This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (113)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Oncology  • Breast Cancer  • Radiologic Imaging  • Women's Health  • Women's Health, Other  • Diagnosis  • Mammography  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Joann G. Elmore, MD, MPH; Katrina Armstrong, MD; Constance D. Lehman, MD, PhD; Suzanne W. Fletcher, MD, MSc

JAMA. 2005;293:1245-1256.

Context  Breast cancer screening in community practices may be different from that in randomized controlled trials. New screening modalities are becoming available.

Objectives  To review breast cancer screening, especially in the community and to examine evidence about new screening modalities.

Data Sources and Study Selection  English-language articles of randomized controlled trials assessing effectiveness of breast cancer screening were reviewed, as well as meta-analyses, systematic reviews, studies of breast cancer screening in the community, and guidelines. Also, studies of newer screening modalities were assessed.

Data Synthesis  All major US medical organizations recommend screening mammography for women aged 40 years and older. Screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality by about 20% to 35% in women aged 50 to 69 years and slightly less in women aged 40 to 49 years at 14 years of follow-up. Approximately 95% of women with abnormalities on screening mammograms do not have breast cancer with variability based on such factors as age of the woman and assessment category assigned by the radiologist. Studies comparing full-field digital mammography to screen film have not shown statistically significant differences in cancer detection while the impact on recall rates (percentage of screening mammograms considered to have positive results) was unclear. One study suggested that computer-aided detection increases cancer detection rates and recall rates while a second larger study did not find any significant differences. Screening clinical breast examination detects some cancers missed by mammography, but the sensitivity reported in the community is lower (28% to 36%) than in randomized trials (about 54%). Breast self-examination has not been shown to be effective in reducing breast cancer mortality, but it does increase the number of breast biopsies performed because of false-positives. Magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound are being studied for screening women at high risk for breast cancer but are not recommended for screening the general population. Sensitivity of magnetic resonance imaging in high-risk women has been found to be much higher than that of mammography but specificity is generally lower. Effect of the magnetic resonance imaging on breast cancer mortality is not known. A balanced discussion of possible benefits and harms of screening should be undertaken with each woman.

Conclusions  In the community, mammography remains the main screening tool while the effectiveness of clinical breast examination and self-examination are less. New screening modalities are unlikely to replace mammography in the near future for screening the general population.

Author Affiliations: Department of Medicine (Dr Elmore) and Department of Radiology and Seattle Cancer Care Alliance (Dr Lehman), University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle; Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia (Dr Armstrong); and the Department of Ambulatory Care and Prevention, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (Dr Fletcher).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

An occult breast mass
Burke et al.
BMJ 2009;339:b4316-b4316.
FULL TEXT  

Breast US Computer-aided Diagnosis System: Robustness across Urban Populations in South Korea and the United States
Gruszauskas et al.
Radiology 2009;0:radiol.2533090280v1-radiol.2533090280.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Identification of a New Panel of Serum Autoantibodies Associated with the Presence of In situ Carcinoma of the Breast in Younger Women
Desmetz et al.
Clin. Cancer Res. 2009;15:4733-4741.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Role of Radiotracer Imaging in the Diagnosis and Management of Patients with Breast Cancer: Part 1--Overview, Detection, and Staging
Lee et al.
JNM 2009;50:569-581.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Mammography and Clinical Breast Examination Strategies: A Comparison with Current Guidelines
Ahern and Shen
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18:718-725.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Breast Imaging Fellowships in the United States: Who, What, and Where?
Baxi et al.
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2009;192:403-407.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Enhancement of Visual Perception with Use of Dynamic Cues
Andia et al.
Radiology 2009;250:551-557.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Women at High Risk for Breast Cancer--What the Primary Care Provider Needs to Know
Afonso
J Am Board Fam Med 2009;22:43-50.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Breast MRI in the Evaluation of Eligibility for Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation
Godinez et al.
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2008;191:272-277.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Cancer Screening before and after Switching to a High-Deductible Health Plan
Wharam et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2008;148:647-655.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

How Long Does It Take to Assess Literacy Skills in Clinical Practice?
Johnson and Weiss
J Am Board Fam Med 2008;21:211-214.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Calcification in breast lesions: pathologists' perspective
Tse et al.
J. Clin. Pathol. 2008;61:145-151.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Are We Getting Nearer to Screening for Atherosclerosis?
Stern
Circulation 2008;117:122-126.
FULL TEXT  

Informed Choice in Mammography Screening: A Randomized Trial of a Decision Aid for 70-Year-Old Women
Mathieu et al.
Arch Intern Med 2007;167:2039-2046.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Beliefs, recommendations and intentions are important explanatory factors of mammography screening behavior among Muslim Arab women in Israel
Soskolne et al.
Health Educ Res 2007;22:665-676.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Management of Breast Cancer, Part 1: Prevention and Diagnosis
Pruthi et al.
Mayo Clin Proc. 2007;82:999-1012.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Systematic Review: The Long-Term Effects of False-Positive Mammograms
Brewer et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2007;146:502-510.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Breast Ultrasound
ODLE
radtech 2007;78:222M-242M.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Exercise Electrocardiogram Testing: Beyond the ST Segment
Kligfield and Lauer
Circulation 2006;114:2070-2082.
FULL TEXT  

Identifying and Screening Patients at Risk of Second Cancers
Vogel
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15:2027-2032.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Screening in women's health, with emphasis on fetal Down's syndrome, breast cancer and osteoporosis
Wildschut et al.
Hum Reprod Update 2006;12:499-512.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Measuring Screening Intensity in Case-Control Studies of the Efficacy of Mammography
Localio et al.
Am J Epidemiol 2006;164:272-281.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Targeting screening mammography according to life expectancy among women undergoing dialysis.
Walter et al.
Arch Intern Med 2006;166:1203-1208.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Telephone care management to improve cancer screening among low-income women: a randomized, controlled trial.
Dietrich et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2006;144:563-571.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Evaluating new screening tests for breast cancer.
Irwig et al.
BMJ 2006;332:678-679.
FULL TEXT  

Update in Women's Health
Crandall and Pregler
ANN INTERN MED 2005;143:823-829.
FULL TEXT  

Nipple Fluid Basic Fibroblast Growth Factor in Patients with Breast Cancer
Sartippour et al.
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2005;14:2995-2998.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

RESPONSE: Re: Efficacy of Breast Cancer Screening in the Community According to Risk Level
Elmore et al.
JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:1704-1705.
FULL TEXT  

Quick Assessment of Literacy in Primary Care: The Newest Vital Sign
Weiss et al.
Ann Fam Med 2005;3:514-522.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Benign Breast Disease -- The Risks of Communicating Risk
Elmore and Gigerenzer
NEJM 2005;353:297-299.
FULL TEXT  

Efficacy of Breast Cancer Screening in the Community According to Risk Level
Elmore et al.
JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:1035-1043.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT