AJR AJR Integrative Imaging Dec 2008 articles
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
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 Curpen, B. N.
Right arrow Articles by Frankel, S. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Curpen, B. N.
Right arrow Articles by Frankel, S. D.
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 164, 1099-1103, Copyright © 1995 by American Roentgen Ray Society


ARTICLES

The comparative value of mammographic screening for women 40-49 years old versus women 50-64 years old

BN Curpen, EA Sickles, RA Sollitto, SH Ominsky, HB Galvin and SD Frankel
Department of Radiology, University of California School of Medicine, San Francisco 94143-0628, USA.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to compare the major prognostic factors (tumor size, axillary lymph node status, and tumor stage) of breast cancers detected at mammographic screening in women ages 40-49 years old with those in women ages 50-64 years old. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Study subjects were women ages 40-64 years old who participated in our mobile van mammographic screening program from April 1985 to June 1994. We retrospectively reviewed the clinical and pathology records of women in whom breast cancer was detected at mammographic screening. All examinations were performed with dedicated equipment using screen-film technique. RESULTS. A total of 44,301 screening examinations were done during the study period. Seventy-five cancers were detected in women ages 40-49 years old, and 128 cancers were detected in women ages 50-64 years old. The cancer detection rate was 3.0 per 1000 examinations in the younger age group compared with 5.5 per 1000 examinations in the older age group. The median size of breast cancers was 10 mm for women ages 40-49 versus 11 mm for women ages 50-64. Eighty-eight percent of the patients in both age groups had no evidence of metastasis to axillary lymph nodes. Nineteen percent of women in the younger age group had advanced breast cancer (stage II or higher) compared with 26% of women ages 50-64 (p = .25). No statistically significant differences were noted between the two age groups in the size, lymph node status, or stage of breast cancers detected at mammographic screening. However, the cancers found in younger women had slightly more favorable prognoses. CONCLUSION. The major prognostic factors of cancers detected with modern mammographic equipment appear to be at least as favorable for women ages 40-49 years old as for women ages 50-64 years old. As mammographic screening has already been shown to be beneficial for women ages 50-64 years old, screening should also be beneficial for women ages 40-49 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
RadiologyHome page
E. A. Sickles, D. E. Wolverton, and K. E. Dee
Performance Parameters for Screening and Diagnostic Mammography: Specialist and General Radiologists
Radiology, September 1, 2002; 224(3): 861 - 869.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
J. M. Boone, T. R. Nelson, K. K. Lindfors, and J. A. Seibert
Dedicated Breast CT: Radiation Dose and Image Quality Evaluation
Radiology, December 1, 2001; 221(3): 657 - 667.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1995 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.