Literature DB >> 21901564

Impact of intermediate mammography assessment on the likelihood of false-positive results in breast cancer screening programmes.

Nieves Ascunce1, María Ederra, Josu Delfrade, Araceli Baroja, Nieves Erdozain, Raquel Zubizarreta, Dolores Salas, Xavier Castells.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Breast cancer screening is offered to 100% of the target population in Spain and intermediate mammograms (IMs) are sometimes indicated. This study was aimed at analysing the frequency of IMs, the factors determining their recommendation, and their impact on the risk of false-positive results and the detection rate.
METHODS: Data from 3,471,307 mammograms from Spanish breast cancer screening programmes were included.
RESULTS: 3.36% of the mammograms were IMs. The factors associated with the use of IMs were age, initial screening, previous invasive tests, a familial history of breast cancer and use of hormone replacement therapy. In screening episodes with an IM, the probability of a false-positive result was 13.74% (95% CI: 13.43-14.05), almost double that in episodes without IMs (6.02%, 95% CI 5.99-6.05). In young women with previous invasive procedures, a familial history of breast cancer or hormone replacement therapy use who were undergoing their initial screen, this probability was lower when IMs were performed. IMs always increased the detection rate.
CONCLUSIONS: The factors prompting IMs should be characterised so that radiologists can systematise their recommendations according to the presence of the factors maximising the benefits and minimising the adverse effects of this procedure. KEY POINTS: Intermediate mammograms in breast screening offer potential benefits but also disadvantages. Intermediate mammograms increase the false-positive rate except in specific groups. Intermediate mammograms reduce the false-positive rate in younger women and initial screens. Intermediate mammograms also reduce false-positive results in women with personal risk factors. Intermediate mammograms increase cancer detection mainly in women without risk factors.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21901564     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-011-2263-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  23 in total

1.  Short-interval follow-up mammography: are we doing the right thing?

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Edward A Sickles
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2003-03-19       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Assessment of the psychological impact of a breast screening programme.

Authors:  A R Bull; M J Campbell
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1991-06       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Breast cancer yield for screening mammographic examinations with recommendation for short-interval follow-up.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Linn A Abraham; Constance D Lehman; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; William E Barlow; Jennifer H Voeks; Berta M Geller; Patricia A Carney; Edward A Sickles
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 4.  Systematic review: the long-term effects of false-positive mammograms.

Authors:  Noel T Brewer; Talya Salz; Sarah E Lillie
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2007-04-03       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations.

Authors:  J G Elmore; M B Barton; V M Moceri; S Polk; P J Arena; S W Fletcher
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1998-04-16       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Biennial versus annual mammography and the risk of late-stage breast cancer.

Authors:  Emily White; Diana L Miglioretti; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Berta M Geller; Robert D Rosenberg; Karla Kerlikowske; Laura Saba; Pamela M Vacek; Patricia A Carney; Diana S M Buist; Nina Oestreicher; William Barlow; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Stephen H Taplin
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2004-12-15       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Early rescreen/recall in the UK National Health Service breast screening programme: epidemiological data.

Authors:  G J Ong; J Austoker; M Michell
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 2.136

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

Authors:  Solveig Hofvind; Steinar Thoresen; Steinar Tretli
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2004-10-01       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Changes in breast cancer mortality in Navarre (Spain) after introduction of a screening programme.

Authors:  Elizaga N Ascunce; C Moreno-Iribas; A Barcos Urtiaga; E Ardanaz; M Ederra Sanz; J Castilla; N Egüés
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 2.136

10.  Effect of protocol-related variables and women's characteristics on the cumulative false-positive risk in breast cancer screening.

Authors:  R Román; M Sala; D Salas; N Ascunce; R Zubizarreta; X Castells
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2011-03-23       Impact factor: 32.976

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.