Literature DB >> 22859786

Psychological consequences of false-positive screening mammograms in the UK.

Mary Bond1, Toby Pavey, Karen Welch, Chris Cooper, Ruth Garside, Sarah Dean, Christopher J Hyde.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To identify the psychological effects of false-positive screening mammograms in the UK.
METHODS: Systematic review of all controlled studies and qualitative studies of women with a false-positive screening mammogram. The control group participants had normal mammograms. All psychological outcomes including returning for routine screening were permitted. All studies had a narrative synthesis.
RESULTS: The searches returned seven includable studies (7/4423). Heterogeneity was such that meta-analysis was not possible. Studies using disease-specific measures found that, compared to normal results, there could be enduring psychological distress that lasted up to 3 years; the level of distress was related to the degree of invasiveness of the assessment. At 3 years the relative risks were, further mammography, 1.28 (95% CI 0.82 to 2.00), fine needle aspiration 1.80 (95% CI 1.17 to 2.77), biopsy 2.07 (95% CI 1.22 to 3.52) and early recall 1.82 (95% CI 1.22 to 2.72). Studies that used generic measures of anxiety and depression found no such impact up to 3 months after screening. Evidence suggests that women with false-positive mammograms have an increased likelihood of failing to reattend for routine screening, relative risk 0.97 (95% CI 0.96 to 0.98) compared with women with normal mammograms.
CONCLUSIONS: Having a false-positive screening mammogram can cause breast cancer-specific distress for up to 3 years. The degree of distress is related to the invasiveness of the assessment. Women with false-positive mammograms are less likely to return for routine assessment than those with normal ones.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22859786     DOI: 10.1136/eb-2012-100608

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Evid Based Med        ISSN: 1356-5524


  16 in total

Review 1.  The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review.

Authors:  M G Marmot; D G Altman; D A Cameron; J A Dewar; S G Thompson; M Wilcox
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2013-06-06       Impact factor: 7.640

2.  Demographic, clinical, dispositional, and social-environmental characteristics associated with psychological response to a false positive ovarian cancer screening test: a longitudinal study.

Authors:  Amanda T Wiggins; Edward J Pavlik; Michael A Andrykowski
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2017-10-25

3.  Implications of false-positive results for future cancer screenings.

Authors:  Glen B Taksler; Nancy L Keating; Michael B Rothberg
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2018-04-23       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 4.  Locoregional Management After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.

Authors:  Monica Morrow; Atif J Khan
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-05-22       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  The psychological impact and experience of breast cancer screening in young women with an increased risk of breast cancer due to neurofibromatosis type 1.

Authors:  Ashley Crook; Rebekah Kwa; Sarah Ephraums; Mathilda Wilding; Lavvina Thiyagarajan; Jane Fleming; Katrina Moore; Yemima Berman
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2021-05-08       Impact factor: 2.446

6.  Re-attendance after false-positive screening mammography: a population-based study in the Netherlands.

Authors:  W Setz-Pels; L E M Duijm; J W Coebergh; M Rutten; J Nederend; A C Voogd
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2013-09-19       Impact factor: 7.640

Review 7.  Over-reassurance and undersupport after a 'false alarm': a systematic review of the impact on subsequent cancer symptom attribution and help seeking.

Authors:  Cristina Renzi; Katriina L Whitaker; Jane Wardle
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-02-04       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Personality and breast cancer screening in women of the GAZEL cohort study.

Authors:  Cédric Lemogne; Monica Turinici; Henri Panjo; Charlotte Ngo; Florence Canoui-Poitrine; Jean-Christophe Chauvet-Gelinier; Frédéric Limosin; Silla M Consoli; Marcel Goldberg; Marie Zins; Virginie Ringa
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2017-12-26       Impact factor: 4.452

9.  Trends in breast biopsies for abnormalities detected at screening mammography: a population-based study in the Netherlands.

Authors:  V van Breest Smallenburg; J Nederend; A C Voogd; J W W Coebergh; M van Beek; F H Jansen; W J Louwman; L E M Duijm
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2013-05-21       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Comparison of the diagnostic workup of women referred at non-blinded or blinded double reading in a population-based screening mammography programme in the south of the Netherlands.

Authors:  Roy J P Weber; Elisabeth G Klompenhouwer; Adri C Voogd; Luc J A Strobbe; Mireille J M Broeders; Lucien E M Duijm
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2015-08-18       Impact factor: 7.640

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.