Literature DB >> 10391809

Effect of false-positive mammograms on interval breast cancer screening in a health maintenance organization.

M L Burman1, S H Taplin, D F Herta, J G Elmore.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite the mortality benefits of breast cancer screening, not all women receive regular mammography. Such factors as age, socioeconomic status, and physician recommendation have been associated with greater use of screening. However, we do not know whether having an abnormal mammogram affects future screening.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of a false-positive mammogram on adherence to the next recommended screening mammogram.
DESIGN: Prospective cohort study.
SETTING: The breast cancer screening program at Group Health Cooperative, a health maintenance organization in Washington state. PATIENTS: 5059 women 40 years of age or older with no history of breast cancer or breast surgery who had false-positive (n = 813) or true-negative (n = 4246) index screening mammograms between 1 August 1990 and 31 July 1992. MEASUREMENTS: Screening rates and odds ratios for recommended interval screening up to 42 months after the index mammogram.
RESULTS: After adjustment for differences in age; previous use of mammography; family history of breast cancer; exogenous hormone use; and age at menarche, first childbirth, and menopause, women with false-positive index mammograms were more likely than those with true-negative index mammograms to obtain their next recommended screening mammogram (odds ratio, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.45]). The relation between a false-positive mammogram and the likelihood of adherence to screening in the next recommended interval was strongest among women who had not previously undergone mammography (odds ratio, 1.66 [CI, 1.26 to 2.17]).
CONCLUSIONS: Having a false-positive mammogram did not adversely affect screening behavior in the next recommended interval. Women with false-positive mammograms, especially those without previous mammography, were more likely to return for the next scheduled screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10391809     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-131-1-199907060-00002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  20 in total

Review 1.  Clinical practice. Mammographic screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  Suzanne W Fletcher; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-04-24       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Waiting for a diagnosis after an abnormal screening mammogram. SMPBC diagnostic process workgroup. Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia.

Authors:  I A Olivotto; L Kan; S King
Journal:  Can J Public Health       Date:  2000 Mar-Apr

3.  Retention of screened women in the Manitoba Breast Screening Program.

Authors:  Kathleen M Decker
Journal:  Can J Public Health       Date:  2008 May-Jun

4.  Consequences of false-positive screening mammograms.

Authors:  Anna N A Tosteson; Dennis G Fryback; Cristina S Hammond; Lucy G Hanna; Margaret R Grove; Mary Brown; Qianfei Wang; Karen Lindfors; Etta D Pisano
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 21.873

5.  Impact of a False-Positive Screening Mammogram on Subsequent Screening Behavior and Stage at Breast Cancer Diagnosis.

Authors:  Firas M Dabbous; Therese A Dolecek; Michael L Berbaum; Sarah M Friedewald; Wm Thomas Summerfelt; Kent Hoskins; Garth H Rauscher
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2017-02-09       Impact factor: 4.254

6.  US women's attitudes to false positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: cross sectional survey.

Authors:  L M Schwartz; S Woloshin; H C Sox; B Fischhoff; H G Welch
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-06-17

7.  Influence of false-positive mammography results on subsequent screening: do physician recommendations buffer negative effects?

Authors:  Jessica T DeFrank; Barbara K Rimer; J Michael Bowling; Jo Anne Earp; Erica S Breslau; Noel T Brewer
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 2.136

8.  Modelling the cumulative risk of a false-positive screening test.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Diana L Miglioretti; Robert A Smith
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2010-03-31       Impact factor: 3.021

9.  Recall Rate Reduction with Tomosynthesis During Baseline Screening Examinations: An Assessment From a Prospective Trial.

Authors:  Jules H Sumkin; Marie A Ganott; Denise M Chough; Victor J Catullo; Margarita L Zuley; Dilip D Shinde; Christiane M Hakim; Andriy I Bandos; David Gur
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2015-09-26       Impact factor: 3.173

10.  Beliefs and expectations of women under 50 years old regarding screening mammography: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Larissa Nekhlyudov; Dennis Ross-Degnan; Suzanne W Fletcher
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 5.128

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.