HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Yankaskas, B. C. Articles by Barlow, W. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Yankaskas, B. C. Articles by Barlow, W. E.

Association between Mammography Timing and Measures of Screening Performance in the United States¹

¹ From the Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB 7515, 106 Mason Farm Rd, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7515 (B.C.Y.). Affiliations for all other authors are listed at the end of this article. Received January 9, 2004; revision requested March 12; revision received April 20; accepted May 24. Supported by cooperative agreements UO1CA63731, UO1CA63736, UO1CA63740, UO1CA69976, UO1CA70013, UO1CA70040, UO1CA86076, and UO1CA86082 from the National Cancer Institute as part of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium of the National Cancer Institute. S.H.T. was the principal investigator on grant CA69976. Address correspondence to B.C.Y. (e-mail: bcy@med.unc.edu).

View larger version (31K): [in a new window]   Figure 1. Graph shows frequency distribution of MSPM.

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Figure 2a. Graphs show performance measures according to MSPM. (a) Sensitivity (black bars) and specificity (gray bars). (b) Recall rate (black bars), cancer detection rate per 1000 (gray bars), and PPV (white bars).

View larger version (12K): [in a new window]   Figure 2b. Graphs show performance measures according to MSPM. (a) Sensitivity (black bars) and specificity (gray bars). (b) Recall rate (black bars), cancer detection rate per 1000 (gray bars), and PPV (white bars).

View larger version (61K): [in a new window]   Figure 3a. Performance measures according to MSPM and age in years, represented by numbers with A-H. (a) Sensitivity. (b) Recall rate. (c) Cancer detection rate (per 1000). (d) PPV.

View larger version (56K): [in a new window]   Figure 3b. Performance measures according to MSPM and age in years, represented by numbers with A-H. (a) Sensitivity. (b) Recall rate. (c) Cancer detection rate (per 1000). (d) PPV.

View larger version (38K): [in a new window]   Figure 3c. Performance measures according to MSPM and age in years, represented by numbers with A-H. (a) Sensitivity. (b) Recall rate. (c) Cancer detection rate (per 1000). (d) PPV.

View larger version (31K): [in a new window]   Figure 3d. Performance measures according to MSPM and age in years, represented by numbers with A-H. (a) Sensitivity. (b) Recall rate. (c) Cancer detection rate (per 1000). (d) PPV.

View larger version (38K): [in a new window]   Figure 4a. Graphs show receiver operating characteristic curves according to MSPM for women of all ages and for the youngest women. (a) Women 40-89 years old. (b) Women 40-49 years old.

View larger version (35K): [in a new window]   Figure 4b. Graphs show receiver operating characteristic curves according to MSPM for women of all ages and for the youngest women. (a) Women 40-89 years old. (b) Women 40-49 years old.