JAMA -- Search Result

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.

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

Search Criteria:: Anywhere in Article: Mammography

Results are shown in relevance ranked order. To rephrase your existing search criteria, press the "Back" button on your browser. [Help with Searching]

Try this search in JAMA & Archives Journals
or other journals
Alert me when:
New articles matching this search are published
Download Displayed Citations
to Citation Manager

Search Results

Results 1 to 10 (of 29 found)
[View Next 10 Results]

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; for the ACRIN 6666 Investigators
JAMA. 2008;299:2151-2163.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT

View larger version (26K)

Figure 2. Sensitivity and Specificity of Mammography Plus Ultrasound in Detecting Breast Cancer

Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated based on a bivariate, binomial model (See "Methods" section for details). Table 2 presents summary characteristics for these curves. The ultrasound ROC is included for completeness; the study was not designed to permit direct comparison to ultrasound alone. The fitted area under the curve for mammography alone is 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-0.87); for mammography plus ultrasound, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.84-0.96); and for ultrasound alone, 0.80 (95% CI, 0.70-0.88).

Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers With Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Ultrasound, Mammography, and Clinical Breast Examination
Ellen Warner; Donald B. Plewes; Kimberley A. Hill; Petrina A. Causer; Judit T. Zubovits; Roberta A. Jong; Margaret R. Cutrara; Gerrit DeBoer; Martin J. Yaffe; Sandra J. Messner; Wendy S. Meschino; Cameron A. Piron; Steven A. Narod
JAMA. 2004;292:1317-1325.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT

View larger version (50K)

Figure 1. Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves for Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Mammography, Ultrasound, and Clinical Breast Examination

Numbered data points indicate the sensitivity and specificity obtained if the minimum Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) grade for a positive point is varied from 1 to 5. For individual modalities, the areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves are 0.89 for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), 0.77 for mammography, 0.65 for ultrasound, and 0.48 for clinical breast examination (CBE). For combinations of modalities, the areas under the ROC curves are 0.93 for all 4 modalities, 0.94 for all excluding ultrasound, 0.91 for all excluding mammography, 0.81 for all excluding MRI, and 0.77 for mammography and CBE.

View larger version

Table 4. Summary of Recommendations After Screening Mammography, Ultrasound, Combined Mammography Plus Ultrasound, and After Diagnostic Workup

View larger version

Table 2. Summary of Performance Characteristics of Screening With Combined Mammography Plus Ultrasound Compared With Mammography Alone at the Participant Level^a

View larger version

Table 3. Sensitivity, Specificity, and Positive Predictive Value by Participant for Mammography Alone vs Combined Mammography Plus Ultrasound

Breast Cancer Surveillance Practices Among Women Previously Treated With Chest Radiation for a Childhood Cancer
Kevin C. Oeffinger; Jennifer S. Ford; Chaya S. Moskowitz; Lisa R. Diller; Melissa M. Hudson; Joanne F. Chou; Stephanie M. Smith; Ann C. Mertens; Tara O. Henderson; Debra L. Friedman; Wendy M. Leisenring; Leslie L. Robison
JAMA. 2009;301:404-414.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT

View larger version (40K)

Figure 2. Proportion of Participants Reporting Screening Mammography

RT indicates radiation therapy.

Screening for Breast Cancer
Joann G. Elmore; Katrina Armstrong; Constance D. Lehman; Suzanne W. Fletcher
JAMA. 2005;293:1245-1256.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT

View larger version (68K)

Figure 1. Computer-Aided Detection Markers of Breast Imaging Screening Mammography

Examination with subtle focal asymmetric density on mammography examination of the right breast, mediolateral oblique view. The density is marked by the computer-aided detection program, with a star to call attention to a possible cancer. Breast biopsy confirmed infiltrating ductal carcinoma. The triangle notes calcification in the same breast.

Rethinking Screening for Breast Cancer and Prostate Cancer
Laura Esserman; Yiwey Shieh; Ian Thompson
JAMA. 2009;302:1685-1692.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT

View larger version (49K)

Figure 2. Age-Adjusted Incidence Rates of Breast and Prostate Cancer Over Time and by Prescreen and Postscreen Snapshot

A, Age-adjusted incidence rate by stage of invasive female breast cancers for all ages, SEER 1973-2006.⁸ Mammography was introduced in 1983 and more widely used beginning in 1986.⁹ The incidence per 100 000 women of localized, regional, and metastatic breast cancer is shown over time (left), and for the period prior to the uptake of screening (1982) and 16 years after (1998) (middle). Local disease, as a fraction of all cancers reported, is shown on the right. B, Age-adjusted incidence rate of adenocarcinoma of the prostate for men older than 24 years, SEER, 1973-2006. Prostate cancer screening began in 1986 and was more widely used beginning in 1989-1990. Given the degree of missing data for prostate cancer TNM stage in SEER, we chose to show the change in Gleason grade, a significant predictor of outcome since the introduction of screening. The middle panel shows the incidence per 100 000 men of tumors with Gleason grades that were low- and intermediate-grade (2-7) vs high-grade (8-10) tumors, for the period prior to the uptake of screening (1988) and 16 years after (2004). The low- and intermediate-grade tumors as a fraction of all cancers is shown in the panel on the right.¹⁰

Long-term Fatty Fish Consumption and Renal Cell Carcinoma Incidence in Women
Alicja Wolk; Susanna C. Larsson; Jan-Erik Johansson; Peter Ekman
JAMA. 2006;296:1371-1376.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT

View larger version

Table 1. Age-Standardized Characteristics of 61433 Women in the Swedish Mammography Cohort by Fatty Fish Consumption at Baseline (1987-1990)

10.

View larger version (45K)

Figure 2. Mammography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in BRCA2 Mutation Carrier With Less Than 25% Fibroglandular Density

False-negative mammograms in a 63-year-old BRCA2 mutation carrier demonstrating normal-appearing breasts that are composed of mostly fat (<25% fibroglandular density), classified as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 1. Sagittal, gadolinium-enhanced, fat-suppressed 3-dimensional spoiled gradient recalled magnetic resonance image of the right breast reveals clumped enhancement of more than 3.4 cm in a ductal distribution (arrowheads), classified as BI-RADS 4. Magnetic resonance imaging–guided wire localization and excisional biopsy revealed ductal carcinoma in situ.

[View Next 10 Results]

Search Criteria:: Anywhere in Article: Mammography

| | |