Literature DB >> 23142338

Breast cancer detection risk in screening mammography after a false-positive result.

X Castells1, M Román, A Romero, J Blanch, R Zubizarreta, N Ascunce, D Salas, A Burón, M Sala.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: False-positives are a major concern in breast cancer screening. However, false-positives have been little evaluated as a prognostic factor for cancer detection. Our aim was to evaluate the association of false-positive results with the cancer detection risk in subsequent screening participations over a 17-year period.
METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of 762,506 women aged 45-69 years, with at least two screening participations, who underwent 2,594,146 screening mammograms from 1990 to 2006. Multilevel discrete-time hazard models were used to estimate the adjusted odds ratios (OR) of breast cancer detection in subsequent screening participations in women with false-positive results.
RESULTS: False-positives involving a fine-needle aspiration cytology or a biopsy had a higher cancer detection risk than those involving additional imaging procedures alone (OR = 2.69; 95%CI: 2.28-3.16 and OR = 1.81; 95%CI: 1.70-1.94, respectively). The risk of cancer detection increased substantially if women with cytology or biopsy had a familial history of breast cancer (OR = 4.64; 95%CI: 3.23-6.66). Other factors associated with an increased cancer detection risk were age 65-69 years (OR = 1.84; 95%CI: 1.67-2.03), non-attendance at the previous screening invitation (OR = 1.26; 95%CI: 1.11-1.43), and having undergone a previous benign biopsy outside the screening program (OR = 1.24; 95%CI: 1.13-1.35).
CONCLUSION: Women with a false-positive test have an increased risk of cancer detection in subsequent screening participations, especially those with a false-positive result involving cytology or biopsy. Understanding the factors behind this association could provide valuable information to increase the effectiveness of breast cancer screening.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23142338     DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2012.10.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol        ISSN: 1877-7821            Impact factor:   2.984


  13 in total

1.  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

2.  Applying a new computer-aided detection scheme generated imaging marker to predict short-term breast cancer risk.

Authors:  Seyedehnafiseh Mirniaharikandehei; Alan B Hollingsworth; Bhavika Patel; Morteza Heidari; Hong Liu; Bin Zheng
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2018-05-15       Impact factor: 3.609

Review 3.  Breast cancer screening: review of benefits and harms, and recommendations for developing and low-income countries.

Authors:  Meteb Al-Foheidi; Mubarak M Al-Mansour; Ezzeldin M Ibrahim
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2013-02-19       Impact factor: 3.064

4.  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

5.  Impact of risk factors on different interval cancer subtypes in a population-based breast cancer screening programme.

Authors:  Jordi Blanch; Maria Sala; Josefa Ibáñez; Laia Domingo; Belén Fernandez; Arantza Otegi; Teresa Barata; Raquel Zubizarreta; Joana Ferrer; Xavier Castells; Montserrat Rué; Dolores Salas
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-10-21       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Risk of breast cancer after false-positive results in mammographic screening.

Authors:  Marta Román; Xavier Castells; Solveig Hofvind; My von Euler-Chelpin
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2016-02-25       Impact factor: 4.452

7.  Breast cancer risk is increased in the years following false-positive breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Mathijs C Goossens; Isabel De Brabander; Jacques De Greve; Evelien Vaes; Chantal Van Ongeval; Koen Van Herck; Eliane Kellen
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Prev       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 2.497

8.  Primary care screening for peripheral arterial disease: a cross-sectional observational study.

Authors:  Jane H Davies; Jonathan Richards; Kevin Conway; Joyce E Kenkre; Jane Ea Lewis; E Mark Williams
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 5.386

9.  Preliminary Results of a New Auxiliary Mechatronic Near-Field Radar System to 3D Mammography for Early Detection of Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Ashkan Ghanbarzadeh Dagheyan; Ali Molaei; Richard Obermeier; Andrew Westwood; Aida Martinez; Jose Angel Martinez Lorenzo
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2018-01-25       Impact factor: 3.576

Review 10.  Errors in Mammography Cannot be Solved Through Technology Alone

Authors:  Ernest Usang Ekpo; Maram Alakhras; Patrick Brennan
Journal:  Asian Pac J Cancer Prev       Date:  2018-02-26
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.