Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “MAMMOGRAPHY”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 271 records · Page 15Linked to original sources

Mammography versus clinical examination of the breasts.

Using published data from screening trials, this article compares two-modality (mammography and clinical examination) and single-modality (clinical examination alone) screening by evaluating cancer detection rates, program sensitivities, mode of cancer detection in two-modality screening, nodal status at time of detection, survival 10 years post-diagnosis, and breast cancer mortality 10 years after entry. Consistently, two-modality screening achieved higher cancer detection rates and program sensitivity estimates than either modality alone; mammography alone achieved higher rates than clinical examination alone; interval cancer detection rates between screening examinations were higher following clinical examination alone than mammography alone; single-modality screening with mammography failed to detect breast cancers identified by clinical examination alone; the sensitivity of mammography was lower in younger than older women, while the reverse was true for clinical examination; and mammography identified a higher proportion of node-negative breast cancer than clinical examination. We conclude that combining clinical breast examination with mammography is desirable for women age 40-49 because mammography is less sensitive in younger than older women. Careful training and monitoring are, however, as essential with clinical examiners as with mammographers.

Adult↗

The impact of mammography on breast cancer detection.

BACKGROUND: Mammography has different effects on the epidemiology of breast cancer, i.e., while increasing the registered incidence it can reduce mortality. This study was aimed at obtaining quantitative estimates of the impact of mammography on breast cancer detection. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A case-control study was conducted in Northern Italy between 1985 and 1991 on 2596 cases of histologically confirmed breast cancer and 2005 controls in hospital for acute diseases unrelated to known or suspected risk factors for breast cancer. RESULTS: 15.6% of the patients reported one screening mammography and 9.7% two or more. The age-adjusted breast cancer diagnosis odds ratios (OR) were 1.3 (95% confidence interval, CI 1.1 to 1.5) for one mammography and 2.0 (95% CI 1.6 to 2.6) for two or more. When allowance was made for major identified potential distorting factors, the OR decreased to 1.0 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.2) for one, and 1.3 (95% CI 1.0 to 1.8) for two or more mammographies. In the age-adjusted analysis, the association between screening mammography and breast cancer detection was apparently stronger for younger and pre-menopausal women, among more educated women and those with no history of benign breast disease or breast biopsy, and among women who had first-degree relatives with histories of breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Although the association between mammography and breast cancer was largely explained by selective screening, confirming at the epidemiological level that the relationship is incidental, the unadjusted ratios are of public health interest, since they give a measure of the role of mammography in breast cancer detection.

Adult↗

Results of radiation protection programmes on mammography.

In this paper, we present the results of mammography quality control tests related to the work with Portuguese mammography equipment, either in conventional or in digital mammography computed radiography, showing the main differences in the tested equipments. Quality control in mammography is a very special area of quality control in radiology, which demands relatively high knowledge on physics. Digital imaging is changing the standards of the radiographic imaging. Regarding mammography, this is yet a controversial issue owing to some limitations of the digital detectors, like the resolution for instance. A complete set of results regarding radiation protection of the patients submitted to mammography diagnosis is presented. A discussion of the quality image parameters and its interpretation in conventional and digital mammography is presented. In conclusion, we present a sample of results that can be considered as characteristics of mammography equipment in Portugal.

Algorithms↗

Women's approaches to decision making about mammography.

Health professionals have an obligation to understand women's decision making about mammography and to advocate for their active participation in health care decision making. Although mammography is a major screening measure for the second largest cancer killer of women, only approximately half of women older than age 50 years, and fewer older than age 70 years, undergo mammography in accordance with American Cancer Society (ACS) guidelines. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify women's overall decision-making approaches when considering mammography. Subjects were a purposive, convenience sample of 50 women in the community who had made a decision about mammography; they included those who chose to have mammograms and those who decided not to have mammograms according to the pre-1997 ACS guidelines. Subjects participated in audiotaped interviews. Results indicated that women approached the mammography decision differently, regardless of the decision they made. Three overall decision-making approaches to addressing risk factors, issues about mammography, or other factors before their decision were evident. The approaches were (1) thoughtful consideration; (2) cursory consideration; and (3) little or no consideration. Each approach has implications for nurses who assist women in making decisions about mammography.

