AJR Not a Member? Click to Join ARRS!
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Field, L. R.
Right arrow Articles by Helvie, M. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Field, L. R.
Right arrow Articles by Helvie, M. A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 170, 961-965, Copyright © 1998 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

Mammographic screening in women more than 64 years old: a comparison of 1- and 2-year intervals

LR Field, TE Wilson, M Strawderman, H Gabriel and MA Helvie
University of Michigan Hospitals, Department of Radiology, Ann Arbor 48109-0326, USA.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to determine if annual mammographic screening was superior to biennial screening in women more than 64 years old by examining differences in various prognostic indicators. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the records of 119 consecutive women 65 years old and older with 120 cases of breast cancer who had a previous normal screening evaluation for breast cancer that included mammography and physical examination 8-30 months before diagnosis. A search of the computerized tumor registry, clinical records, and breast imaging records from November 1988 to April 1995 provided our cases. Screening intervals were defined as 6-18 months (annual) and 19-30 months (biennial). Mammographic, histologic, and clinical features were reviewed. Disease severity (DS) levels were assigned to each tumor as follows: DS-1 included minimal disease (ductal carcinoma in situ [TisNO], T1aN0, and T1bN0 tumors), DS-2 included all T1cN0 tumors, DS-3 included tumors larger than 2 cm in diameter with lymph nodes that were negative for cancer, and DS-4 included all metastatic disease. Statistically significant differences were calculated using the Wilcoxon rank sum test, Fisher's exact test, and the chi-square test. RESULTS: Ninety-three tumors were found in the group of patients who were annually screened, and 27 were found in the group of patients who were screened biennially. The women who underwent yearly screening mammography had significantly smaller invasive tumors (average, 10.7 mm; median, 9.5 mm versus 16.5 mm and 15.0 mm, respectively; p = .0086). The women who were screened annually also had significantly less advanced disease than women screened biennially (annually screened patients versus biennially screened patients: DS-1, 72% versus 44%; DS-2, 23% versus 37%; DS-3, 2% versus 11%; DS-4, 3% versus 7%; p = .0071). The group of patients screened annually had fewer cases of lymph node metastases (3% versus 8%; p = .12) and three times as many cases of ductal carcinoma in situ (22% versus 7%, p = .10). CONCLUSION: Annual screening mammography revealed significantly smaller tumors and less advanced cases of cancer than biennial screening, providing inferential support for annual mammographic screening of women more than 64 years old.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Med ScreenHome page
A. J Coldman, N. Phillips, I. A Olivotto, P. Gordon, L. Warren, and L. Kan
Impact of changing from annual to biennial mammographic screening on breast cancer outcomes in women aged 50-79 in British Columbia
J Med Screen, December 1, 2008; 15(4): 182 - 187.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
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]

Home page
 JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
E. White, D. L. Miglioretti, B. C. Yankaskas, B. M. Geller, R. D. Rosenberg, K. Kerlikowske, L. Saba, P. M. Vacek, P. A. Carney, D. S. M. Buist, et al.
Biennial Versus Annual Mammography and the Risk of Late-Stage Breast Cancer
J Natl Cancer Inst, December 15, 2004; 96(24): 1832 - 1839.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
M. A. Roubidoux, J. E. Bailey, L. A. Wray, and M. A. Helvie
Invasive Cancers Detected after Breast Cancer Screening Yielded a Negative Result: Relationship of Mammographic Density to Tumor Prognostic Factors
Radiology, January 1, 2004; 230(1): 42 - 48.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 CA Cancer J ClinHome page
R. A. Smith, D. Saslow, K. Andrews Sawyer, W. Burke, M. E. Costanza, W. P. Evans III, R. S. Foster Jr., E. Hendrick, H. J. Eyre, and S. Sener
American Cancer Society Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening: Update 2003
CA Cancer J Clin, May 1, 2003; 53(3): 141 - 169.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
J. C. Williams and M. A. Helvie
Question
Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2000; 175(4): 1182 - 1183.
[Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1998 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.