Literature DB >> 20809364

Association of diagnostic work-up with subsequent attendance in a breast cancer screening program for false-positive cases.

Arnaud Seigneurin1, C Exbrayat, J Labarère, P Delafosse, F Poncet, M Colonna.   

Abstract

The objective of this study is to determine whether the likelihood of returning for routine breast cancer screening differed for false-positive cases depending on the diagnostic work-up. Using the original data from a French population-based breast cancer screening program, we compared the attendance rates at the subsequent round of screening for 16,946 and 1,127 participants who received negative (i.e., American College of Radiology, ACR, categories 1-2) and false-positive mammograms, respectively. False-positive mammograms were categorized ACR 0 (i.e., warranting additional imaging evaluation), 3 (i.e., warranting clinical and imaging follow-up), and 4-5 (i.e., warranting biopsy). We estimated the odds ratios of attendance at subsequent screening round using logistic regression, adjusting for age and history of previous mammography. The attendance rates at the subsequent screening round were 80.6% for women who received negative mammograms versus 69.6, 74.3, and 70.1% for women who received false-positive mammograms warranting additional imaging evaluation, clinical and imaging follow-up, or biopsy, respectively. In comparison to women who received negative mammograms, the corresponding adjusted odds ratios of returning for routine screening were 0.6 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4-0.8], 0.8 (95% CI 0.6-0.9), and 0.6 (95% CI 0.4-0.8). No significant differences were found in odds ratios of attendance across ACR categories among women who received false-positive mammograms. Similar figures were observed for attending at least one of the two subsequent screening rounds. In conclusion, in comparison to women with normal or benign findings on index mammograms, false-positive cases warranting additional imaging evaluation, clinical and imaging follow-up, or biopsy had uniformly decreased odds of attending subsequent routine screening rounds.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20809364     DOI: 10.1007/s10549-010-1118-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.872


  7 in total

1.  Discrepant screening mammography assessments at blinded and non-blinded double reading: impact of arbitration by a third reader on screening outcome.

Authors:  Elisabeth G Klompenhouwer; Adri C Voogd; Gerard J den Heeten; Luc J A Strobbe; Vivianne C Tjan-Heijnen; Mireille J M Broeders; Lucien E M Duijm
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-04-18       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Implications of false-positive results for future cancer screenings.

Authors:  Glen B Taksler; Nancy L Keating; Michael B Rothberg
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2018-04-23       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  Characteristics and screening outcome of women referred twice at screening mammography.

Authors:  Wikke Setz-Pels; Lucien E M Duijm; Marieke W J Louwman; Rudi M H Roumen; Frits H Jansen; Adri C Voogd
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-06-13       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Overdiagnosis from non-progressive cancer detected by screening mammography: stochastic simulation study with calibration to population based registry data.

Authors:  Arnaud Seigneurin; Olivier François; José Labarère; Pierre Oudeville; Jean Monlong; Marc Colonna
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2011-11-23

5.  Re-attendance after false-positive screening mammography: a population-based study in the Netherlands.

Authors:  W Setz-Pels; L E M Duijm; J W Coebergh; M Rutten; J Nederend; A C Voogd
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2013-09-19       Impact factor: 7.640

6.  Factors associated with false-positive mammography at first screen in an Asian population.

Authors:  Peh Joo Ho; Chek Mei Bok; Hanis Mariyah Mohd Ishak; Li Yan Lim; Jenny Liu; Fuh Yong Wong; Kee Seng Chia; Min-Han Tan; Wen Yee Chay; Mikael Hartman; Jingmei Li
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-03-11       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Comparison of the diagnostic workup of women referred at non-blinded or blinded double reading in a population-based screening mammography programme in the south of the Netherlands.

Authors:  Roy J P Weber; Elisabeth G Klompenhouwer; Adri C Voogd; Luc J A Strobbe; Mireille J M Broeders; Lucien E M Duijm
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2015-08-18       Impact factor: 7.640

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.