Adult↗

Do socio-demographic factors influence mammography use of French women? Analysis of a French cross-sectional survey.

The aim of this study was to analyse the independent role of socio-demographic factors on the use of mammography according to whether or not an organized breast cancer screening programme exists. The study sample of 2825 women aged 40-74 years was drawn from a cross-sectional population-based survey of French households. Among these women 46% lived in districts that offered a screening programme and 63% reported undergoing mammography in the previous 2 years. Living in a district that offered a screening programme was associated with increased use of mammography. According to both univariate and multivariate analysis, several socio-demographic characteristics, such as high monthly household income or high education level, increased the probability of using mammography. However, three factors had a major positive impact on its use: (1) having had a gynaecological examination in the previous 2 years, (2) living in a district where a screening programme was available, and (3) age. There was a significant interaction between the factors 2 and 3. Between 40 and 60 years, age had the same impact on the use of mammography whether or not women lived in a district with a screening programme. After the age of 60 years, the use of mammography collapsed among women living in a district without a screening programme and remained frequent among women living in the district that offered such a programme. Even if the overall level of mammography screening was high and the existence of a screening programme maintained a high level of mammography use among older women, the programme should target better the women of underprivileged spheres and reinforce the role of the general practitioner; in particular for women not followed by a gynaecologist.

Adult↗

Informed consent for mammography screening: modelling the risks and benefits for American women.

INTRODUCTION: In order to facilitate informed decision making, women require information on the probabilities of different outcomes with mammography screening. This paper derives these probabilities for a US population and illustrates them visually in a readily understandable format. METHODS: Probabilities of the breast cancer mortality, all cause mortality and further investigation are derived from published data on mortality from breast cancer and published estimates of effectiveness using a life-table method. Probabilities are calculated of surviving to age 75 from age 40 with and without two-yearly mammography screening from age 40 and age 50. Probabilities are also calculated that a woman will be referred for further assessment or biopsy or die from breast cancer despite screening. To avoid being misled, these outcomes are presented in the form of a single decision aid illustrating the outcomes for 1000 women choosing each alternative: mammography screening or no mammography screening. RESULTS: Of 1000 women undergoing two-yearly mammography screening from age 40 an additional four (3.7 per 1000) will reach the age of 75; of the survivors 514 will be referred for further investigation and 138 will undergo biopsy. Of 1000 women screened from age 50 an additional three (3.3 per 1000) will reach age 75; of the survivors 408 will be referred for further investigation and 94 will undergo biopsy. Mammography from age 40 to 49 reduces mortality by 0.4 in 1000. This information is readily presented visually. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to provide realistic estimates of the effects of mammography screening on mortality in a readily understandable format. Women require this information if they are to make informed choices about mammography screening.

Adult↗

Disparities in mammography screening in rural areas: analysis of county differences in North Carolina.

The extent to which targeted mammography programs have impacted women in rural areas is not well defined. We investigated mammography screening rates among 843 women age 50 and over from a population-based sample in four predominantly rural eastern North Carolina counties. We examined age, race, education level, county of residence, health insurance, and the self-reported completion of mammography in the past year using contingency tables and logistic regression. African American females aged 65 years or older had the lowest reported mammography rates (42%), while white females aged 50 to 64 had the highest rates (58%). Uninsured women and those with less education were less likely to have received a mammogram. Logistic regression demonstrated that age, education, and health insurance were significant predictors of mammography completion. A county-level analysis revealed that three counties had similar rates and one county had substantially lower rates. A higher-than-expected rate of screening-mammography completion among African American women was noted in one predominantly rural county served by a breast cancer screening program. Logistic regression analysis confirmed that county was a significant predictor for mammography completion. In separate regressions run by race, county remained a significant predictor for African American women but not for white women. Differences in mammography screening appear to persist in some predominantly rural areas and are related to age, race, education, and health insurance. Programs that target hard-to-reach women with efforts tailored specifically to their needs may be effective in reducing persistent racial differences.

