Literature DB >> 20356857

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

Rebecca A Hubbard1, Diana L Miglioretti, Robert A Smith.   

Abstract

The goal of a screening test is to reduce morbidity and mortality through the early detection of disease; but the benefits of screening must be weighed against potential harms, such as false-positive (FP) results, which may lead to increased healthcare costs, patient anxiety, and other adverse outcomes associated with diagnostic follow-up procedures. Accurate estimation of the cumulative risk of an FP test after multiple screening rounds is important for program evaluation and goal setting, as well as informing individuals undergoing screening what they should expect from testing over time. Estimation of the cumulative FP risk is complicated by the existence of censoring and possible dependence of the censoring time on the event history. Current statistical methods for estimating the cumulative FP risk from censored data follow two distinct approaches, either conditioning on the number of screening tests observed or marginalizing over this random variable. We review these current methods, identify their limitations and possibly unrealistic assumptions, and propose simple extensions to address some of these limitations. We discuss areas where additional extensions may be useful. We illustrate methods for estimating the cumulative FP recall risk of screening mammography and investigate the appropriateness of modelling assumptions using 13 years of data collected by the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC). In the BCSC data we found evidence of violations of modelling assumptions of both classes of statistical methods. The estimated risk of an FP recall after 10 screening mammograms varied between 58% and 77% depending on the approach used, with an estimate of 63% based on what we feel are the most reasonable modelling assumptions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20356857      PMCID: PMC2916076          DOI: 10.1177/0962280209359842

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res        ISSN: 0962-2802            Impact factor:   3.021


  30 in total

1.  The breast carcinoma screening interval is important.

Authors:  J S Michaelson; D B Kopans; B Cady
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2000-03-15       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  Predictive margins with survey data.

Authors:  B I Graubard; E L Korn
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  Concordance of breast imaging reporting and data system assessments and management recommendations in screening mammography.

Authors:  Stephen H Taplin; Laura E Ichikawa; Karla Kerlikowske; Virginia L Ernster; Robert D Rosenberg; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Nicole Urban; Mark B Dignan; William E Barlow; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Edward A Sickles
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  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

5.  Modelling the cumulative risk for a false-positive under repeated screening events.

Authors:  A E Gelfand; F Wang
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2000-07-30       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Predicting the cumulative risk of false-positive mammograms.

Authors:  C L Christiansen; F Wang; M B Barton; W Kreuter; J G Elmore; A E Gelfand; S W Fletcher
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2000-10-18       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 7.  The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: what have we learned?

Authors:  Robert A Smith; Stephen W Duffy; Rhian Gabe; Laszlo Tabar; Amy M F Yen; Tony H H Chen
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 2.303

8.  Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Linda L Humphrey; Mark Helfand; Benjamin K S Chan; Steven H Woolf
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-09-03       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United kingdom.

Authors:  Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Philip W Chu; Diana L Miglioretti; Edward A Sickles; Roger Blanks; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Janet K Bobo; Nancy C Lee; Matthew G Wallis; Julietta Patnick; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-10-22       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Estimating the cumulative risk of false positive cancer screenings.

Authors:  Stuart G Baker; Diane Erwin; Barnett S Kramer
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2003-07-03       Impact factor: 4.615

View more
  19 in total

1.  Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: a cohort study.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Karla Kerlikowske; Chris I Flowers; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Weiwei Zhu; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Factors Associated With Rates of False-Positive and False-Negative Results From Digital Mammography Screening: An Analysis of Registry Data.

Authors:  Heidi D Nelson; Ellen S O'Meara; Karla Kerlikowske; Steven Balch; Diana Miglioretti
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Radiation-Induced Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality From Digital Mammography Screening: A Modeling Study.

Authors:  Diana L Miglioretti; Jane Lange; Jeroen J van den Broek; Christoph I Lee; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Dominique Ritley; Karla Kerlikowske; Joshua J Fenton; Joy Melnikow; Harry J de Koning; Rebecca A Hubbard
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 25.391

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.  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

6.  A semiparametric censoring bias model for estimating the cumulative risk of a false-positive screening test under dependent censoring.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2013-02-05       Impact factor: 2.571

7.  Screening outcomes in older US women undergoing multiple mammograms in community practice: does interval, age, or comorbidity score affect tumor characteristics or false positive rates?

Authors:  Dejana Braithwaite; Weiwei Zhu; Rebecca A Hubbard; Ellen S O'Meara; Diana L Miglioretti; Berta Geller; Kim Dittus; Dan Moore; Karen J Wernli; Jeanne Mandelblatt; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2013-02-05       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Impact of mammography screening interval on breast cancer diagnosis by menopausal status and BMI.

Authors:  Kim Dittus; Berta Geller; Donald L Weaver; Karla Kerlikowske; Weiwei Zhu; Rebecca Hubbard; Dejana Braithwaite; Ellen S O'Meara; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2013-06-13       Impact factor: 5.128

9.  Outcomes of screening mammography by frequency, breast density, and postmenopausal hormone therapy.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Weiwei Zhu; Rebecca A Hubbard; Berta Geller; Kim Dittus; Dejana Braithwaite; Karen J Wernli; Diana L Miglioretti; Ellen S O'Meara
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2013-05-13       Impact factor: 21.873

10.  Mammographic screening interval in relation to tumor characteristics and false-positive risk by race/ethnicity and age.

Authors:  Ellen S O'Meara; Weiwei Zhu; Rebecca A Hubbard; Dejana Braithwaite; Karla Kerlikowske; Kim L Dittus; Berta Geller; Karen J Wernli; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2013-08-26       Impact factor: 6.860

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.