Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closerapid breath test for biomarkers of breast cancer
Posted by lbleyen on 06 Mar 2014 at 20:33 GMT
Dear sir, madam,
First of all I would say that the group of abnormal mammograms (37) does not corresponds with a normal situation. I would expect maximum 3 positive tests in a group of 100 women.
Secondly, out of the 114 referred women for biopsy only 35 were positive, which is low, and if we look at the characteristics of the outcome, 23% were DCIS, which is again unacceptable (overdiagnosis).
When extrapolating the sensitivity and the specificity to a population of 1 million women, with an expected detection rate of 3,95 cancers per 1000 women screened, the number of false-positives nearly reaches 300,000 women. All these women need further follow-up, meaning also stress and a high psychological burden. In a good program, I would also expect a PPV of at least 30%, and not 0.395% as in this study.
To end, even if the results would be better, women still need a mammogram, simply because the test does not predict where the lesion is located. So, where is the gain?
Yours sincerely,
Dr. L. Bleyen
Medical coördinator
Centre for Cancer Detection, Flanders, Belgium