Log in

Relevant bibliographies by topics / Screening Mammography / Journal articles

To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Screening Mammography.

Journal articles on the topic 'Screening Mammography'

Author: Grafiati

Published: 4 June 2021

Last updated: 20 February 2023

Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles

Select a source type:

Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Screening Mammography.'

Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.

You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.

Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.

1

Belaya, Yu A. "Effectiveness of mammography screening for women aged 40–49." Tumors of female reproductive system 18, no. 2 (September 16, 2022): 60–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.17650/1994-4098-2022-18-2-60-66.

Full text

Abstract:

The aim of the work was to review randomized controlled trials regarding the efficacy of screening mammography in women aged 40–49 years.Google Scholar and PubMed databases were searched for English-language publications for randomized controlled trials. Inclusion criteria were studies evaluating the possible benefit/harm of mammographic screening in women 40–49 years old, a follow-up period of at least 10 years, primary breast cancer, regarding as primary outcomes reduction of breast cancer mortality, and side effects screening mammography.A search for the specified keywords found 2453 sources in electronic databases, of which only 83 studies were published as articles. After analyzing these studies, only 5 studies met the inclusion criteria. An analysis of these studies according to the inclusion criteria is subsequently presented in the article.Based on the available data from randomized trials, no definitive conclusion about the effectiveness of mammographic screening in women 40–49 years of age can yet be drawn. Therefore, it is too early to draw a line in the debate about the appropriateness of mammography in the 40–49 age group.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

2

Larin, A. G., and A. R. Dabagov. "Digital Mammography Device for Mobile Mammography Complex." Radiology - Practice, no. 3 (July 6, 2021): 62–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.52560/2713-0118-2021-3-62-69.

Full text

Abstract:

The results of the development of a mammographic unit with a digital flat-panel detector designed for for installation in a mobile medical X-ray room are presented.The mammographic unit with a digital flat-panel detector is designed for screening and other specialized mammographic examinations, provides the ability to perform full-format raster (using a screening raster) mammography, X-ray of the armpits.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

3

Howard, Daniel, Simon C. Roberts, Conor Ryan, and Adrian Brezulianu. "Textural Classification of Mammographic Parenchymal Patterns with the SONNET Selforganizing Neural Network." Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology 2008 (2008): 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2008/526343.

Full text

Abstract:

In nationwide mammography screening, thousands of mammography examinations must be processed. Each consists of two standard views of each breast, and each mammogram must be visually examined by an experienced radiologist to assess it for any anomalies. The ability to detect an anomaly in mammographic texture is important to successful outcomes in mammography screening and, in this study, a large number of mammograms were digitized with a highly accurate scanner; and textural features were derived from the mammograms as input data to a SONNET selforganizing neural network. The paper discusses how SONNET was used to produce a taxonomic organization of the mammography archive in an unsupervised manner. This process is subject to certain choices of SONNET parameters, in these numerical experiments using the craniocaudal view, and typically produced O(10), for example, 39 mammogram classes, by analysis of features from O() mammogram images. The mammogram taxonomy captured typical subtleties to discriminate mammograms, and it is submitted that this may be exploited to aid the detection of mammographic anomalies, for example, by acting as a preprocessing stage to simplify the task for a computational detection scheme, or by ordering mammography examinations by mammogram taxonomic class prior to screening in order to encourage more successful visual examination during screening. The resulting taxonomy may help train screening radiologists and conceivably help to settle legal cases concerning a mammography screening examination because the taxonomy can reveal the frequency of mammographic patterns in a population.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

4

Fancher, Crystal E., Anthony Scott, Ahkeel Allen, and Paul Dale. "Mammographic Screening at Age 40 or 45? What Difference Does it Make? the Potential Impact of American Cancer Society Mammography Screening Guidelines." American Surgeon 83, no. 8 (August 2017): 847–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000313481708300834.

