Literature DB >> 2257206

Quality of life following a false positive mammogram.

I T Gram1, E Lund, S E Slenker.   

Abstract

To assess how women regard having had a false positive mammogram screening exam, and the influence that this had on their quality of life, 126 such women were interviewed. Their responses were compared to those of 152 women randomly selected among screenees with a negative exam. Eighteen months after the screening the reported prevalence of anxiety about breast cancer was 29% among women with a false positive and 13% among women with a negative screening mammogram (P = 0.001). Of 30 women biopsied, 8 (27%) had pain in the breast and 10 (33%) had reduced sexual sensitivity. A false positive mammogram was described by 7 (5%) of the women as the worst thing they ever had experienced. However, most women with a false positive result regarded this experience, in retrospect, as but one of many minor stressful experiences creating a temporary decrease in quality of life. They report the same quality of life today as women with negative screening results and 98% would attend another screening. Even so, false positive results are a matter of concern, and efforts should be made to minimise this cost whenever a screening programme is conducted.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2257206      PMCID: PMC1971570          DOI: 10.1038/bjc.1990.430

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Cancer        ISSN: 0007-0920            Impact factor:   7.640


  15 in total

1.  A case-control study of the efficacy of a non-randomized breast cancer screening program in Florence (Italy).

Authors:  D Palli; M R Del Turco; E Buiatti; S Carli; S Ciatto; L Toscani; G Maltoni
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  1986-10-15       Impact factor: 7.396

2.  Women's attitudes to screening after participation in the National Breast Screening Study. A questionnaire survey.

Authors:  C J Baines; T To; C Wall
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1990-04-01       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  Psychiatric morbidity after screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  C Dean; M M Roberts; K French; S Robinson
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1986-03       Impact factor: 3.710

4.  Evaluation of screening for breast cancer in a non-randomised study (the DOM project) by means of a case-control study.

Authors:  H J Collette; N E Day; J J Rombach; F de Waard
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1984-06-02       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  The debate over mass mammography in Britain. The case against.

Authors:  P Skrabanek
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1988-10-15

Review 6.  False premises and false promises of breast cancer screening.

Authors:  P Skrabanek
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1985-08-10       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Ten- to fourteen-year effect of screening on breast cancer mortality.

Authors:  S Shapiro; W Venet; P Strax; L Venet; R Roeser
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1982-08       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Breast cancer screening: a different look at the evidence.

Authors:  C J Wright
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  1986-10       Impact factor: 3.982

9.  Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Randomised trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare.

Authors:  L Tabár; C J Fagerberg; A Gad; L Baldetorp; L H Holmberg; O Gröntoft; U Ljungquist; B Lundström; J C Månson; G Eklund
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1985-04-13       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  The value of mammography screening in women under age 50 years.

Authors:  D M Eddy; V Hasselblad; W McGivney; W Hendee
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1988-03-11       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  40 in total

1.  Waiting for a diagnosis after an abnormal screening mammogram. SMPBC diagnostic process workgroup. Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia.

Authors:  I A Olivotto; L Kan; S King
Journal:  Can J Public Health       Date:  2000 Mar-Apr

2.  Radiologist uncertainty and the interpretation of screening.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Joann G Elmore; Linn A Abraham; Martha S Gerrity; R Edward Hendrick; Stephen H Taplin; William E Barlow; Gary R Cutter; Steven P Poplack; Carl J D'Orsi
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2004 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.583

Review 3.  Interventions to improve follow-up of abnormal findings in cancer screening.

Authors:  Roshan Bastani; K Robin Yabroff; Ronald E Myers; Beth Glenn
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2004-09-01       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  The Effect of Budgetary Restrictions on Breast Cancer Diagnostic Decisions.

Authors:  Mehmet U S Ayvaci; Oguzhan Alagoz; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  Manuf Serv Oper Manag       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 7.600

5.  Perspectives on mammography after receipt of secondary screening owing to a false positive.

Authors:  Maria D Thomson; Laura A Siminoff
Journal:  Womens Health Issues       Date:  2015-01-31

6.  Psychological impact of breast cancer screening in Japan.

Authors:  Atsuko Kitano; Hideko Yamauchi; Takashi Hosaka; Hiroshi Yagata; Keiko Hosokawa; Sachiko Ohde; Seigo Nakamura; Masafumi Takimoto; Hiroko Tsunoda
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-05-26       Impact factor: 3.402

7.  The impact of a suspicious prostate biopsy on patients' psychological, socio-behavioral, and medical care outcomes.

Authors:  Floyd J Fowler; Michael J Barry; Beth Walker-Corkery; Jean-Francois Caubet; David W Bates; Jeong Min Lee; Alison Hauser; Mary McNaughton-Collins
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Healthcare use after screening for lung cancer.

Authors:  Margaret M Byrne; Tulay Koru-Sengul; Wei Zhao; Joel L Weissfeld; Mark S Roberts
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2010-10-15       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 9.  Do the benefits outweigh the side effects of colorectal cancer surveillance? A systematic review.

Authors:  Knut Magne Augestad; Johnie Rose; Benjamin Crawshaw; Gregory Cooper; Conor Delaney
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2014-05-15

10.  Mammography screening: an incremental cost effectiveness analysis of two view versus one view procedures in London.

Authors:  S Bryan; J Brown; R Warren
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 3.710

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.