Literature DB >> 15378474

The cumulative risk of a false-positive recall in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program.

Solveig Hofvind1, Steinar Thoresen, Steinar Tretli.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Biennial breast cancer screening for women ages 50-69 years is recommended by the World Health Organization. It has been claimed that the cumulative risk of a false-positive recall is a significant disadvantage in breast cancer screening programs. The primary objective of this study was to estimate the cumulative risk of a false-positive recall during a screening period of 20 years in women ages 50-51 years who are screened biennially in a population-based screening program. A secondary objective was to estimate the cumulative risk of undergoing fine-needle aspiration cytology, core needle biopsy, and open biopsy with benign morphology in the same group of women.
METHODS: The Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program invites all women ages 50-69 years who reside in the country to a 2-view mammography biennially. A nationwide data base that covers all of the invited women includes individual information about all screening activity. Results from three screening rounds in four counties were the basis for this study. False-positive recalls due to abnormal mammograms among 83,416 women who participated all the 3 screening rounds were the basis for the estimations.
RESULTS: It was calculated that women ages 50-51 years who participate in biennial screening run a cumulative risk of 20.8% for a false-positive recall during a screening period of 2 decades. The cumulative risk of undergoing fine-needle aspiration cytology was estimated at 3.9%, and the risk of undergoing core needle biopsy or open biopsy with benign morphology was 1.5% and 0.9%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: False-positive recalls are a disadvantage in a breast cancer screening programs, but the cumulative risk seemed to be acceptable in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. It is important to communicate the existence and extent of this risk to the target group. (c) 2004 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15378474     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.20528

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  22 in total

1.  False-positive mammography and depressed mood in a screening population: findings from the New Hampshire Mammography Network.

Authors:  C J Gibson; J Weiss; M Goodrich; T Onega
Journal:  J Public Health (Oxf)       Date:  2009-07-02       Impact factor: 2.341

2.  Effect of radiologist experience on the risk of false-positive results in breast cancer screening programs.

Authors:  Raquel Zubizarreta Alberdi; Ana B Fernández Llanes; Raquel Almazán Ortega; Rubén Roman Expósito; Jose M Velarde Collado; Teresa Queiro Verdes; Carmen Natal Ramos; María Ederra Sanz; Dolores Salas Trejo; Xavier Castells Oliveres
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-06-04       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Implementation and evaluation of an expectation maximization reconstruction algorithm for gamma emission breast tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Zongyi Gong; Kelly Klanian; Tushita Patel; Olivia Sullivan; Mark B Williams
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  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

5.  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

6.  Statistical Methods for Estimating the Cumulative Risk of Screening Mammography Outcomes.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Theodora M Ripping; Jessica Chubak; Mireille J M Broeders; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2015-12-31       Impact factor: 4.254

7.  False-positive results in the randomized controlled trial of mammographic screening from age 40 ("Age" trial).

Authors:  Louise E Johns; Sue M Moss
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2010-09-13       Impact factor: 4.254

8.  Breast cancer risk prediction and mammography biopsy decisions: a model-based study.

Authors:  Katrina Armstrong; Elizabeth A Handorf; Jinbo Chen; Mirar N Bristol Demeter
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 5.043

9.  Cumulative false positive recall rate and association with participant related factors in a population based breast cancer screening programme.

Authors:  Xavier Castells; Eduard Molins; Francesc Macià
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 3.710

Review 10.  Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Heidi D Nelson; Kari Tyne; Arpana Naik; Christina Bougatsos; Benjamin K Chan; Linda Humphrey
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 25.391

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.