| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© 2005 Oxford University Press
CORRESPONDENCE |
RESPONSE: Re: Efficacy of Breast Cancer Screening in the Community According to Risk Level
Affiliations of authors: School of Medicine, Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA (JGE, LMR); Center for Health Studies, Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, WA (JGE, WEB, SMG, GH); Department of Ambulatory Care and Prevention, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Boston, MA (SWF, MBB); Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA (JGE, NSW); HealthPartners Research Foundation, Minneapolis, MN (SJR); Biostatistics Department, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA (WEB); Cancer Research and Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA (WEB)
Correspondence to: Joann G. Elmore, MD, MPH, Professor, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Harborview Medical Center, 325 Ninth Ave., Box 359780, Seattle, WA 981042499 (e-mail: jelmore@u.washington.edu).
| The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below. |
We thank Drs. Duffy, Smith, and Tabar, as well as Drs. Paci and Zappa, for their thoughtful comments on our study.
Duffy et al. stress that the results of our study are relevant to the efficacy of clinical breast examination in the 1980s rather than to the efficacy of high-quality mammography screening in 2005. It is true that the dominant screening modality used by the women in our study was clinical breast examination. The sensitivity of clinical breast examination is lower than
Related Correspondence
![]()
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us What's this?
J Natl Cancer Inst 2005 97: 1704.