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  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Gloria Frankl, MD
Southern California Permanente Medical Group Los Angeles

JAMA. 1982;248(4):427.

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

To the Editor.—

In response to the article by Tabár and Dean and the editorial by Moskowitz, I wish to report some conflicting results.

The mammographic parenchymal pattern has been in use at the Kaiser-Permanente Medical Center in Los Angeles for several years. Much data have been gathered on a large, mixed population of symptomatic and asymptomatic women. The Table explains our results regarding the parenchymal pattern.

More than twice as many of the cancers in the prevalent population were found in the high-risk breast groups (P2 and DY pattern groups). Perhaps even more convincing in regards to the validity of mammographic parenchymal pattern as a risk indicator is the result that 80% of our incident cancers occurred in women who had been previously designated high risk, ie, P2 and DY.

If we consider the age of the patients with breast cancer in conjunction with the assigned parenchymal pattern, as . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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