Full text

Abstract:

This is a 10-year retrospective chart review evaluating the potential impact of the most recent American Cancer Society mammography screening guidelines which excludes female patients aged 40 to 44 years from routine annual screening mammography. Instead they recommend screening mammography starting at age 45 with the option to begin screening earlier if the patient desires. The institutional cancer registry was systematically searched to identify all women aged 40 to 44 years treated for breast cancer over a 10-year period. These women were separated into two cohorts: screening mammography detected cancer (SMDC) and nonscreening mammography detected cancer (NSMDC). Statistical analysis of the cohorts was performed for lymph node status (SLN), five-year disease-free survival, and five-year overall survival. Women with SMDC had a significantly lower incidence of SLN positive cancer than the NSMDC group, 9 of 63 (14.3%) versus 36 of 81 (44 %; P < 0.001). The five-year disease-free survival for both groups was 84 per cent for SMDC and 80 per cent for NSMDC; this was not statistically significant. The five-year overall survival was statistically significant at 94 per cent for the SMDC group and 80 per cent for the NSMDC group (P < 0.05). This review demonstrates the significance of mammographic screening for early detection and treatment of breast cancer. Mammographic screening in women aged 40 to 44 detected tumors with fewer nodal metastases, resulting in improved survival and reaffirming the need for annual mammographic screening in this age group.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

5

Johnson, Roman, and Mieke Beth Thomeer. "Abstract 37: Understanding the social determinants of guideline-based mammography adherence across race/ethnicity: Results from the 2016 California Health Interview Survey." Cancer Research 82, no. 12_Supplement (June 15, 2022): 37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.am2022-37.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract Purpose: There is not a consensus concerning recommendations about breast cancer screening which has generated confusion about when and how often to undergo mammography screening in the population, yet there is limited population-based data about the extent to which patients adhere to various mammographic screening guidelines in practice. Our purpose was to evaluate population-based adherence to mammographic screening using criteria from major guideline-producing organizations across race/ethnicity to understand what social determinants of mammography adherence are associated with each guideline producing institution. Methods: Women aged 45-79 in the 2016 California Health Interview Survey were included. Self-reported mammographic screening within 1 or 2 years, according to major guideline-producing organizations (American Cancer Society [ACS], US Preventative Services Task Force [USPSTF], American College of Radiology [ACR], American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists [ACOG]) was calculated with logistic regression, adjusting for demographics, health care, insurance status, and BMI. Results: 7,551 women were included in this study. By age category, cross-sectional adherence to ACR/ACOG (annual screening) (65 to 67%) and USPSTF guidelines (biennial screening) ranged from 82-83% and with increasing age being generally associated higher adherence. The highest proportions of women undergoing mammographic screening were seen in women ages 60-69 (67% within last year, 85% within last 2 years). Statistically significant predictors of adherence to mammography screening included Latina race (OR 1.62, 0.18 SE), full time employment (OR 0.73, 0.09 SE), and not having a usual healthcare provider (OR 0.50, 0.12 SE), adjusted for demographics, health care, insurance status, and BMI. Conclusion: Frequency of screening increases with age with highest screening proportions in women ages 65-69 (66% within last year, 81% within last 2 years). For ACR/ACOG screening guidelines, adherence to mammography screening remains poorer in women with no usual source of care, given that their odds of exhibiting adherence was half that of women who did have a regular source of care and nearly 65 percent lower odds of those women with USPSTF mammography adherence. Key Words: Breast cancer, screening, race/ethnicity, guideline-based care Citation Format: Roman Johnson, Mieke Beth Thomeer. Understanding the social determinants of guideline-based mammography adherence across race/ethnicity: Results from the 2016 California Health Interview Survey [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 37.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

6

Šalát, Dušan, Denisa Nikodemová, Andrej Klepanec, Viera Lehotská, and Anna Šalátová. "DIAGNOSTIC REFERENCE LEVELS IN SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY CENTERS IN SLOVAKIA." Radiation Protection Dosimetry 198, no. 9-11 (August 2022): 537–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncac095.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract Optimization in mammography remains the most important tool in practice. In the optimization process, we look for a balanced relationship between image quality and patient dose. For mammographic examinations, the diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) are expressed as the average glandular dose (AGD) based on the thickness of the compressed breast. The aim of this study was to analyse DRL compliance in diagnostic mammography at 16 mammography screening centres using an automated system for tracking patient doses during the period between January 2020 and December 2020 and to subsequently propose new DRLs for the screening mammography centres in Slovakia. The new DRLs were ~20% lower than the existing national DRLs in diagnostic mammography in Slovakia and significantly lower than the achievable AGD levels published in the fourth edition of the European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

