Literature DB >> 22972811

False-positive results in mammographic screening for breast cancer in Europe: a literature review and survey of service screening programmes.

Solveig Hofvind1, Antonio Ponti, Julietta Patnick, Nieves Ascunce, Sisse Njor, Mireille Broeders, Livia Giordano, Alfonso Frigerio, Sven Törnberg, G Van Hal, P Martens, O Májek, J Danes, M von Euler-Chelpin, A Aasmaa, A Anttila, N Becker, Z Péntek, A Budai, S Mádai, P Fitzpatrick, T Mooney, M Zappa, L Ventura, A Scharpantgen, S Hofvind, P Seroczynski, A Morais, V Rodrigues, M J Bento, J Gomes de Carvalho, C Natal, M Prieto, C Sánchez-Contador Escudero, R Zubizarreta Alberti, S B Fernández Llanes, N Ascunce, M Ederra Sanza, G Sarriugarte Irigoien, D Salas Trejo, J Ibáñez Cabanell, M Wiege, G Ohlsson, S Törnberg, M Korzeniewska, C de Wolf, J Fracheboud, J Patnick, L Lancucki, S Ducarroz, E Suonio.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cumulative risk of a false-positive screening result in European mammographic screening programmes, and examine the rates and procedures of further assessment.
METHODS: A literature review was conducted to identify studies of the cumulative risk of a false-positive result in European screening programmes (390,000 women). We then examined aggregate data, cross-sectional information about further assessment procedures among women with positive results in 20 mammographic screening programmes from 17 countries (1.7 million initial screens, 5.9 million subsequent screens), collected by the European Network for Information on Cancer project (EUNICE).
RESULTS: The estimated cumulative risk of a false-positive screening result in women aged 50-69 undergoing 10 biennial screening tests varied from 8% to 21% in the three studies examined (pooled estimate 19.7%). The cumulative risk of an invasive procedure with benign outcome ranged from 1.8% to 6.3% (pooled estimate 2.9%). The risk of undergoing surgical intervention with benign outcome was 0.9% (one study only). From the EUNICE project, the proportions of all screening examinations in the programmes resulting in needle biopsy were 2.2% and 1.1% for initial and subsequent screens, respectively, though the rates differed between countries; the corresponding rates of surgical interventions among women without breast cancer were 0.19% and 0.07%.
CONCLUSION: The specific investigative procedures following a recall should be considered when examining the cumulative risk of a false-positive screening result. Most women with a positive screening test undergo a non-invasive assessment procedure. Only a small proportion of recalled women undergo needle biopsy, and even fewer undergo surgical intervention.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22972811     DOI: 10.1258/jms.2012.012083

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Screen        ISSN: 0969-1413            Impact factor:   2.136


  31 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  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

3.  Performance of 4 years of population-based mammography screening for breast cancer combined with ultrasound in Tyrol / Austria.

Authors:  Sabine Geiger-Gritsch; Martin Daniaux; Wolfgang Buchberger; Rudolf Knapp; Willi Oberaigner
Journal:  Wien Klin Wochenschr       Date:  2017-12-05       Impact factor: 1.704

4.  Statistical Methods for Estimating the Cumulative Risk of Screening Mammography Outcomes.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Theodora M Ripping; Jessica Chubak; Mireille J M Broeders; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2015-12-31       Impact factor: 4.254

5.  Personalized Screening for Breast Cancer: Rationale, Present Practices, and Future Directions.

Authors:  Tanir M Allweis; Naama Hermann; Rinat Berenstein-Molho; Michal Guindy
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-01-04       Impact factor: 5.344

6.  Comparison of cumulative false-positive risk of screening mammography in the United States and Denmark.

Authors:  Katja Kemp Jacobsen; Linn Abraham; Diana S M Buist; Rebecca A Hubbard; Ellen S O'Meara; Brian L Sprague; Karla Kerlikowske; Ilse Vejborg; My Von Euler-Chelpin; Sisse Helle Njor
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol       Date:  2015-05-23       Impact factor: 2.984

7.  Contrast-enhanced mammography for the assessment of screening recalls: a two-centre study.

Authors:  Andrea Cozzi; Simone Schiaffino; Marianna Fanizza; Veronica Magni; Laura Menicagli; Cristian Giuseppe Monaco; Adrienn Benedek; Diana Spinelli; Giovanni Di Leo; Giuseppe Di Giulio; Francesco Sardanelli
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2022-06-01       Impact factor: 7.034

Review 8.  Advances in breast cancer screening modalities and status of global screening programs.

Authors:  Chenyu Luo; Le Wang; Yuhan Zhang; Ming Lu; Bin Lu; Jie Cai; Hongda Chen; Min Dai
Journal:  Chronic Dis Transl Med       Date:  2022-05-25

9.  Comparison of the screening practices of unaffected noncarriers under 40 and between 40 and 49 in BRCA1/2 families.

Authors:  Christelle Duprez; Véronique Christophe; Isabelle Milhabet; Aurélie Krzeminski; Claude Adenis; Pascaline Berthet; Jean-Philippe Peyrat; Philippe Vennin
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-01-25       Impact factor: 2.537

10.  Increased Risk of Developing Breast Cancer after a False-Positive Screening Mammogram.

Authors:  Louise M Henderson; Rebecca A Hubbard; Brian L Sprague; Weiwei Zhu; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 4.254

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.