PubMed · 9100532
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
W J Frable. 1997-02-25. To the reader.. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(19970225)81%3A1%3C1%3A%3Aaid-cncr1%3E3.0.co%3B2-x
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Mammographic screening of women age 40 and older can reduce breast cancer deaths by at least 30% to 40%. However, not all cancers are detected by mammography. Although a new supplementary modality for screening could, in theory, fill in this detection gap, such utilization must be based on rigorous demonstration of its ability to consistently and frequently find early cancers missed by mammography, such as those occurring in dense breasts or rapidly growing interval cancers that surface clinically between mammographic screens. After an abnormality is found at mammographic screening, supplementary mammographic views and/or ultrasound are now used to match the finding with an ACR BIRADS final diagnostic assessment category to indicate the relative likelihood of a normal, benign, or malignant diagnosis so that routine screening, short interval follow-up, or biopsy can then be advised. Appropriate categorization will maximize early cancer detection and minimize false-positive biopsies. Application of a new imaging method to this type of diagnostic evaluation requires well-designed studies to determine its effectiveness for this purpose.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Women who test positive for a genetic breast cancer marker may have more than a 50% chance of developing the disease. Although past screening technologies have sought to identify actual breast cancers, as opposed to predisposition, the history of screening may help predict the societal response to genetic testing. For decades, educational messages have encouraged women to find breast cancers as early as possible. Such messages have fostered the popular assumption that immediately discovered and treated breast cancers are necessarily more curable. Research, however, has shown that screening improves the prognosis of some--but not all--breast cancers, and also that it may lead to unnecessary interventions. The dichotomy between the advertised value of early detection and its actual utility has caused particular controversy in the United States, where the cultural climate emphasizes the importance of obtaining all possible medical information and acting on it. Early detection has probably helped to lower overall breast cancer mortality. But it has proven hard to praise aggressive screening without exaggerating its merits. Women considering genetic breast cancer testing should weight the benefits and limitations of early knowledge.