7

Hall, FM. "Screening mammography." American Journal of Roentgenology 147, no. 1 (July 1986): 195–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/ajr.147.1.195.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

8

McLelland, R. "Screening mammography." American Journal of Roentgenology 147, no. 5 (November 1986): 1091–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/ajr.147.5.1091.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

9

Taplin, Stephen H., Carolyn M. Rutter, Charles Finder, Margaret T. Mandelson, Florence Houn, and Emily White. "Screening Mammography." American Journal of Roentgenology 178, no. 4 (April 2002): 797–803. http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/ajr.178.4.1780797.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

10

Thurfjell, E. "Mammography Screening." Acta Radiologica 35, no. 4 (July 1, 1994): 345–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/02841859409173302.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

11

Roebuck, D. J. "Screening mammography." American Journal of Roentgenology 166, no. 4 (April 1996): 990. http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/ajr.166.4.8610590.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

12

Naeem, Shafia, Faisal Mahmood, Ali Qamar, Umer Liaqat, Ayesha Anwar, Muhammad Imran Aftab, and Farkhanda Abbassi. "SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY." Professional Medical Journal 21, no. 01 (February 10, 2014): 039–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.29309/tpmj/2014.21.01.1926.

Full text

Abstract:

Background: Worry about risk for breast cancer and pain are associated withmammography use. Both have been found to be a barrier to mammography use by women.Objective: To examine the anxiety and pain associated with mammography use in a sample ofwomen stratified according to breast cancer risk. Design: This prospective observational study.Setting: Department of Obstetric and Gynecology, Benazir Bhutto Hospital. Period: August2011 to June 2012. Patients & Methods: Women awaiting screening mammography in thereception area were asked to complete a questionnaire containing demographics for calculationof breast cancer risk and the Likert scale for anxiety before the procedure and VAS forassessment of pain after the procedure. Results: Our study included 100 women undergoingscreening mammography with an average age of 53.9±8.8 years. 15% were classified “higherrisk” by the Gail model. The average anxiety level was 4.03±1.3 on Likert scale and average painduring the procedure was 3.3±2.18 on VAS. Significant differences (p<0.05) were foundbetween average and higher risk groups. Conclusions: The population of women in this sampleappears to have a level of breast cancer worry and procedure related pain that is proportionalwith their risk for developing breast cancer.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

13

Litaker, J. R. "Mammography screening." American Journal of Public Health 89, no. 2 (February 1999): 254–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/ajph.89.2.254.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

14

Hamwi, Deborah A. "Screening Mammography." Nurse Practitioner 15, no. 12 (December 1990): 27???33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00006205-199012000-00005.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

15

Thurfjell, E. "Mammography Screening." Acta Radiologica 35, no. 4 (January 1994): 345–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02841859409173302.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

16

Thurfjell, E. "Mammography Screening." Acta Radiologica 35, no. 4 (July 1994): 345–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/028418519403500407.

Full text

Abstract:

Five experienced screeners independently and blindly reviewed mammograms from the first screening round of 46 healthy women, and of 74 women who had histologically proven breast cancers in the first screening round or later. The films were reviewed first as one-view screening and later as two-view screening. Fifty-one breast cancers were detected by at least one of the screeners on either one-view or two-view screening. The mean increase in sensitivity by using two views, instead of one, was 2%. The median of the proportional increase in detected cancers as the result of independent double reading was 14.5% with one-view screening and 12% with two-view screening. Two screeners using one-view screening detected about 10% more cancers than one screener using two-view screening.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

17

van Veen, Willem A., and J. André Knottnerus. "Screening mammography." Lancet 359, no. 9318 (May 2002): 1701. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(02)08584-7.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

