» Articles » PMID: 12165640

Performance of Diagnostic Mammography for Women with Signs or Symptoms of Breast Cancer

Overview
Specialty Oncology
Date 2002 Aug 8
PMID 12165640
Citations 42
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The performance of diagnostic mammography for women with signs or symptoms of breast cancer has not been well studied. We evaluated whether age, breast density, self-reported breast lump, and previous mammography influence the performance of diagnostic mammography.

Methods: From January 1996 through March 1998, prospective diagnostic mammography data from women aged 25-89 years with no previous breast cancer were linked to cancer outcomes data in six mammography registries participating in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. We used the final mammographic assessment at the end of the imaging work-up to determine abnormal mammographic examination rate, positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. We used age, breast density, prior mammogram, and self-reported breast lump jointly as predictors of performance. All statistical tests were two-sided.

Results: Of 41 427 diagnostic mammograms, 6279 (15.2%) were judged abnormal. The overall PPV was 21.8%, sensitivity was 85.8%, and specificity was 87.7%. Multivariate analysis showed that sensitivity and specificity generally declined as breast density increased (P =.007 and P<.001, respectively), that previous mammography decreased sensitivity (odds ratio [OR] = 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.36 to 0.74; P<.001) but increased specificity (OR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.31 to 1.57; P<.001), and that a self-reported breast lump increased sensitivity (OR = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.13 to 2.38; P =.013) but decreased specificity (OR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.49 to 0.59; P<.001). ROC analysis showed that higher breast density and previous mammography were negatively related to accuracy (P<.001 for both).

Conclusions: Diagnostic mammography in women with signs or symptoms of breast cancer shows higher sensitivity and lower specificity than screening mammography does. Higher breast density and previous mammographic examination appear to impair performance.

Citing Articles

Awareness of breast self-examination and understanding of breast cancer treatment options among female patients of Lahore, Pakistan: a cross-sectional study.

Mustafa N, Ashiq K, Mustafa E, Ali S, Zaka M J Prev Med Hyg. 2025; 65(4):E538-E546.

PMID: 40026431 PMC: 11870129. DOI: 10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2024.65.4.3361.


Exploring the Landscape of Breast Cancer Prevention among Chinese Residents in Italy: An In-Depth Analysis of Screening Adherence, Breast Self-Examination (BSE) Practices, the Role of Technological Tools, and Misconceptions Surrounding Risk Factors....

Conte L, Lupo R, Sciolti S, Lezzi A, Rubbi I, Botti S Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2024; 21(3).

PMID: 38541307 PMC: 10969788. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph21030308.


Effect of Integrated Survivorship Model on Physical Health for Breast Cancer Survivors in Rural Area.

Shinde S, Kulkarni K, Patil S, Gudur A, Shinde R, Bhende R Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2024; 25(2):401-408.

PMID: 38415524 PMC: 11077139. DOI: 10.31557/APJCP.2024.25.2.401.


Benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: Cohort study of breast cancer mortality and overdiagnosis.

Wang S, Sultana F, Kavanagh A, Nickson C, Karahalios A, Gurrin L Cancer Med. 2023; 12(17):18120-18132.

PMID: 37548277 PMC: 10524083. DOI: 10.1002/cam4.6373.


Racial and Ethnic Variation in Diagnostic Mammography Performance among Women Reporting a Breast Lump.

Nyante S, Abraham L, Aiello Bowles E, Lee C, Kerlikowske K, Miglioretti D Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2023; 32(11):1542-1551.

PMID: 37440458 PMC: 10790330. DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-23-0289.