© 1996 Oxford University Press
research-article |
Sojourn Time, Sensitivity and Positive Predictive Value of Mammography Screening for Breast Cancer in Women Aged 40–49
*MRC Biostatistics Unit, Institute of Public Health, University Forvie Site Robinson Way, Cambridge, CB2 2SR, UK
**Mammography Department, Central Hospital 79182 Falun, Sweden
Department of Radiology, University Hospital Linkoping, Sweden
CSPO, Epidemiology Unit Via San Salvi 12, 50131 Florence, Italy
Duffy S W (MRC Biostatistics Unit, Institute of Public Health, University Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge CB2 2SR, UK), Chen H H, Tabar L, Fagerberg G and Paci E. Sojourn time, sensitivity and positive predictive value of mammography screening for breast cancer in women aged 40–49. International Journal of Epidemiology 1996; 25: 1139–1145.
BACKGROUND: In mammographic screening for breast cancer in women aged 40–49, previous studies have found very low estimates of sensitivity and predictive value. Methods of estimation have, however, used primitive models with relatively strong assumptions and less than full use of the data.
METHODS: Here we estimate the underlying preclinical incidence, mean sojoum time, sensitivity and positive predictive value by a variety of methods in a randomized trial of mammographic screening (The Swedish Two-County Trial) and a service screening programme (The Florence Programme, 1975–1986) in women aged 40–49 years.
RESULTS: In the Two-County study, sensitivity estimates ranged from 72–83% and predictive value from 39–89%. In the Florence programme, sensitivity estimates ranged from 69–85% and predictive value was uniformly estimated as 100%.
CONCLUSIONS: The methods involving more explicit modelling of the disease process and fewer assumptions tended to find higher estimates of predictive value in the Two-County study. The results suggest that previously poor sensitivity and predictive value estimates may have been overpessimistic.
Keywords breast cancer screening, sojourn time, sensitivity, positive predictive value
Revised 1 April 1996
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  E. D. Pisano, C. Gatsonis, E. Hendrick, M. Yaffe, J. K. Baum, S. Acharyya, E. F. Conant, L. L. Fajardo, L. Bassett, C. D'Orsi, et al. Diagnostic Performance of Digital versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening N. Engl. J. Med., October 27, 2005; 353(17): 1773 - 1783. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. S. M. Buist, P. L. Porter, C. Lehman, S. H. Taplin, and E. White Factors Contributing to Mammography Failure in Women Aged 40-49 Years J Natl Cancer Inst, October 6, 2004; 96(19): 1432 - 1440. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. L. Humphrey, M. Helfand, B. K.S. Chan, and S. H. Woolf Breast Cancer Screening: A Summary of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Ann Intern Med, September 3, 2002; 137(5_Part_1): 347 - 360. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D M Eccles, D G R Evans, and J Mackay Guidelines for a genetic risk based approach to advising women with a family history of breast cancer J. Med. Genet., March 1, 2000; 37(3): 203 - 209. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. A. Olivotto, L. Kan, A. J. Coldman, E. Paci, D. Giorgi, M. R. del Turco, S. Roux, L. Markle, A. Diamond, E. A. Sickles, et al. False Positive Rate of Screening Mammography N. Engl. J. Med., August 20, 1998; 339(8): 560 - 564. [Full Text]
|
|