18

Levallius, Björn, M. Krishnan Nair, Eswar Krishnan, and Cherian Varghese. "Screening mammography." Lancet 343, no. 8900 (March 1994): 793. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(94)91869-4.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

19

Witten, Meredith, and Catherine C. Parker. "Screening Mammography." Surgical Clinics of North America 98, no. 4 (August 2018): 667–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2018.03.003.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

20

Lopez, Ellen D. S., Amal J. Khoury, Amy B. Dailey, Allyson G. Hall, and Latarsha R. Chisholm. "Screening Mammography." Women's Health Issues 19, no. 6 (November 2009): 434–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2009.07.008.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

21

Wilcken, Nicholas. "Mammography screening." Lancet Oncology 3, no. 5 (May 2002): 268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(02)00726-x.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

22

Barmus, Bruno. "Mammography screening." Lancet 341, no. 8839 (January 1993): 246–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736(93)90114-v.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

23

Swift, Michael, Lennarth Nyström, Lars-Gunnar Larsson, and DanielB Kopans. "Screening mammography." Lancet 342, no. 8870 (August 1993): 549–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736(93)91672-9.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

24

Bulliard, Jean-Luc, and Fabio Levi. "Mammography screening." European Journal of Cancer Prevention 21, no. 3 (May 2012): 222–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/cej.0b013e328350de6e.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

25

DUFFY, S. "Mammography screening." Lancet 337, no. 8741 (March 1991): 626. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736(91)91703-w.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

26

Gullberg, Bo, Ingvar Andersson, Lars Janzon, and Jonas Ranstam. "Screening mammography." Lancet 337, no. 8735 (January 1991): 244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736(91)92216-o.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

27

Fajardo, Laurie L. "Screening Mammography." Imaging Decisions MRI 9, no. 2 (June 2005): 23–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1617-0830.2005.00043.x.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

28

VomLehn, Walter O. "Screening Mammography." JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 265, no. 1 (January 2, 1991): 27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.1991.03460010027013.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

29

Caplan, L. S., and P. H. Gann. "Screening Mammography." JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 265, no. 1 (January 2, 1991): 27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.1991.03460010027014.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

30

Ganai, Sabha, and David J. Winchester. "Screening mammography." Cancer 117, no. 14 (June 30, 2011): 3062–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.26319.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

31

Bleyer, Archie. "Screening Mammography." Academic Radiology 22, no. 8 (August 2015): 949–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2015.03.003.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

32

Fowler, Amy M. "Screening Mammography:." Academic Radiology 23, no. 1 (January 2016): 123–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2015.08.031.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

33

McLelland, Robert. "Screening mammography." Cancer 67, S4 (February 15, 1991): 1129–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19910215)67:4+<1129::aid-cncr2820671505>3.0.co;2-3.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

34

Bird, Richard E. "Screening Mammography and Diagnostic Mammography." Contemporary Diagnostic Radiology 22, no. 14 (1999): 1–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00219246-199922140-00001.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

35

Chang, Rene Wei-Jung, Shu-Lin Chuang, Chen-Yang Hsu, Amy Ming-Fang Yen, Wendy Yi-Ying Wu, Sam Li-Sheng Chen, Jean Ching-Yuan Fann, et al. "Precision Science on Incidence and Progression of Early-Detected Small Breast Invasive Cancers by Mammographic Features." Cancers 12, no. 7 (July 10, 2020): 1855. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers12071855.

Full text

Abstract:

The aim was to evaluate how the inter-screening interval affected the performance of screening by mammographic appearances. This was a Swedish retrospective screening cohort study with information on screening history and mammography features in two periods (1977–1985 and 1996–2010). The pre-clinical incidence and the mean sojourn time (MST) for small breast cancer allowing for sensitivity by mammographic appearances were estimated. The percentage of interval cancer against background incidence (I/E ratio) was used to assess the performance of mammography screening by different inter-screening intervals. The sensitivity-adjusted MSTs (in years) were heterogeneous with mammographic features, being longer for powdery and crushed stone-like calcifications (4.26, (95% CI, 3.50–5.26)) and stellate masses (3.76, (95% CI, 3.15–4.53)) but shorter for circular masses (2.65, (95% CI, 2.06–3.55)) in 1996–2010. The similar trends, albeit longer MSTs, were also noted in 1977–1985. The I/E ratios for the stellate type were 23% and 32% for biennial and triennial screening, respectively. The corresponding figures were 32% and 43% for the circular type and 21% and 29% for powdery and crushed stone-like calcifications, respectively. Mammography-featured progressions of small invasive breast cancer provides a new insight into personalized quality assurance, surveillance, treatment and therapy of early-detected breast cancer.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

36

Sener, Stephen F., David J. Winchester, David P. Winchester, Raffael Kurek, Gary Motykie, Carole H. Martz, and Sarah Rabbitt. "Spectrum of Mammographically Detected Breast Cancers." American Surgeon 65, no. 8 (August 1999): 731–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000313489906500807.

Full text

Abstract:

Mammographic screening of women at both ends of the age spectrum presents a number of challenges. The purpose of this study was to characterize experience with mammographic detection of breast cancer. The two goals were 1) to establish the cancer detection rate of screening mammography and 2) to compare the tumor size of cancers found by mammography, physical examination, or both modalities. From January 1994 through June 1997, data on 609 consecutive female primary breast cancer patients were collected concurrent with definitive surgical therapy. The method of detection was determined by the surgeon, after reviewing mammogram and physical examination. Screening ultrasound was not used. For the 184 patients under 50 years of age, 53 (29%) cancers were detected by mammography only and 48 (26%) by physical examination only. Women under 50 years of age had fewer cancers detected by mammography only (P < 0.001) and more cancers detected by physical examination only (P = 0.0014) than those over 50. With increasing age, the proportion of women with ductal carcinoma in situ decreased (P = 0.004), and the proportion with T1c or T2 tumors increased (P = 0.006). We conclude that 1) when examining women under 50 years of age, the surgeon must be clearly focused on the double-edged sword of screening mammography in this age group, and 2) community cancer programs should encourage annual screening of women over 40 years of age but focus on those over 70, without an arbitrary upper age limit.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

37

Khasanov, Rustem, Munir Tukhbatullin, and Dmitrii Pasynkov. "The value of computer aided detection system FOR mammography in the breast cancer screening: single-center, prospective, randomized clinical trial." Problems in oncology 67, no. 6 (December 30, 2021): 777–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.37469/0507-3758-2021-67-6-777-784.

Full text

Abstract:

Purpose. To assess the influence of mammography mapping with the help of computer-aided detection system (CAD) MammCheck II of our own design on the relapse-free survival (RFS) in breast cancer (BC) patients detected during the combined (mammographic and ultrasound [US]) screening. Materials and methods. 10732 women aged 40-87 years old (mean age: 52.20±8.63) who performed mammography were randomized to the standard screening group (mammography → US of the dense breasts) or to the group of CAD-assisted screening (mammography → CAD → targeted US of suspicious CAD markings, as well as the standard US of the dense breasts; CAD group). The primary endpoint was the 3-years RFS. Results. Totally, in the standard screening group we identified 230 BCs (4.29%), in the CAD group — 248 BCs (4.62%; p>0.05), including 49 (21.20%) и 88 (35.48%) 0-I stage BCs, respectively (p<0.05). Median of the primary tumor size was significantly lower in the CAD group (18 mm) compared to the standard screening group (25 mm; р<0.05). 3-years RFS was significantly higher (87.90%) in the CAD group compared to the standard screening group (81.20%; р<0.05). Conclusion. Breast US after the previous mammography CAD mapping significantly increases the 3-years RFS of women with combined screening-detected BC.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

