknown. It is also not known whether mammograms have the same sensitivity in women with and without a family history of breast cancer. Sensitivity means how good the test is at detecting cancer when cancer is really there.
Why did the researchers do this particular study?
To find out if mammograms have the same sensitivity in women with and women without a family history of breast cancer.
Who was studied?
389,533 women who had screening mammograms between April 1985 and November 1997.
How was the study done?
Information on each study woman, including age, family history, and mammogram results, was taken from seven mammography registries in the United States. Information on breast cancer that was detected after mammography came from tumor registries. If breast cancer was diagnosed within 1 year of a normal (negative) mammogram, that mammogram was considered "false-negative"; if cancer was not diagnosed within 1 year, that negative mammogram was considered "true-negative." If breast cancer was diagnosed within 1 year after an abnormal (positive) mammogram, that mammogram was considered "true-positive"; if cancer was not diagnosed within 1 year, that positive mammogram was considered "false-positive." Using the numbers of true-positive and false-negative results, the researchers then calculated the sensitivity of mammograms for women with and without a family history of breast cancer.
What did the researchers find?
For women in both groups, the sensitivity of mammograms increased as women became older. However, for each decade of age, the sensitivity of mammograms was the same in women with and without a family history of breast cancer.
What were the limitations of the study?
The study used information from registries, which may not be complete. Most important, this study does not tell us whether beginning mammography at an early age improves health outcomes for women with a family history of breast cancer.
What are the implications of the study?
The sensitivity of mammography is related to a woman's age at the time of screening and is not improved or diminished in women with a family history of 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
