ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To compare mammographic screening results for women aged 65 years and older (elderly group) with those for women aged 50-64 years (younger group). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Mammography was performed in 32,140 women aged 50 years and older (10,914 elderly, 21,226 younger). Parameters studied included demographic data, screening interpretations, disposition of abnormal interpretations, results of biopsies, and characteristics of breast cancers. RESULTS: The cancer detection rate is substantially higher in elderly women (9.2 per 1,000 women) than in younger women (5.7 per 1,000 women). The median size of cancers in elderly women is 11 mm (vs 12 mm in younger women). Axillary nodal status is 93% node negative in elderly women (vs 88% node negative in younger women). Cancer stage is earlier in elderly women than it is in younger women (84% stage 0 or 1 vs 75% stage 0 or 1). CONCLUSION: Mammographic screening is at least as effective in detecting cancers for which there is a favorable prognosis in women aged 65 years and older as it is in women aged 50-64 years. Because the efficacy of screening in younger-group women has already been proved, it may be inferred that screening also benefits elderly-group women.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Mammography , Age Factors , Aged , Breast Neoplasms/pathology , Carcinoma in Situ/diagnostic imaging , Carcinoma in Situ/pathology , Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast/diagnostic imaging , Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast/pathology , Female , Humans , Middle Aged , Predictive Value of Tests , PrognosisABSTRACT
To define the role of special mammographic views in evaluating palpable breast masses, 70 consecutive women with palpable breast masses underwent standard two-view examination of each breast and spot compression-magnification and tangential view examination of the palpable mass. Thirty palpable masses were found in 30 patients (43%). Standard views depicted 26 masses (87%). Tangential views also depicted 26 masses. Some of the masses seen on tangential views were not seen on standard views and vice versa. Spot compression-magnification views depicted 29 masses (97%). Special views thus depicted an additional 9% of palpable masses not seen on standard views (four of 44 cases). All lesions not seen on tangential views were central; the one lesion not seen on spot compression-magnification views was peripheral. Special views allowed correct prediction of benign or malignant status in 77% of cases (23 of 30), while standard views allowed correct prediction in 69% of cases (18 of 26).