Black or African American↗

The impact of a screening mammography program on Sydney general practitioners.

The aim of this study was to determine changes in Sydney general practitioners' (GPs) knowledge about, attitude towards and intention to recommend screening mammography over the two years since a screening mammography program was first implemented in the Central Sydney Health Service (CSHS) area. 123 GPs from the CSHS area were selected from a list maintained by the Breast X-ray Programme, while 127 GPs from the rest of Sydney were selected from the Yellow Pages telephone directory. The overall response rate was 84 per cent. Outcomes were assessed by a self-administered questionnaire covering knowledge, attitudes and beliefs, self-report of recent referral practice, intention to recommend, and sources of information about mammography screening. Demographic data were also collected. Results showed that overall knowledge has increased both inside and outside the CSHS area, but important deficiencies in knowledge remain in both areas. Attitudes to screening mammography have improved in the CSHS area, especially regarding the efficacy of screening mammography and patient compliance. Importantly, positive views of screening mammography have declined outside the CSHS area, especially about whether screening mammography can save women's lives. GPs in both areas remain concerned about costs. The presence and strategies of the Breast X-ray Programme have had some positive effect on the attitudes of GPs towards, but not knowledge of, screening mammography.

Aged↗

Applicability of ACR breast dosimetry methodology to a digital mammography system.

Determination of mean glandular dose (MGD) to breast tissue is an essential aspect of mammography equipment evaluations and exposure controls. The American College of Radiology (ACR) Quality Control Manual outlines the procedure for MGD determination in screen-film mammography based upon conversions of entrance skin exposures (ESEs) measured with an ionization chamber (IC). The development of digital mammography has increased with the demand for improved object resolution and tissue contrast. This change in image receptor from screen-film to a solid-state detector has led to questions about the applicability of the ACR MGD methodology to digital mammography. This research has validated the applicability of the ACR MGD methodology to digital mammography in the GE digital mammography system Senographe 2000D. MGD was determined using light output measurements from thermoluminescent dosimeters (MGDTL), exposure measurements from an IC (MGD(IC)) and conversion factors from the ACR Mammography Quality Control Manual. MGD(TL) and MGD(IC) data indicate that there is a statistically significant difference between the two measurements with the Senographe 2000D. However, the applicability of the ACR's methodology was validated by calculating MGD at various depths in a 50/50 breast phantom. Additionally, the results of backscatter measurements from the image receptors of both mammography modalities indicate there is a difference (all P values < 0.001) in the radiation backscattered from each image receptor.

Algorithms↗

Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists.

PURPOSE: To evaluate performance parameters for radiologists in a practice of breast imaging specialists and general diagnostic radiologists who interpret a large series of consecutive screening and diagnostic mammographic studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data (ie, patient age; family history of breast cancer; availability of previous mammograms for comparison; and abnormal interpretation, cancer detection, and stage 0-I cancer detection rates) were derived from review of mammographic studies obtained from January 1997 through August 2001. The breast imaging specialists have substantially more initial training in mammography and at least six times more continuing education in mammography, and they interpret 10 times more mammographic studies per year than the general radiologists. Differences between specialist and general radiologist performances at both screening and diagnostic examinations were assessed for significance by using Student t and chi(2) tests. RESULTS: The study involved 47,798 screening and 13,286 diagnostic mammographic examinations. Abnormal interpretation rates for screening mammography (ie, recall rate) were 4.9% for specialists and 7.1% for generalists (P <.001); and for diagnostic mammography (ie, recommended biopsy rate), 15.8% and 9.9%, respectively (P <.001). Cancer detection rates at screening mammography were 6.0 cancer cases per 1,000 examinations for specialists and 3.4 per 1,000 for generalists (P =.007); and at diagnostic mammography, 59.0 per 1,000 and 36.6 per 1,000, respectively (P <.001). Stage 0-I cancer detection rates at screening mammography were 5.3 cancer cases per 1,000 examinations for specialists and 3.0 per 1,000 for generalists (P =.012); and at diagnostic mammography, 43.9 per 1,000 and 27.0 per 1,000, respectively (P <.001). CONCLUSION: Specialist radiologists detect more cancers and more early-stage cancers, recommend more biopsies, and have lower recall rates than general radiologists.

