Skip Navigation

JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2003 95(6):418-419; doi:10.1093/jnci/95.6.418
© 2003 by Oxford University Press
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kerlikowske, K.
Right arrow Articles by Sickles, E. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kerlikowske, K.
Right arrow Articles by Sickles, E. A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 95, No. 6, 418-419, March 19, 2003
© 2003 Oxford University Press

EDITORIAL

Short-Interval Follow-Up Mammography: Are We Doing the Right Thing?

Karla Kerlikowske, Rebecca Smith-Bindman, Edward A. Sickles

Affiliations of authors: K. Kerlikowske (General Internal Medicine Section, Department of Veterans Affairs, and Department of Medicine and Epidemiology and Biostatistics), R. Smith-Bindman (Department of Radiology and Epidemiology and Biostatistics), E. A. Sickles (Department of Radiology), University of California, San Francisco.

Correspondence to: Karla Kerlikowske, M.D., San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, General Internal Medicine Section, 111A1, 4150 Clement St., San Francisco CA 94121 (e-mail: kerliko@itsa.ucsf.edu).

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.

The American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) (1) was designed to standardize the interpretation and reporting of mammography results by providing six well-defined assessment categories and standard recommendations for follow-up. One of the six assessment categories is "probably benign – short-interval follow-up recommended" or BI-RADS 3. The creation of the BI-RADS 3 assessment category was based on two empiric observations. First, there is an identifiable class of mammography findings for which the probability of malignancy is somewhat higher (1%–2%) (2–10) than the overall cancer detection rate in a screened population (0.6%) but lower than the probability of cancer when clearly abnormal findings are present (8.5%) (11). Second, the tumor size, lymph node status, and stage of cancers found among probably . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Ann Fam MedHome page
S. H. Woolf and R. E. Johnson
The Break-Even Point: When Medical Advances Are Less Important Than Improving the Fidelity With Which They Are Delivered
Ann. Fam. Med, November 1, 2005; 3(6): 545 - 552.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.Home page
Y. Shen and G. Parmigiani
A Model-Based Comparison of Breast Cancer Screening Strategies: Mammograms and Clinical Breast Examinations
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., February 1, 2005; 14(2): 529 - 532.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
S. Yasmeen, P. S. Romano, M. Pettinger, R. T. Chlebowski, J. A. Robbins, D. S. Lane, and S. L. Hendrix
Re: Short-Interval Follow-Up Mammography: Are We Doing the Right Thing?
J Natl Cancer Inst, August 6, 2003; 95(15): 1175 - 1176.
[Full Text] [PDF]