Literature DB >> 21617920

Effect of false-positives and women's characteristics on long-term adherence to breast cancer screening.

R Román1, M Sala, M De La Vega, C Natal, J Galceran, I González-Román, A Baroja, R Zubizarreta, N Ascunce, D Salas, X Castells.   

Abstract

False-positive results may influence adherence to mammography screening. The effectiveness of breast cancer screening is closely related to adequate adherence among the target population. The objective of this study was to evaluate how false-positives and women's characteristics affect the likelihood of reattendance at routine breast cancer screening in a sequence of routine screening invitations. We performed a retrospective cohort study of 1,371,218 women aged 45-69 years, eligible for the next routine screening, who underwent 4,545,346 screening mammograms from 1990 to 2006. We estimated the likelihood of attendance at seven sequential screening mammograms. Multilevel discrete time hazard models were used to estimate the effect of false-positive results on reattendance, and the odds ratios (OR) of non-attendance for the women's personal characteristics studied. The overall reattendance rate at the second screening was 81.7% while at the seventh screening was 95.6%. At the second screening invitation reattendance among women with and without a false-positive mammogram was 79.3 vs. 85.3%, respectively. At the fourth and seventh screenings, these percentages were 86.3 vs. 89.9% and 94.6 vs. 96.0%, respectively. The study variables associated with a higher risk of failing to participate in subsequent screenings were oldest age (OR = 8.48; 95% CI: 8.31-8.65), not attending their first screening invitation (OR = 1.12; 95% CI: 1.11-1.14), and previous invasive procedures (OR = 1.09; 95% CI: 1.07-1.10). The risk of non-attendance was lower in women with a familial history of breast cancer (OR = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.96-0.99), and those using hormone replacement therapy (OR = 0.96; 95% CI: 0.94-0.97). In conclusion, reattendance was lower in women with false-positive mammograms than in those with negative results, although this difference decreased with the number of completed screening participations, suggesting that abnormal results in earlier screenings more strongly influence behavior. These findings may be useful in providing women with accurate information and in improving the effectiveness of screening programs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21617920     DOI: 10.1007/s10549-011-1581-4

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


  11 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.  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

3.  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

4.  Personalized Screening for Breast Cancer: Rationale, Present Practices, and Future Directions.

Authors:  Tanir M Allweis; Naama Hermann; Rinat Berenstein-Molho; Michal Guindy
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-01-04       Impact factor: 5.344

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.  Risk of breast cancer after false-positive results in mammographic screening.

Authors:  Marta Román; Xavier Castells; Solveig Hofvind; My von Euler-Chelpin
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2016-02-25       Impact factor: 4.452

7.  Cumulative risk of breast cancer screening outcomes according to the presence of previous benign breast disease and family history of breast cancer: supporting personalised screening.

Authors:  M Román; M J Quintana; J Ferrer; M Sala; X Castells
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2017-04-20       Impact factor: 7.640

8.  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

9.  The "Sweet Spot" Revisited: Optimal Recall Rates for Cancer Detection With 2D and 3D Digital Screening Mammography in the Metro Chicago Breast Cancer Registry.

Authors:  Garth H Rauscher; Anne Marie Murphy; Qiong Qiu; Therese A Dolecek; Katherine Tossas; Yanyang Liu; Nila H Alsheik
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2021-02-10       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Mammographic density and risk of breast cancer according to tumor characteristics and mode of detection: a Spanish population-based case-control study.

Authors:  Marina Pollán; Nieves Ascunce; María Ederra; Alberto Murillo; Nieves Erdozáin; Jose Alés-Martínez; Roberto Pastor-Barriuso
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2013-01-29       Impact factor: 6.466

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.