Radiology, Vol 165, 305-311, Copyright © 1987 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Xeroradiography of the breast: overview of 21,057 consecutive cases

JN Wolfe, KA Buck, M Salane and NJ Parekh
Department of Radiology, Hutzel Hospital, Detroit, MI 48201.

Xeroradiography was performed on 21,057 new patients referred over a 5 1/2-year period. For purposes of analysis, mammograms reported as "benign" or "follow-up suggested" were considered negative and those reported as "suspicious" or "strongly suggestive of cancer" were considered positive. All patients were followed up for 12 months. After 6 months, 773 breast cancers were diagnosed. An additional 19 cancers were proved to exist during the 6-12-month period. The cancer rate increased progressively with age and ranged from 1.2% at age 30-39 years, to 4.5% at age 50-59 years, to 11.8% at age 70 years and over. Mammography had a sensitivity of 91.1%, a specificity of 89.9%, and a predictive value of 25.5%. Sensitivity increased with age, ranging from 78.5% at age 30-39 to 95.1% at age 70 and over. Predictive value increased dramatically with age, varying from 12.4% at age 30-39, to 28.4% at age 50-59, to 49.4% at age 70 years and over.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				F. M. Hall, E. A. Sickles, C. Lehman, R. Smith-Bindman, B. C. Yankaskas, B. M. Geller, P. A. Carney, and K. Kerlikowske Short-Interval Follow-up in Screening Mammography * Dr Sickles and colleagues respond: Radiology, October 1, 2005; 237(1): 371 - 373. [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Kerlikowske, R. Smith-Bindman, L. A. Abraham, C. D. Lehman, B. C. Yankaskas, R. Ballard-Barbash, W. E. Barlow, J. H. Voeks, B. M. Geller, P. A. Carney, et al. Breast Cancer Yield for Screening Mammographic Examinations with Recommendation for Short-Interval Follow-up Radiology, March 1, 2005; 234(3): 684 - 692. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. B. Kopans Be Careful to Not Willingly Suspend Disbelief Radiology, December 1, 2004; 233(3): 645 - 647. [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Kerlikowske, R. Smith-Bindman, B.-M. Ljung, and D. Grady Evaluation of Abnormal Mammography Results and Palpable Breast Abnormalities Ann Intern Med, August 19, 2003; 139(4): 274 - 284. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Kerlikowske, R. Smith-Bindman, and E. A. Sickles Short-Interval Follow-Up Mammography: Are We Doing the Right Thing? J Natl Cancer Inst, March 19, 2003; 95(6): 418 - 419. [Full Text] [PDF]

				I. Vizcaíno, L. Gadea, L. Andreo, D. Salas, F. Ruiz-Perales, D. Cuevas, C. Herranz, and F. Bueno Short-term Follow-up Results in 795 Nonpalpable Probably Benign Lesions Detected at Screening Mammography Radiology, May 1, 2001; 219(2): 475 - 483. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				S. P. Poplack, A. N. Tosteson, M. R. Grove, W. A. Wells, and P. A. Carney Mammography in 53,803 Women from the New Hampshire Mammography Network Radiology, December 1, 2000; 217(3): 832 - 840. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				E. A. Sickles Probably Benign Breast Lesions: When Should Follow-up Be Recommended and What Is the Optimal Follow-up Protocol? Radiology, October 1, 1999; 213(1): 11 - 14. [Full Text]

				E. Rubin Six-month Follow-up: An Alternative View Radiology, October 1, 1999; 213(1): 15 - 18. [Full Text]