Literature DB >> 22007042

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

Rebecca A Hubbard1, Karla Kerlikowske, Chris I Flowers, Bonnie C Yankaskas, Weiwei Zhu, Diana L Miglioretti.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: False-positive mammography results are common. Biennial screening may decrease the cumulative probability of false-positive results across many years of repeated screening but could also delay cancer diagnosis.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the cumulative probability of false-positive results and the stage distribution of incident breast cancer after 10 years of annual or biennial screening mammography.
DESIGN: Prospective cohort study.
SETTING: 7 mammography registries in the National Cancer Institute-funded Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. PARTICIPANTS: 169,456 women who underwent first screening mammography at age 40 to 59 years between 1994 and 2006 and 4492 women with incident invasive breast cancer diagnosed between 1996 and 2006. MEASUREMENTS: False-positive recalls and biopsy recommendations stage distribution of incident breast cancer.
RESULTS: False-positive recall probability was 16.3% at first and 9.6% at subsequent mammography. Probability of false-positive biopsy recommendation was 2.5% at first and 1.0% at subsequent examinations. Availability of comparison mammograms halved the odds of a false-positive recall (adjusted odds ratio, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.45 to 0.56]). When screening began at age 40 years, the cumulative probability of a woman receiving at least 1 false-positive recall after 10 years was 61.3% (CI, 59.4% to 63.1%) with annual and 41.6% (CI, 40.6% to 42.5%) with biennial screening. Cumulative probability of false-positive biopsy recommendation was 7.0% (CI, 6.1% to 7.8%) with annual and 4.8% (CI, 4.4% to 5.2%) with biennial screening. Estimates were similar when screening began at age 50 years. A non-statistically significant increase in the proportion of late-stage cancers was observed with biennial compared with annual screening (absolute increases, 3.3 percentage points [CI, -1.1 to 7.8 percentage points] for women age 40 to 49 years and 2.3 percentage points [CI, -1.0 to 5.7 percentage points] for women age 50 to 59 years) among women with incident breast cancer. LIMITATIONS: Few women underwent screening over the entire 10-year period. Radiologist characteristics influence recall rates and were unavailable. Most mammograms were film rather than digital. Incident cancer was analyzed in a small sample of women who developed cancer.
CONCLUSION: After 10 years of annual screening, more than half of women will receive at least 1 false-positive recall, and 7% to 9% will receive a false-positive biopsy recommendation. Biennial screening appears to reduce the cumulative probability of false-positive results after 10 years but may be associated with a small absolute increase in the probability of late-stage cancer diagnosis. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22007042      PMCID: PMC3209800          DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  34 in total

1.  The Swedish Two-County Trial twenty years later. Updated mortality results and new insights from long-term follow-up.

Authors:  L Tabár; B Vitak; H H Chen; S W Duffy; M F Yen; C F Chiang; U B Krusemo; T Tot; R A Smith
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 2.303

2.  Predictive margins with survey data.

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

3.  Time trends in radiologists' interpretive performance at screening mammography from the community-based Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, 1996-2004.

Authors:  Laura E Ichikawa; William E Barlow; Melissa L Anderson; Stephen H Taplin; Berta M Geller; R James Brenner
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-05-26       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Performance of screening mammography among women with and without a first-degree relative with breast cancer.

Authors:  K Kerlikowske; P A Carney; B Geller; M T Mandelson; S H Taplin; K Malvin; V Ernster; N Urban; G Cutter; R Rosenberg; R Ballard-Barbash
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2000-12-05       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 5.  Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials.

Authors:  Lennarth Nyström; Ingvar Andersson; Nils Bjurstam; Jan Frisell; Bo Nordenskjöld; Lars Erik Rutqvist
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-03-16       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  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

7.  Effect of previous benign breast biopsy on the interpretive performance of subsequent screening mammography.

Authors:  Stephen H Taplin; L Abraham; B M Geller; B C Yankaskas; D S M Buist; R Smith-Bindman; C Lehman; D Weaver; P A Carney; W E Barlow
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-07-02       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  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

9.  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

10.  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

View more
  140 in total

1.  An interactive system for computer-aided diagnosis of breast masses.

Authors:  Xingwei Wang; Lihua Li; Wei Liu; Weidong Xu; Dror Lederman; Bin Zheng
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Listening to Women: Expectations and Experiences in Breast Imaging.

Authors:  Susan Harvey; Aimee M Gallagher; Martha Nolan; Christine M Hughes
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 2.681

3.  Mammographic performance in a population-based screening program: before, during, and after the transition from screen-film to full-field digital mammography.

Authors:  Solveig Hofvind; Per Skaane; Joann G Elmore; Sofie Sebuødegård; Solveig Roth Hoff; Christoph I Lee
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-04-01       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Accuracy and Reliability of Infrared Thermography in Assessment of the Breasts of Women Affected by Cancer.

Authors:  Rinaldo Roberto de Jesus Guirro; Maíta Marade Oliveira Lima Leite Vaz; Lais Mara Siqueira das Neves; Almir Vieira Dibai-Filho; Hélio Humberto Angotti Carrara; Elaine Caldeira de Oliveira Guirro
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2017-04-12       Impact factor: 4.460

5.  Annual vs Biennial Screening: Diagnostic Accuracy Among Concurrent Cohorts Within the Ontario Breast Screening Program.

Authors:  Anna M Chiarelli; Kristina M Blackmore; Lucia Mirea; Susan J Done; Vicky Majpruz; Ashini Weerasinghe; Linda Rabeneck; Derek Muradali
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2020-04-01       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  Utilization of breast cancer screening with magnetic resonance imaging in community practice.

Authors:  Deirdre A Hill; Jennifer S Haas; Robert Wellman; Rebecca A Hubbard; Christoph I Lee; Jennifer Alford-Teaster; Karen J Wernli; Louise M Henderson; Natasha K Stout; Anna N A Tosteson; Karla Kerlikowske; Tracy Onega
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2017-12-06       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Applying a new bilateral mammographic density segmentation method to improve accuracy of breast cancer risk prediction.

Authors:  Shiju Yan; Yunzhi Wang; Faranak Aghaei; Yuchen Qiu; Bin Zheng
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2017-07-19       Impact factor: 2.924

8.  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

9.  Quantitative contrast-enhanced spectral mammography based on photon-counting detectors: A feasibility study.

Authors:  Huanjun Ding; Sabee Molloi
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2017-06-28       Impact factor: 4.071

10.  Addressing overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: a prescription for change.

Authors:  Laura J Esserman; Ian M Thompson; Brian Reid; Peter Nelson; David F Ransohoff; H Gilbert Welch; Shelley Hwang; Donald A Berry; Kenneth W Kinzler; William C Black; Mina Bissell; Howard Parnes; Sudhir Srivastava
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 41.316

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.