Literature DB >> 21656719

Effect of abnormal screening mammogram on quality of life.

A F W van der Steeg1, C M G Keyzer-Dekker, J De Vries, J A Roukema.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Screening for breast cancer reduces breast cancer-related mortality. Advantages of screening are explained clearly, but its disadvantages are underrepresented in consent folders.
METHODS: In September 2002 a prospective, longitudinal study started concerning quality of life (QoL) in women with breast disease. Between September 2002 and January 2007, 385 women with an abnormal screening mammogram were included. Of these, 152 women were diagnosed with breast cancer (BC group) and 233 had a false-positive result (FP group). Questionnaires concerning anxiety (State and Trait Anxiety Inventory) and QoL (World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment instrument 100) were completed before diagnosis, and 1, 3, 6 and 12 months later.
RESULTS: The BC group was significantly older (60.2 versus 57.3 years; P < 0.001); significantly more histological biopsies were needed in the FP group (P < 0.001). Almost 60 per cent of the FP group revisited the outpatient clinic in the first year. Trait anxiety had a profound influence on QoL. Women in the FP group with a high score on trait anxiety had lowest QoL on all measurements (P < 0.001). They also reported more feelings of anxiety compared with women in the FP group with a lower trait anxiety score, and women in the BC group with a low trait anxiety score (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Women with a false-positive diagnosis of screen-detected breast cancer had a low QoL and feelings of anxiety, especially when they scored high on trait anxiety. This effect lasted for at least 1 year.
Copyright © 2010 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21656719     DOI: 10.1002/bjs.7371

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Surg        ISSN: 0007-1323            Impact factor:   6.939


  18 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.  Scan-associated distress in lung cancer: Quantifying the impact of "scanxiety".

Authors:  Joshua M Bauml; Andrea Troxel; C Neill Epperson; Roger B Cohen; Kathryn Schmitz; Carrie Stricker; Lawrence N Shulman; Angela Bradbury; Jun J Mao; Corey J Langer
Journal:  Lung Cancer       Date:  2016-08-16       Impact factor: 5.705

3.  Lesions of uncertain malignant potential (B3) on core biopsy in the NHS Breast Screening Programme: is the screening round relevant?

Authors:  R J Hunt; J R Steel; G J R Porter; C S Holgate; R M Watkins
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 1.891

4.  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

5.  Age and Smoking Status Affect Serum Cytokeratin 19 Fragment Levels in Individuals Without Cancer.

Authors:  Asami Minamibata; Yoshihito Kono; Taichiro Arimoto; Yoshinori Marunaka; Koichi Takayama
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2022 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.406

6.  Psychological impact of male breast disorders: literature review and survey results.

Authors:  Mike Kipling; Jane E M Ralph; Keith Callanan
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 2.860

7.  Cancer or no cancer: the influence of trait anxiety and diagnosis on quality of life with breast cancer and benign disease: a prospective, longitudinal study.

Authors:  Claudia M G Keyzer-Dekker; Jolanda de Vries; Marlies C Mertens; Jan A Roukema; Alida F W van der Steeg
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 3.352

8.  Trends in incidence and detection of advanced breast cancer at biennial screening mammography in The Netherlands: a population based study.

Authors:  Joost Nederend; Lucien Em Duijm; Adri C Voogd; Johanna H Groenewoud; Frits H Jansen; Marieke Wj Louwman
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2012-01-09       Impact factor: 6.466

9.  An abnormal screening mammogram causes more anxiety than a palpable lump in benign breast disease.

Authors:  C M G Keyzer-Dekker; L van Esch; J de Vries; M F Ernst; G A P Nieuwenhuijzen; J A Roukema; A F W van der Steeg
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2012-03-21       Impact factor: 4.872

10.  The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) in the Dutch breast cancer screening programme: its role as an assessment and stratification tool.

Authors:  J M H Timmers; H J van Doorne-Nagtegaal; H M Zonderland; H van Tinteren; O Visser; A L M Verbeek; G J den Heeten; M J M Broeders
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-03-14       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.