articleRadiologyOct 1, 2002Closed access

Comparison of the Performance of Screening Mammography, Physical Examination, and Breast US and Evaluation of Factors that Influence Them: An Analysis of 27,825 Patient Evaluations

NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital

PubMed
Indexed incrossrefpubmed

Abstract

Materials And Methods

A total of 11,130 asymptomatic women underwent 27,825 screening sessions, (mammography and subsequent PE). Women with dense breasts subsequently underwent screening US. Abnormalities were deemed positive if biopsy findings revealed malignancy and negative if findings from biopsy or all screening examinations were negative.

Results

In 221 women, 246 cancers were found. Sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values, and accuracy of mammography were 77.6%, 98.8%, 99.8%, 35.8%, and 98.6%, respectively; those of PE, 27.6%, 99.4%, 99.4%, 28.9%, and 98.8%, respectively; and those of US, 75.3%, 96.8%, 99.7%, 20.5%, and 96.6%, respectively. Screening breast US increased the number of women diagnosed with nonpalpable invasive cancers by 42% (30 of 71). Mammographic sensitivity declined significantly with increasing breast density (P

Citation impact

1,716
total citations
FWCI
16.80
Percentile
100%
References
43
Citations per year

Authors

3

Topics & keywords

Keywords
  • Medicine
  • Mammography
  • Breast cancer
  • Breast density
  • Asymptomatic
  • Physical examination
  • Radiology
  • Breast cancer screening
UN Sustainable Development Goals
  • Good health and well-being
No related works found for this paper.

Funding