AJR Your Link to CME
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 Hunt, K. A.
Right arrow Articles by Sickles, E. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hunt, K. A.
Right arrow Articles by Sickles, E. 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 173, 285-289, Copyright © 1999 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

Outcome analysis for women undergoing annual versus biennial screening mammography: a review of 24,211 examinations

KA Hunt, EL Rosen and EA Sickles
Department of Radiology, University of California San Francisco Medical Center, 94143-1667, USA.

OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to determine differences in outcome measures between women undergoing annual versus biennial screening mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data on 24,211 consecutive screening mammography examinations was performed in women aged 40-79 years, all of whom had undergone previous normal screening mammography. Annual screening and biennial screening were defined as examinations performed 10-14 months and 22-26 months, respectively, after previous normal screening mammography. The rates of recall, biopsy, cancer detection, and interval cancer for annual and biennial screening cohorts were calculated, as were tumor size, lymph node status, and stage of invasive cancer. Interval cancer cases were identified by linkage with a regional tumor registry. RESULTS: Of the 4306 biennially screened women, 160 were recalled (3.7%), 45 were biopsied (1.0%), and cancer was detected in 19 (0.44%). Of the 19,905 annually screened women, 518 were recalled (2.6%), 150 were biopsied (0.75%), and cancer was detected in 71 (0.36%). Of the 3278 registry-linked biennially screened women, five had interval cancer (0.15%); of the 15,031 registry-linked annually screened women, 10 had interval cancer (0.07%). For biennial screening-detected cancer and interval invasive cancer combined, the median tumor size was 15 mm, 24% had lymph node metastasis, and 29% were stage 2 or higher. For annual screening-detected cancer, these measures were 11 mm, 14% positive nodes, and 17% stage 2+ cancer, respectively. CONCLUSION: Annual screening mammography results in lower recall rates than does biennial screening (p < .0001). Moreover, annual screening results in the detection of smaller tumors that have a more favorable prognosis (p = .04).
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
 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
L. E. M. Duijm, J. H. Groenewoud, J. H. C. L. Hendriks, and H. J. de Koning
Independent Double Reading of Screening Mammograms in the Netherlands: Effect of Arbitration Following Reader Disagreements
Radiology, May 1, 2004; 231(2): 564 - 570.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
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]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
E. A. Sickles
Breast Imaging: From 1965 to the Present
Radiology, April 1, 2000; 215(1): 1 - 16.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1999 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.