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