38

Chiarelli, Anna M., Kristina M. Blackmore, Lucia Mirea, Susan J. Done, Vicky Majpruz, Ashini Weerasinghe, Linda Rabeneck, and Derek Muradali. "Annual vs Biennial Screening: Diagnostic Accuracy Among Concurrent Cohorts Within the Ontario Breast Screening Program." JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute 112, no. 4 (June 24, 2019): 400–409. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djz131.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract Background The Ontario Breast Screening Program recommends annual mammography to women age 50–74 years at increased risk because of family history of breast or ovarian cancer or personal history of ovarian cancer or mammographic density 75% or greater. Few studies have examined the diagnostic accuracy of recommendations based on risk factors and included screen film as well as digital mammography. Methods A retrospective design identified concurrent cohorts of women age 50–74 years screened annually or biennially with digital mammography only between 2011 and 2014 and followed until 2016 or breast cancer diagnosis. Diagnostic accuracy measures were compared between women screened annually because of first-degree relative of breast or ovarian cancer or personal history of ovarian cancer (n = 67 795 women), mammographic density 75% or greater (n = 51 956), or both (n = 3758) and those screened biennially (n = 526 815). The association between recommendation and sensitivity and specificity was assessed using generalized estimating equation models. All P values are two-sided. Results For annual screening because of family or personal history vs biennial, sensitivity was statistically significantly higher (81.7% vs 70.6%; OR = 1.86, 95% CI = 1.48 to 2.34), particularly for invasive cancers and postmenopausal women. Although there was no statistically significant difference in sensitivity for annual screening for mammographic density 75% or greater, specificity was statistically significantly lower (91.3%; OR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.80 to 0.96) vs biennial (92.3%), particularly for women age 50–59 years. Conclusion Compared with biennial screening, annual screening improved detection for women with a family or personal history of breast and/or ovarian cancer, supporting screening that is more frequent. The benefit for annual screening for women with higher mammographic density must be weighed against possible harms of increased false positives.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

39

Mohson, Khaleel, Tara F. Kareem, and Anas K. Awn. "Ultrasound Findings of MammographicallyDense Breasts in a Sample of Iraqi Female PatientsDOI:https." Journal of the Faculty of Medicine Baghdad 61, no. 1 (July 29, 2019): 39–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.32007/jfacmedbagdad.611690.

Full text

Abstract:

Background: Breast problems including breast cancer have been increasing in Iraq during the recent years. Yet, early detection and screening programs using mammography mainly with complementary ultrasound had dramatically decreased the mortality rates from this emerging disease. Objective: To assess the dense breast detected by mammography for the presence of any hidden suspicious lesion by using ultrasound. Patients and methods: this is a cross - sectional study on 53 female patients who came for breast cancer screening or attended the Breast Clinic in the Oncology Teaching Hospital of the Medical City Complex in Baghdad –Iraq. The study was conducted from January to October 2018. Two -view mammography was done for each breast, and those with dense breasts underwent further ultrasound assessment done by a board- certified radiologist. Results: The mean age for the 53 patients included in the study was 48 years. Mammographic findings showed that heterogeneous fibroglandular tissue density was present in (89%) of the study population. Suspicious or clearly defined mass(es) by mammograph were seen in 16 (30%) of the patients, while no mass was identified in (22%). Ultrasound findings we re as follows: Suspicious mass in (75%) of the cases and benign lesions such as simple cysts or fibroadenoma in (9%). The results showed that ultrasound has upgraded 12 cases that were diagnosed as BI -RADS I/II to BI-RADS IV/V and this represented (23%) of the cases. On the other hand, the mammogram and the ultrasound were in concordance for BI RADS IV/V in 28 cases (54%). The positive predictive value of the ultrasound and the mammogram for BI - RADS IV and V breast lesions is 72% for BI - RADS IV and 95% for BI - RADS V for ultrasound and that of mammograph is 83% for BI - RADS IV 80% for BI- RADS V, while the negative predictive value of mammograph is 55% for BI - RADS I/II 25% for BI - RADS III. Conclusion: Dense breast is still an important problematic issue in mammographic screening as it may obscure small lesions, for which, ultrasound is proved to be a complementary and essential targeting tool in the assessment process.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

