| Title |
The importance of early detection of calcifications associated with breast cancer in screening
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10549-017-4527-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
J. J. Mordang, A. Gubern-Mérida, A. Bria, F. Tortorella, R. M. Mann, M. J. M. Broeders, G. J. den Heeten, N. Karssemeijer |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to assess how often women with undetected calcifications in prior screening mammograms are subsequently diagnosed with invasive cancer. From a screening cohort of 63,895 women, exams were collected from 59,690 women without any abnormalities, 744 women with a screen-detected cancer and a prior negative exam, 781 women with a false positive exam based on calcifications, and 413 women with an interval cancer. A radiologist identified cancer-related calcifications, selected by a computer-aided detection system, on mammograms taken prior to screen-detected or interval cancer diagnoses. Using this ground truth and the pathology reports, the sensitivity for calcification detection and the proportion of lesions with visible calcifications that developed into invasive cancer were determined. The screening sensitivity for calcifications was 45.5%, at a specificity of 99.5%. A total of 68.4% (n = 177) of cancer-related calcifications that could have been detected earlier were associated with invasive cancer when diagnosed. Screening sensitivity for detection of malignant calcifications is low. Improving the detection of these early signs of cancer is important, because the majority of lesions with detectable calcifications that are not recalled immediately but detected as interval cancer or in the next screening round are invasive at the time of diagnosis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 50% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 91 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 12% |
| Researcher | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 12 | 13% |
| Unknown | 34 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 14% |
| Computer Science | 10 | 11% |
| Engineering | 8 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 13 | 14% |
| Unknown | 38 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 March 2022.
All research outputs
#1,823,584
of 23,400,864 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#241
of 4,724 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,139
of 327,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#11
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,400,864 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,724 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,484 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.