Biopsy↗

Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To prospectively assess accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, ultrasonography (US), and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in preoperative assessment of local extent of breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval and informed patient consent were obtained. Results of bilateral mammography, US, and contrast-enhanced MR imaging were analyzed from 111 consecutive women with known or suspected invasive breast cancer. Results were correlated with histopathologic findings. RESULTS: Analysis included 177 malignant foci in 121 cancerous breasts, of which 89 (50%) foci were palpable. Median size of 139 invasive foci was 18 mm (range, 2-107 mm). Mammographic sensitivity decreased from 100% in fatty breasts to 45% in extremely dense breasts. Mammographic sensitivity was highest for invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) in 89 of 110 (81%) cases versus 10 of 29 (34%) cases of invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) (P < .001) and 21 of 38 (55%) cases of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (P < .01). US showed higher sensitivity than did mammography for IDC, depicting 104 of 110 (94%) cases, and for ILC, depicting 25 of 29 (86%) cases (P < .01 for each). US showed higher sensitivity for invasive cancer than DCIS (18 of 38 [47%], P < .001). MR showed higher sensitivity than did mammography for all tumor types (P < .01) and higher sensitivity than did US for DCIS (P < .001), depicting 105 of 110 (95%) cases of IDC, 28 of 29 (96%) cases of ILC, and 34 of 38 (89%) cases of DCIS. In anticipation of conservation or no surgery after mammography and clinical examination in 96 breasts, additional tumor (which altered surgical approach) was present in 30. Additional tumor was depicted in 17 of 96 (18%) breasts at US and in 29 of 96 (30%) at MR, though extent was now overestimated in 12 of 96 (12%) at US and 20 of 96 (21%) at MR imaging. After combined mammography, clinical examination, and US, MR depicted additional tumor in another 12 of 96 (12%) breasts and led to overestimation of extent in another six (6%); US showed no detection benefit after MR imaging. Bilateral cancer was present in 10 of 111 (9%) patients; contralateral tumor was depicted mammographically in six and with both US and MR in an additional three. One contralateral cancer was demonstrated only clinically. CONCLUSION: In nonfatty breasts, US and MR imaging were more sensitive than mammography for invasive cancer, but both MR imaging and US involved risk of overestimation of tumor extent. Combined mammography, clinical examination, and MR imaging were more sensitive than any other individual test or combination of tests.

Adipose Tissue↗

Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography.

PURPOSE: To evaluate a range of performance parameters pertinent to the comprehensive auditing of diagnostic mammography examinations, and to derive performance benchmarks therefrom, by pooling data collected from large numbers of patients and radiologists that are likely to be representative of mammography practice in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval was met, informed consent was not required, and this study was Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant. Six mammography registries contributed data to the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC), providing patient demographic and clinical information, mammogram interpretation data, and biopsy results from defined population-based catchment areas. The study involved 151 mammography facilities and 646 interpreting radiologists. The study population included women 18 years of age or older who underwent at least one diagnostic mammography examination between 1996 and 2001. Collected data were used to derive mean performance parameter values, including abnormal interpretation rate, positive predictive value (for abnormal interpretation, biopsy recommended, and biopsy performed), cancer diagnosis rate, invasive cancer size, and the percentages of minimal cancers, axillary node-negative invasive cancers, and stage 0 and I cancers. Additional benchmarks were derived for these performance parameters, including 10th, 25th, 50th (median), 75th, and 90th percentile values. RESULTS: The study involved 332,926 diagnostic mammography examinations. Mean performance parameter values were abnormal interpretation rate, 8.0%; positive predictive value for abnormal interpretation, 31.4%; positive predictive value for biopsy recommended, 31.5%; positive predictive value for biopsy performed, 39.5%; cancer diagnosis rate, 25.3 per 1000 examinations; invasive cancer size, 20.2 mm; percentage of minimal cancers, 42.0%; percentage of axillary node-negative invasive cancers, 73.6%; and percentage of stage 0 and I cancers, 62.4%. CONCLUSION: The presented BCSC outcomes data and performance benchmarks may be used by mammography facilities and individual radiologists to evaluate their own performance for diagnostic mammography as determined by means of periodic comprehensive audits.

