Accurate Mammograms Reduce Biopsies

Ivanhoe Newswire

By Meghan Yost, Ivanhoe Health Correspondent

ORLANDO, Fla. (Ivanhoe Newswire) -- Mammograms are important tools in diagnosing breast cancer and have been shown to reduce the risk of dying from the disease by 35 percent in women over age 50. Now, experts say the test is sensitive enough for radiologists to recommend a six-month follow-up diagnostic mammogram, rather than invasive biopsy, when a possibly benign breast legion is found.
 
Researchers say six-month short-interval follow-up exams have an 83 percent sensitivity, meaning they detect more "true positives" (true cancer cases) than "false negatives" (cases mistaken as cancer). A more accurate follow-up may help eliminate unnecessary biopsies -- invasive procedures that increase medical costs and can cause patient anxiety.

---

---

Researchers studied 45,007 initial short-interval follow-up mammograms, performed to look for any changes in "probably benign" lesions identified by an annual screening mammogram. Results show the likelihood of a "probably benign" lesion developing into cancer is very small. Altogether about one in 100 were eventually diagnosed as cancer. These results stress the American College of Radiology's recommendation that women get a short-interval follow-up mammogram at six months when a lesion is found.

"This follow-up exam, because it occurs at six months, still allows opportunity to detect any changes earlier than the normal [12 month] screening exam," Erin J. Aiello Bowles, M.P.H., lead author of the study from the Group Health Center for Health Studies, told Ivanhoe. "We really want to emphasize with this study that it is important for radiologists to follow these recommendations and it's also important for patients to follow them. They should come in within six months if they're not going to have a biopsy."

Sign up for a free weekly e-mail on Medical Breakthroughs called First to Know by clicking here.

SOURCE: Ivanhoe interview with Erin J. Aiello Bowles, M.P.H.; American Journal of Roentgenology, 2008;190:1200-1208