40

Omofoye, Toma S., and Jay R. Parikh. "Role of Breast Imaging Radiologists as Advocates for Screening Mammography." Journal of Breast Imaging 2, no. 3 (April 10, 2020): 259–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jbi/wbaa017.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract The objective of this article is to outline opportunities for breast imaging radiologists to advocate for screening mammography. Despite breast cancer being the second most common cancer in women and screening mammography’s ability to reduce mortality from this disease, there remains suboptimal utilization in the community. The different guidelines for screening presented by respected organizations has created confusion for patients and referring clinicians and the eventual underutilization of screening mammography. As experts in the value of early detection, breast radiologists are well suited to take on the role of screening advocates. Using specific action steps and examples, we create a template for a radiologist to utilize in the promotion of screening among the breast imaging team, clinicians, administrators, and the community at large. By deliberately filling the role of screening mammography advocate, one can satisfy the mandate for radiologists to bring increased value to the health care team while contributing to community health and patient satisfaction.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

41

Barrajon, E., A. Lopez, and E. Adrover. "Screening mammography in old women saves lives: A simulation model." Journal of Clinical Oncology 24, no. 18_suppl (June 20, 2006): 10561. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jco.2006.24.18_suppl.10561.

Full text

Abstract:

10561 Background: Screening mammography has shown to decrease breast cancer specific death rate by 20–25% and has been recommended in women aged 40 and above, nevertheless, some country service screen programs stop screening in women older than 69, even though the sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography is highest in older women, especially those older than 80 years. The size of the older population is growing exponentially and old women have the highest incidence of breast cancer; one third of breast cancer diagnosis and half the deaths of breast cancer in USA occurred in women aged 70 and above in the year 2000. The aim of this study is to estimate the impact of mammographic screening in women aged 70 and above on breast cancer mortality. Methods: US Census, SEER, CISNET, CDC, HMD, ULTD databases were searched to obtain population data and rates of incidence and mortality of breast cancer by age. In addition, mammography screening bibliography from randomized clinical trials, meta-analysis, and service health programs publications were reviewed to estimate the impact of screening mammography on results for different strata. Analytical and simulation methods were applied for modeling the data with the aid of Mathematica to calculate breast cancer reduction rate. Results: A reduction in breast cancer mortality was observed with a magnitude proportional to age, even after taking into account competing risks of death by other causes in the aging population. Simulation of different scenarios revealed a decrease in breast cancer mortality in the range of 5 to15% for women younger than 50 years, 15 to 25% in the group of women aged 50 to 69, and 25 to 35% in women older than 69. Factors such as population life expectancy, breast cancer incidence, attrition rate in screening or cross-over, overall specificity of mammographic detection, interval of screening, impact the estimations, explaining in part some of the negative results of prevention trials. Conclusions: Reduction of breast cancer mortality by mammographic screening is proportional to age. Women aged 70 and above benefit more from mammographic screening than younger women. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

42

Alkhawari, Hanaa Abdulla, Akram Mahmoud Asbeutah, Abdullah Abdulaziz Almajran, and Latifa Abdullah AlKandari. "Kuwait National Mammography Screening Program: outcomes of 5 years of screening in Kuwaiti women." Annals of Saudi Medicine 41, no. 5 (September 2021): 257–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.5144/0256-4947.2021.257.

Full text

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common malignancy among women in Kuwait, representing 39.8% of all female cancer cases. OBJECTIVES: Report the data of the Kuwait National Mammography Screening Program (KNMSP) for a 5-year period. DESIGN: Prospective data collection. SETTING: Population-based screening. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We included mammography screens done for Kuwaiti women (age 40 years and older) who attended the KNMSP from 2014 to 2019 to screen for breast cancer. A full-field digital mammography system was used to acquire the mammographic images in craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique projections. Independent double-blind reading of the mammograms was performed by two radiologists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Early detection of breast cancer. SAMPLE SIZE: 14 773 asymptomatic women met inclusion criteria (mean [SD] age, 51.8 (8.2). RESULTS: Lesions were detected in 551 women (3.7%). These included 233 malignant lesions (233/551, 42.3%), 57 high-risk lesions (10.3%) and 261 benign lesions (47.4%). The participation rate was 7.8% of the target population of women 40–69 years of age. The majority of breast cancer cases were reported in the age group 45–49 years (23.2%). The KNMSP study recall rate for 5 consecutive years was in a range of 11.9–16.5% (mean, 14.3%). The detection rate of ductal/lobular carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer were 2.5 and 13.6 per 1000 screened women, respectively. Invasive ductal carcinoma was the most common type. Only 4314 women followed up within 12–15 months of the first mammography for a retention rate of 29.2%. CONCLUSIONS: Screening mammography improves early detection of breast cancer in women older than 40 years but poor participation is a limitation. We are aiming to increase the participation rate to 70% of the population. LIMITATIONS: Lack of participation by women. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

