This Article  • References  • 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?

Sidney Shindell, MD, LLB
Medical College of Wisconsin Milwaukee

JAMA. 1986;256(10):1291-1292.

	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.—

I would like to make a brief comment on the excellent article entitled "Increasing the Effort Toward Breast Cancer Detection" by Wertheimer et al.¹ It concerns the figure on page 1312, which assumes a doubling time of 100 days and presents a logarithmic plot showing rate of growth.

Seldom does one have an opportunity to determine with some accuracy the actual size of a tumor at three points in time, which enables the estimation of growth rate. In the following instance, a 27-year-old woman noted a lump on routine breast self-examination and estimated its size at 1 cm. Four months later she visited her physician, at which time the size was noted to be 1.5 cm in diameter and a mammogram was done. This was reported as normal. Although attempts were made to have the patient return for either biopsy or further follow-up, she did . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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