You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 300 No. 13, October 1, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Letters
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related article
 •Related letters
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Oncology
 •Breast Cancer
 •Radiologic Imaging
 •Statistics and Research Methods
 •Women's Health
 •Women's Health, Other
 •Diagnosis
 •Mammography
 •Ultrasonography
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Ultrasound and Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: In their study of the use of ultrasound and mammography in breast cancer detection in a high-risk population, Dr Berg and colleagues1 stated that trials to look at actual improvement in survival "are costly . . . and . . . not practical under all contexts." In contrast, I believe that it may be more costly not to do those trials. In their absence, the costs of ultrasound use and its attendant false positives will add expense to the health care system without sufficient evidence of net benefit.

Earlier diagnosis does not invariably mean lower death rates because there can be detection bias and lead time bias. Moreover, based on past experience with new technology, research evaluating the use of a test in a high-risk population can be expected to result in its use in lower-risk populations, further decreasing the potential benefit while increasing the costs. With health care coverage being inversely related to costs,2 . . . [Full Text of this Article]

B. Dale Magee, MD, MS
dmagee@townisp.com
Shrewsbury, Massachusetts



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

RELATED ARTICLE

Combined Screening With Ultrasound and Mammography vs Mammography Alone in Women at Elevated Risk of Breast Cancer
Wendie A. Berg, Jeffrey D. Blume, Jean B. Cormack, Ellen B. Mendelson, Daniel Lehrer, Marcela Böhm-Vélez, Etta D. Pisano, Roberta A. Jong, W. Phil Evans, Marilyn J. Morton, Mary C. Mahoney, Linda Hovanessian Larsen, Richard G. Barr, Dione M. Farria, Helga S. Marques, Karan Boparai, and for the ACRIN 6666 Investigators
JAMA. 2008;299(18):2151-2163.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

RELATED LETTERS

Ultrasound and Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening
Nehmat Houssami and Stefano Ciatto
JAMA. 2008;300(13):1514-1515.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Ultrasound and Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening—Reply
Wendie A. Berg and Ellen B. Mendelson
JAMA. 2008;300(13):1515.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  






HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2008 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.