Literature DB >> 22696156

Characteristics and screening outcome of women referred twice at screening mammography.

Wikke Setz-Pels1, Lucien E M Duijm, Marieke W J Louwman, Rudi M H Roumen, Frits H Jansen, Adri C Voogd.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine the characteristics and screening outcome of women referred twice at screening mammography.
METHODS: We included 424,703 consecutive screening mammograms and collected imaging, biopsy and surgery reports of women with screen-detected breast cancer. Review of screening mammograms was performed to determine whether or not an initial and second referral comprised the same lesion.
RESULTS: The overall positive predictive value of referral for cancer was 38.6% (95% CI 37.3-39.8%). Of 147 (2.6%) women referred twice, 86 had been referred for a different lesion at second referral and 32 of these proved malignant (37.2%, 95% CI 27.0-47.4%). Sixty-one women had been referred twice for the same lesion, of which 22 proved malignant (36.1%, 95% CI 24.1-48.0%). Characteristics of these women were comparable to women with cancer diagnosed after first referral. Compared with women without cancer at second referral for the same lesion, women with cancer more frequently showed suspicious densities at screening mammography (86.4% vs 53.8%, P = 0.02) and work-up at first referral had less frequently included biopsy (22.7% vs 61.5%, P = 0.004).
CONCLUSIONS: Cancer risk in women referred twice for the same lesion is similar to that observed in women referred once, or referred for a second time but for a different lesion. KEY POINTS: Cancer risk was 36% for lesions referred twice at screening mammography. The cancer risk was similar for lesions referred only once at screening. Densities at first referral were associated with increased cancer risk at second referral. No biopsy at first referral was associated with increased cancer risk at second referral. Patient and tumour characteristics were similar for women with and without diagnostic delay.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22696156     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-012-2523-1

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


  30 in total

1.  Fine-needle aspiration biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions in a multicenter clinical trial: results from the radiologic diagnostic oncology group V.

Authors:  E D Pisano; L L Fajardo; D J Caudry; N Sneige; W J Frable; W A Berg; I Tocino; S J Schnitt; J L Connolly; C A Gatsonis; B J McNeil
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 2.  Role of fine-needle aspiration biopsy in breast lesions: analysis of a series of 4,110 cases.

Authors:  R Arisio; C Cuccorese; G Accinelli; M P Mano; R Bordon; L Fessia
Journal:  Diagn Cytopathol       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 1.582

3.  Do non-specific minimal signs in a biennial mammographic breast cancer screening programme need further diagnostic assessment?

Authors:  R M Maes; D J Dronkers; J H Hendriks; M A Thijssen; H W Nab
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Short- and long-term anxiety and depression in women recalled after breast cancer screening.

Authors:  C Lampic; E Thurfjell; J Bergh; P O Sjödén
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 9.162

Review 5.  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

6.  Malignant lesions initially subjected to short-term mammographic follow-up.

Authors:  Eric L Rosen; Jay A Baker; Mary Scott Soo
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Detection of bilateral breast cancer at biennial screening mammography in the Netherlands: a population-based study.

Authors:  Wikke Setz-Pels; Lucien E M Duijm; Johanna H Groenewoud; Adri C Voogd; Frits H Jansen; Marianne J H H Hooijen; Marieke W J Louwman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-04-07       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 8.  Missed breast cancers at US-guided core needle biopsy: how to reduce them.

Authors:  Ji Hyun Youk; Eun-Kyung Kim; Min Jung Kim; Ji Young Lee; Ki Keun Oh
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2007 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.333

9.  Delayed diagnosis of breast cancer in women recalled for suspicious screening mammography.

Authors:  Lucien E M Duijm; Johanna H Groenewoud; Harry J de Koning; Jan Willem Coebergh; Mike van Beek; Marianne J H H Hooijen; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2008-12-04       Impact factor: 9.162

10.  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

View more
  1 in total

1.  Screening outcome in women repeatedly recalled for the same mammographic abnormality before, during and after the transition from screen-film to full-field digital screening mammography.

Authors:  Rob van Bommel; Adri C Voogd; Marieke W Louwman; Luc J Strobbe; Dick Venderink; Lucien E M Duijm
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-05-14       Impact factor: 5.315

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.