43

Chang, Chin-Chuan, Tzu-Chuan Ho, Chih-Ying Lien, Daniel Hueng-Yuan Shen, Kuo-Pin Chuang, Hung-Pin Chan, Ming-Hui Yang, and Yu-Chang Tyan. "The Effects of Prior Mammography Screening on the Performance of Breast Cancer Detection in Taiwan." Healthcare 10, no. 6 (June 2, 2022): 1037. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10061037.

Full text

Abstract:

The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of previous mammography screening on the performance of breast cancer detection. The screened women were divided into first-visit and follow-up groups for breast cancer screening. The positive predictive value (PPV), cancer detection rate (CDR), and recall rate were used to evaluate and analyze the overall screening performance among the two groups. Among them, 10,040 screenings (67.2%) were first visits and 4895 screenings (32.8%) were follow-up visits. The proportion of positive screening results for first-visit participants was higher than that for their follow-up counterparts (9.3% vs. 4.0%). A total of 98 participants (74 first-visit and 24 follow-up visit) were confirmed to have breast cancer. The PPV for positive mammography for women who underwent biopsy confirmation was 28.7% overall, reaching 35.8% for the follow-up visit group and 27.0% for the first-visit group. The CDR was 6.6 per 1000 overall, reaching 7.4 per 1000 for first-visit group and 4.9 per 1000 for the follow-up group. The overall recall rate was 7.9%, reaching 9.7% for the first-visit group and 4.2% for the follow-up group. The PPV is improved and the recall rate is decreased if prior mammography images are available for comparison when conducting mammography screening for breast cancer. By this study, we concluded that prior mammography plays an important role for breast cancer screening, while follow-up mammography may increase the diagnostic rate when compared to the prior mammography. We suggest that the public health authority can encourage subjects to undergo screenings in the same health institute where they regularly visit.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

44

Scammon, Debra L., Jackie A. Smith, and Tika Beard. "Mammography Screening Services." Journal of Ambulatory Care Marketing 4, no. 2 (April 18, 1991): 1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/j273v04n02_01.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

45

Meyer, Jack. "Screening Mammography Guidelines." Radiology 276, no. 1 (July 2015): 312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015142922.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

46

Añorbe, Enrique, and Pilar Aisa. "Screening Mammography [letter]." Radiology 227, no. 3 (June 2003): 903–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2273021738.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

47

Tabar, Laszlo, Stephen W. Duffy, and Nicholas E. Day. "Screening with Mammography." International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 6, no. 3 (April 1990): 498–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0266462300001082.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

48

Benzel, Janice L., Paula D. Laubach, England Griner, Mary F. Faria, Tara J. Brunner, Julie R. Johnson, and Whitney M. Valley. "Improving Mammography Screening." AJN, American Journal of Nursing 109 (November 2009): 43–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.naj.0000362021.85622.33.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

49

Denhaerynck, Kris, Emmanuel Lesaffre, Jo Baele, Kaat Cortebeeck, Eef Van Overstraete, and Frank Buntinx. "Mammography screening attendance." American Journal of Preventive Medicine 25, no. 3 (October 2003): 195–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0749-3797(03)00201-0.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

50

Shimkin, Michael B. "Screening by Mammography." JAMA 311, no. 13 (April 2, 2014): 1362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.279425.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

We offer discounts on all premium plans for authors whose works are included in thematic literature selections. Contact us to get a unique promo code!