The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of the Performance of Screening Mammography, Physical Examination, and Breast US and Evaluation of Factors that Influence Them: An Analysis of 27,825 Patient Evaluations
Abstract
PURPOSE: To (a) determine the performance of screening mammography, ultrasonography (US), and physical examination (PE); (b) analyze the influence of age, hormonal status, and breast density; (c) compare the size and stage of tumors detected with each modality; and (d) determine which modality or combination of modalities optimize cancer detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 11,130 asymptomatic women underwent 27,825 screening sessions, (mammography and subsequent PE). Women with dense breasts subsequently underwent screening US. Abnormalities were deemed positive if biopsy findings revealed malignancy and negative if findings from biopsy or all screening examinations were negative. RESULTS: In 221 women, 246 cancers were found. Sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values, and accuracy of mammography were 77.6%, 98.8%, 99.8%, 35.8%, and 98.6%, respectively; those of PE, 27.6%, 99.4%, 99.4%, 28.9%, and 98.8%, respectively; and those of US, 75.3%, 96.8%, 99.7%, 20.5%, and 96.6%, respectively. Screening breast US increased the number of women diagnosed with nonpalpable invasive cancers by 42% (30 of 71). Mammographic sensitivity declined significantly with increasing breast density (P <.01) (48% for the densest breasts) and in younger women with dense breasts (P =.02); the effects were independent. Mammography and US together had significantly higher sensitivity (97%) than did mammography and PE together (74%) (P <.001). Tumors detected at mammography and/or US were significantly smaller (P =.01) and of lower stage (P =.01) than those detected at PE. CONCLUSION: Mammographic sensitivity for breast cancer declines significantly with increasing breast density and is independently higher in older women with dense breasts. Addition of screening US significantly increases detection of small cancers and depicts significantly more cancers and at smaller size and lower stage than does PE, which detects independently extremely few cancers. Hormonal status has no significant effect on effectiveness of screening independent of breast density.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
American Cancer Society Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening: Update 2003
Smith, R. A., Saslow, D., Andrews Sawyer, K., Burke, W., Costanza, M. E., Evans, W. P., Foster, R. S., Hendrick, E., Eyre, H. J., & Sener, S. (2003) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/canjclin.53.3.141 · Cited by 770
Ohuchi, N., Suzuki, A., Sobue, T., Kawai, M., Yamamoto, S., Zheng, Y.-F., Shiono, Y. N., Saito, H., Kuriyama, S., Tohno, E., et al. (2016) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(15)00774-6 · Cited by 616
Dheeba, J., Albert Singh, N., & Tamil Selvi, S. (2014) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2014.01.010 · Cited by 380
An overview of mammographic density and its association with breast cancer
Nazari, S. S., & Mukherjee, P. (2018) · Breast Cancer · doi:10.1007/s12282-018-0857-5 · Cited by 298
Becker, A. S., Mueller, M., Stoffel, E., Marcon, M., Ghafoor, S., & Boss, A. (2018) · The British Journal of Radiology · doi:10.1259/bjr.20170576 · Cited by 157
Metadata
- Authors
- Kolb, T. M., Lichy, J., & Newhouse, J. H.
- Venue
- Radiology
- Published
- 2002-10
- Volume
- 225
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 165-175
- ISSN
- 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-1315
- OpenAlex
- W1980527762
- Cited by
- 1,718
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 31.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of the Performance of Screening Mammography, Physical Examination, and Breast US and Evaluation of Factors that Influence Them: An Analysis of 27,825 Patient Evaluations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.2251011667
- The paper
- Kolb, T. M., Lichy, J., & Newhouse, J. H. (2002). Comparison of the Performance of Screening Mammography, Physical Examination, and Breast US and Evaluation of Factors that Influence Them: An Analysis of 27,825 Patient Evaluations. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2251011667
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.