Adult↗

Factors influencing women to undergo screening mammography.

Despite the fact that mammography is a valuable tool for early detection of breast cancer, the majority of age-eligible American women do not avail themselves of screening mammography. To better understand why women do or do not undergo mammography and to further develop guidelines for promoting breast cancer screening, the authors investigated what impact personal factors, attitudes, and health-related behaviors have on compliance with screening mammography by surveying 521 women for information related to health behavior, health concerns, sense of well-being, satisfaction with health care, and knowledge about breast cancer. Women who underwent mammography were more likely to have a regular physician, to practice breast self-examination, to be less concerned over the cost of mammography, to be generally satisfied with their health care, to believe they have a greater sense of control over their health, and to be more knowledgeable about mammography and breast cancer. Age, health behavior, sense of well-being, locus of control, and breast cancer experience helped differentiate between women who had undergone mammography and those who had not.

Adult↗

Improvement in mammography quality control: 1987-1995.

PURPOSE: To assess possible changes in quality control (QC) practices at mammography sites in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Mammography site surveys were conducted in 1990, 1992, and 1995 through the Colorado Mammography Advocacy Project (CMAP). Data from mammography sites applying for American College of Radiology (ACR) accreditation were collected between August 1987 and August 1993 through the ACR Mammography Accreditation Program. Data from both of these surveys were analyzed to assess temporal changes in mammography QC practices in the United States between 1987 and 1995. RESULTS: CMAP results indicated statistically significant improvement in medical physicist QC practices between 1990 and 1992 and in technologist QC practices between 1990 and 1995. Improvements in radiologic technologist QC practices coincided with increases in radiologic technologist continuing education in mammography. ACR results indicated statistically significant improvement in technologist QC practices between 1988 and 1992. CONCLUSION: There have been substantial improvements in QC practices at mammography sites in the United States during the past decade.

Chi-Square Distribution↗

A multilevel study of socioeconomic predictors of regular mammography use among African-American women.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the predictors of adherence to mammography guidelines by African-American women. We assessed individual-level and group-level socioeconomic predictors of regular mammography use in a large cohort of African-American women. METHODS: We included 14,706 participants in the Black Women's Health Study who were 40 to 69 years of age at baseline in 1995. Data were obtained through mail questionnaires at entry and biennially during three 2-year follow-up periods until 2001. We linked the women's addresses to census block (neighborhood) socioeconomic data. With multilevel multivariable regression analysis, we assessed the relation of individual-level and neighborhood socioeconomic factors to "regular" mammography use (use in all three follow-up periods) relative to nonregular use, with control for other predictors. RESULTS: Most participants had health insurance and almost half had graduated college. Having health insurance was the socioeconomic variable most strongly associated with regular mammography use (odds ratio, 3.59; 95% confidence interval 3.02-4.28); the association was present at all levels of educational attainment, household income, and neighborhood socioeconomic status. Regular mammography use increased with individual household income: odds ratio, 2.00 (95% confidence interval, 1.58-2.53) for household income > USD $100,000 relative to < USD $15,001. Regular mammography use did not vary across level of education. Higher neighborhood socioeconomic status was significantly associated with regular mammography use before, but not after, control for household income. CONCLUSIONS: Access to health insurance is strongly associated with regular mammography use among African-American women, even at higher levels of educational attainment and socioeconomic status. Neighborhood socioeconomic characteristics do not materially influence regular use.

