This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
I think the following comments are pertinent in regard to Dr Wolfe's response to the article by Tabár and Dean and my editorial comment.The fact that the incidence data of Tabár and Dean are totally anomalous to Dr Wolfe's work is, of course, the key issue here. Dr Wolfe's data are dangerous to use for incidence data when applied to a general population of patients because they are based primarily on patients who were symptomatic and referred. What this has to do with and how it affects mammographic parenchymal patterns and subsequent risk is not clearly known. However, if patients are both symptomatic and referred, it is highly likely that they represent a distinct subset of the population at risk. Conversely, the data of Tabár and Dean based on a randomly selected population are a more meaningful clue.The fact that there seems to be a high
Moskowitz M. Mammographic Parenchymal Patterns-Reply. JAMA. 1982;248(4):426–427. doi:10.1001/jama.1982.03330040019013
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: