Mammography screening methods and diagnostic results.

Acta radiologica. Supplementum Pub Date : 1995-01-01
E Thurfjell
{"title":"Mammography screening methods and diagnostic results.","authors":"E Thurfjell","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Mammograms from 12,636 women aged 40-54 years were examined by one screener first as one-view screening and later as two-view screening. With one-view screening, 542 (4.3%) women were recalled and 31 breast cancers were detected. With two-view screening, 349 (2.8%) women were recalled and 32 breast cancers were detected. Mammograms from 11,343 women aged 41-75 years were independently screened by 2 experienced screeners. A total of 76 breast cancers were diagnosed by 131 surgical biopsies. Both screeners detected 56 cancers. One screener detected 14 cancers alone, and the other detected 6 cancers alone. Thus, 15% more cancers were detected because of double reading. Five experienced screeners reviewed 120 sets of mammograms from the first screening round, including 74 women with breast cancer diagnosed in the first round or later. The mean increase in sensitivity by using two views, instead of one, was 2%. The median of the increase in cancer detection because of independent double reading was 14.5% with one-view screening and 12% with two-view screening. We invited 48,517 women aged 40-74 years to mammography screening. 86% participated, of which 4.8% were recalled for further examinations, and 1.0% were referred to surgery. A total of 241 (0.58%) breast cancers were diagnosed. Only 20% of the invasive cancers had lymph node metastasis and the median size was 16 mm. A total of 43,074 women aged 40-69 years were invited to screening. The attendance rate was 87% in the first screening round and 78% in the second screening. The recall rate was 4.6% and 5.7%, respectively. The breast cancer rate was 0.48% in both screening rounds. The rate of stage II or more advanced breast cancers decreased significantly from 0.16% in the first screening round to 0.08% in the second (p = 0.007).</p>","PeriodicalId":7159,"journal":{"name":"Acta radiologica. Supplementum","volume":"395 ","pages":"1-22"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1995-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta radiologica. Supplementum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Mammograms from 12,636 women aged 40-54 years were examined by one screener first as one-view screening and later as two-view screening. With one-view screening, 542 (4.3%) women were recalled and 31 breast cancers were detected. With two-view screening, 349 (2.8%) women were recalled and 32 breast cancers were detected. Mammograms from 11,343 women aged 41-75 years were independently screened by 2 experienced screeners. A total of 76 breast cancers were diagnosed by 131 surgical biopsies. Both screeners detected 56 cancers. One screener detected 14 cancers alone, and the other detected 6 cancers alone. Thus, 15% more cancers were detected because of double reading. Five experienced screeners reviewed 120 sets of mammograms from the first screening round, including 74 women with breast cancer diagnosed in the first round or later. The mean increase in sensitivity by using two views, instead of one, was 2%. The median of the increase in cancer detection because of independent double reading was 14.5% with one-view screening and 12% with two-view screening. We invited 48,517 women aged 40-74 years to mammography screening. 86% participated, of which 4.8% were recalled for further examinations, and 1.0% were referred to surgery. A total of 241 (0.58%) breast cancers were diagnosed. Only 20% of the invasive cancers had lymph node metastasis and the median size was 16 mm. A total of 43,074 women aged 40-69 years were invited to screening. The attendance rate was 87% in the first screening round and 78% in the second screening. The recall rate was 4.6% and 5.7%, respectively. The breast cancer rate was 0.48% in both screening rounds. The rate of stage II or more advanced breast cancers decreased significantly from 0.16% in the first screening round to 0.08% in the second (p = 0.007).

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
乳房x光检查方法及诊断结果。
对12636名年龄在40-54岁之间的女性进行乳房x光检查,首先进行单面筛查,然后进行双面筛查。通过单视图筛查,542名(4.3%)女性被召回,31名女性被检测出乳腺癌。通过双视图筛查,349名(2.8%)女性被召回,32名女性被检测出乳腺癌。11,343名年龄在41-75岁的女性的乳房x光照片由2名经验丰富的筛查人员独立筛查。131例手术活检共诊断出76例乳腺癌。两种筛查方法都检测出56种癌症。一名筛查者仅检测到14种癌症,另一名仅检测到6种癌症。因此,由于双读,多检出了15%的癌症。五名经验丰富的筛查人员审查了第一轮筛查的120组乳房x光片,其中包括74名在第一轮或之后诊断出乳腺癌的妇女。使用两个视图而不是一个视图,灵敏度的平均增加是2%。由于独立的双重阅读,癌症检出率增加的中位数在单视图筛查中为14.5%在双视图筛查中为12%。我们邀请了48,517名年龄在40-74岁之间的女性进行乳房x光检查。86%的患者参加了治疗,其中4.8%被召回作进一步检查,1.0%转介手术。总共诊断出241例(0.58%)乳腺癌。只有20%的浸润性肿瘤有淋巴结转移,中位大小为16 mm。共有43074名年龄在40-69岁之间的女性被邀请进行筛查。第一轮的上座率为87%,第二轮为78%。召回率分别为4.6%和5.7%。两轮筛查的乳腺癌发病率均为0.48%。II期或更晚期乳腺癌的比率从第一轮筛查的0.16%显著下降到第二轮筛查的0.08% (p = 0.007)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography: development and optimization of techniques for paramagnetic and hyperpolarized contrast media. Aspects of temporal bone anatomy and pathology in conjunction with cochlear implant surgery. XI International Workshop in Magnetic Resonance Angiography: new aspects on visualisation of macro- and microcirculation. Lund, Sweden, September 22-25, 1999. Abstracts. Ultrasonography as adjunct to mammography in the evaluation of breast tumors. The postoperative lumbar spine. A radiological investigation of the lumbar spine after discectomy using MR imaging and CT.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1