Literature DB >> 23508596

Long-term psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening mammography.

John Brodersen1, Volkert Dirk Siersma.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Cancer screening programs have the potential of intended beneficial effects, but they also inevitably have unintended harmful effects. In the case of screening mammography, the most frequent harm is a false-positive result. Prior efforts to measure their psychosocial consequences have been limited by short-term follow-up, the use of generic survey instruments, and the lack of a relevant benchmark-women with breast cancer.
METHODS: In this cohort study with a 3-year follow-up, we recruited 454 women with abnormal findings in screening mammography over a 1-year period. For each woman with an abnormal finding on a screening mammogram (false and true positives), we recruited another 2 women with normal screening results who were screened the same day at the same clinic. These participants were asked to complete the Consequences of Screening in Breast Cancer-a validated questionnaire encompassing 12 psychosocial outcomes-at baseline, 1, 6, 18, and 36 months.
RESULTS: Six months after final diagnosis, women with false-positive findings reported changes in existential values and inner calmness as great as those reported by women with a diagnosis of breast cancer (Δ = 1.15; P = .015; and Δ = 0.13; P = .423, respectively). Three years after being declared free of cancer, women with false-positive results consistently reported greater negative psychosocial consequences compared with women who had normal findings in all 12 psychosocial outcomes (Δ >0 for 12 of 12 outcomes; P <.01 for 4 of 12 outcomes).
CONCLUSION: False-positive findings on screening mammography causes long-term psychosocial harm: 3 years after a false-positive finding, women experience psychosocial consequences that range between those experienced by women with a normal mammogram and those with a diagnosis of breast cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23508596      PMCID: PMC3601385          DOI: 10.1370/afm.1466

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Fam Med        ISSN: 1544-1709            Impact factor:   5.166


  24 in total

Review 1.  The benefits and harms of screening for cancer with a focus on breast screening.

Authors:  John Brodersen; Karsten J Jørgensen; Peter C Gøtzsche
Journal:  Pol Arch Med Wewn       Date:  2010-03

2.  Validation of a condition-specific measure for women having an abnormal screening mammography.

Authors:  John Brodersen; Hanne Thorsen; Svend Kreiner
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2007 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.725

3.  Breast screening: the facts--or maybe not.

Authors:  Peter C Gøtzsche; Ole J Hartling; Margrethe Nielsen; John Brodersen; Karsten Juhl Jørgensen
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-01-27

Review 4.  Mammography screening in Denmark.

Authors:  Ilse Vejborg; Ellen Mikkelsen; Jens Peter Garne; Martin Bak; Anders Lernevall; Nikolaj Borg Mogensen; Walter Schwartz; Elsebeth Lynge
Journal:  Dan Med Bull       Date:  2011-06

5.  Consequences of screening in lung cancer: development and dimensionality of a questionnaire.

Authors:  John Brodersen; Hanne Thorsen; Svend Kreiner
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2010-03-12       Impact factor: 5.725

Review 6.  The psychological impact of mammographic screening. A systematic review.

Authors:  J Brett; C Bankhead; B Henderson; E Watson; J Austoker
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 3.894

7.  Meta-analyses of the effect of false-positive mammograms on generic and specific psychosocial outcomes.

Authors:  Talya Salz; Alice R Richman; Noel T Brewer
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 3.894

8.  Model of outcomes of screening mammography: information to support informed choices.

Authors:  Alexandra Barratt; Kirsten Howard; Les Irwig; Glenn Salkeld; Nehmat Houssami
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-03-08

9.  Consequences of Screening in Breast Cancer (COS-BC): development of a questionnaire.

Authors:  John Brodersen; Hanne Thorsen
Journal:  Scand J Prim Health Care       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 2.581

10.  Predicting the risk of a false-positive test for women following a mammography screening programme.

Authors:  Sisse Helle Njor; Anne Helene Olsen; Walter Schwartz; Ilse Vejborg; Elsebeth Lynge
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 2.136

View more
  106 in total

1.  Listening to Women: Expectations and Experiences in Breast Imaging.

Authors:  Susan Harvey; Aimee M Gallagher; Martha Nolan; Christine M Hughes
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 2.681

2.  Mammography screening is harmful and should be abandoned.

Authors:  Peter C Gøtzsche
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 5.344

3.  A qualitative study of lung cancer risk perceptions and smoking beliefs among national lung screening trial participants.

Authors:  Elyse R Park; Joanna M Streck; Ilana F Gareen; Jamie S Ostroff; Kelly A Hyland; Nancy A Rigotti; Hannah Pajolek; Mark Nichter
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2013-09-02       Impact factor: 4.244

4.  Prediction of near-term breast cancer risk based on bilateral mammographic feature asymmetry.

Authors:  Maxine Tan; Bin Zheng; Pandiyarajan Ramalingam; David Gur
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 3.173

5.  Perspectives on mammography after receipt of secondary screening owing to a false positive.

Authors:  Maria D Thomson; Laura A Siminoff
Journal:  Womens Health Issues       Date:  2015-01-31

6.  Fragility, uncertainty, and healthcare.

Authors:  Wendy A Rogers; Mary J Walker
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  2016-02

7.  Reduction of false-positive recalls using a computerized mammographic image feature analysis scheme.

Authors:  Maxine Tan; Jiantao Pu; Bin Zheng
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2014-07-17       Impact factor: 3.609

8.  Consequences of false-positive screening mammograms.

Authors:  Anna N A Tosteson; Dennis G Fryback; Cristina S Hammond; Lucy G Hanna; Margaret R Grove; Mary Brown; Qianfei Wang; Karen Lindfors; Etta D Pisano
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 21.873

9.  A new approach to develop computer-aided diagnosis scheme of breast mass classification using deep learning technology.

Authors:  Yuchen Qiu; Shiju Yan; Rohith Reddy Gundreddy; Yunzhi Wang; Samuel Cheng; Hong Liu; Bin Zheng
Journal:  J Xray Sci Technol       Date:  2017       Impact factor: 1.535

10.  Influence of Mortality on Estimating the Risk of Kidney Failure in People with Stage 4 CKD.

Authors:  Pietro Ravani; Marta Fiocco; Ping Liu; Robert R Quinn; Brenda Hemmelgarn; Matthew James; Ngan Lam; Braden Manns; Matthew J Oliver; Giovanni F M Strippoli; Marcello Tonelli
Journal:  J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2019-09-20       Impact factor: 10.121

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.