Performance of Screening Mammography among Women with and without a First-Degree Relative with Breast Cancer
- 5 December 2000
- journal article
- Published by American College of Physicians in Annals of Internal Medicine
- Vol. 133 (11) , 855-863
- https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-133-11-200012050-00009
Abstract
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. 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. Cross-sectional. 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). 389 533 women 30 to 69 years of age who were referred for screening mammography from April 1985 to November 1997. 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. 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). 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.Keywords
This publication has 20 references indexed in Scilit:
- Breast Tumor Characteristics as Predictors of Mammographic Detection: Comparison of Interval- and Screen-Detected CancersJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1999
- Breast Cancer Screening and Family History among Rural Women in WisconsinCancer Detection Prevention, 1999
- Breast screening: the psychological sequelae of false- positive recall in women with and without a family history of breast cancerEuropean Journal Of Cancer, 1998
- Effects of age, breast density, ethnicity, and estrogen replacement therapy on screening mammographic sensitivity and cancer stage at diagnosis: review of 183,134 screening mammograms in Albuquerque, New Mexico.Radiology, 1998
- Screening women aged less than 50 years with a family history of breast cancerEuropean Journal Of Cancer, 1998
- Ten-Year Risk of False Positive Screening Mammograms and Clinical Breast ExaminationsNew England Journal of Medicine, 1998
- The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program: report on the first 4 years of mammography provided to medically underserved women.American Journal of Roentgenology, 1998
- Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database.American Journal of Roentgenology, 1997
- Comparison of Risk Factors for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ and Invasive Breast CancerJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1997
- Likelihood ratios for modern screening mammography. Risk of breast cancer based on age and mammographic interpretationPublished by American Medical Association (AMA) ,1996