Adult↗

Pain during mammography: impact of breast pathologies and demographic factors.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to systematically assess the pain experienced by patients undergoing mammography for various clinical presentations. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Two hundred and twenty-five patients aged 25-85 years (45.43 +/- 8.25 years) presenting for mammography were included in the study. Presenting symptoms and clinical diagnosis were provided by the referring physicians and demographic information was obtained from self-reported questionnaires. Mammography results were recorded by the radiologist. Two different but reliable and valid measures of pain--Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Pain/Discomfort Rating Scale (DRS)--were used to assess pain during mammography and data were statistically analyzed to examine the possible predictors of pain. RESULTS: Forty-nine percent of the patients reported pain during mammography when cut-off level of VAS score was 40; however, when the cut-off level was raised to 60 (considering the preexisting pain as presenting symptom in some patients) only 23% reported pain. With DRS, 7% reported pain, 27% discomfort and 66% neither pain nor discomfort. Biserial correlation between the VAS and DRS scores suggested strong positive agreement between the two measures of pain (r = 0.56, d.f. = 90, p < 0.01). Patients presenting with coexisting breast lumps and preexisting breast pain and those diagnosed with inflammatory conditions of the breast and fibrocystic changes experienced more pain during mammography. CONCLUSION: Preexisting breast pathologies and demographic factors such as age and educational level of the patient were important in reporting pain during mammography. This finding indicates that proper assessment of pain using standard measures and its association with breast pathologies and demographic factors is important for planning pain management in women undergoing mammography.

Adult↗

Repeat mammography: prevalence estimates and considerations for assessment.

Despite recent controversies in mammography efficacy, encouraging women to obtain regular screenings is still an important public health priority. Published articles about repeat or regular screening were reviewed to determine trends in rates of mammography adherence. A search of MEDLINE and PsycINFO from January 1990 to December 2001 identified 45 empirical articles of U.S. samples that reported, or provided sufficient data to calculate, the percentage of women 50 years of age and older who obtained 2 or more consecutive, on-schedule mammograms. Keywords used in the searches included pairing mammography with regular, repeat, adherence, compliance, annual, rescreen, and maintenance. The weighted average repeat mammography percentage across all eventually included studies (N = 37) was 46.1% (confidence interval: 39.4%, 52.8%). There was no substantial difference in the average repeat screening percentages comparing studies that collected data from 1995 to 2001 versus 1991 to 1994. Within each of 3 time periods of data collection (pre-1991, 1991-1994, 1995-2001), there was substantial variation in repeat rates. This variation appears to be due to several characteristics of study design and sampling, including the definition/methods of collecting data about the adherence measure, prior mammography status, and use of an upper age limit at recruitment. Consensus is needed regarding the definition of repeat mammography. National surveys must include items to assess repeat mammography in order to have estimates that accurately represent population-level rates. Although this study involved mammography, similar challenges in assessing prevalence rates can occur with other screening behaviors.

Aged↗

Contribution of clinical breast examination to mammography screening in the early detection of breast cancer.

OBJECTIVES: As the benefit of clinical breast examination (CBE) over that of screening mammography alone in reducing breast cancer mortality is uncertain, it is informative to monitor its contribution to interim measures of effectiveness of a screening programme. Here, the contribution of CBE to screening mammography in the early detection of breast cancer was evaluated. SETTING: Four Canadian organised breast cancer screening programmes. METHODS: Women aged 50-69 receiving dual screening (CBE and mammography) (n = 300,303) between 1996 and 1998 were followed up between screen and diagnosis. Outcomes assessed by mode of detection (CBE alone, mammography alone, or both CBE and mammography) included referral rate, positive predictive value, pathological features of tumours (size, nodal status, morphology), and cancer detection rates overall and for small cancers (< or = 10 mm or node-negative). Heterogeneity in findings across programmes was also assessed. RESULTS: On first versus subsequent screen, CBE alone resulted in 28.5-36.7% of referrals, and 4.6-5.9% of cancers compared with 52.6-60.1% of referrals and 60.0-64.3% of cancers for mammography alone. Among cancers detected by CBE, 83.6-88.6% were also detected by mammography, whereas for mammographically detected cancers only 31.7-37.2% were also detected by CBE. On average, CBE increased the rate of detection of small invasive cancers by 2-6% over rates if mammography was the sole detection method. Without CBE, programmes would be missing three cancers for every 10,000 screens and 3-10 small invasive cancers in every 100,000 screens. CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of CBE in an organised programme contributes minimally to early detection.

Breast Neoplasms↗