Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Redefining the sensitivity of screening mammography: A review
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Redefining the sensitivity of screening mammography: A review
Do you wish to request the book?
Redefining the sensitivity of screening mammography: A review
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Redefining the sensitivity of screening mammography: A review
2019
Overview
From its inception, screening mammography has enjoyed a perceived level of sensitivity that is inconsistent with available evidence. The original data that imparted erroneous beliefs about sensitivity were based on a variety of misleading definitions and approaches, such as the inclusion of palpable tumors, using the inverse of interval cancer rates (often tied to an arbitrary 12 month interval), and quoting prevalence screen sensitivity wherein tumors are larger than those found on incidence screens. This review addresses the background for the overestimation of mammographic sensitivity, and how a major adjustment in our thinking is overdue now that multi-modality imaging allows us to determine real time mammographic sensitivity. Although a single value for mammographic sensitivity is disingenuous, given the wide range based on background density, it is important to realize that a sensitivity gap between belief and reality still exists in the early detection of breast cancer using mammography alone, in spite of technologic advances. Failure to recognize this gap diminishes the acceptance of adjunct methods of breast imaging that greatly complement detection rates.
•The sensitivity of mammography has been overstated since its inception.•With the introduction of adjunct imaging methods, this error became apparent.•Screening ultrasound adds significantly to cancer detection in dense breasts.•Screening MRI adds significantly to cancer detection in high risk patients.•Benefit of adjunct imaging can also be demonstrated in the general population, but cost-effectiveness becomes a challenge.
Publisher
Elsevier Inc,Elsevier Limited
