Literature DB >> 23618020

False-positive screening mammograms and biopsies among women participating in a Canadian provincial breast screening program.

Andrew J Coldman1, Norm Phillips.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mammography screening results in false positives that cause anxiety and utilize scarce medical resources for their resolution. Determination of screening recommendations requires knowledge of the population risk of false positives.
METHODS: Data were extracted from the Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia and analyzed to determine the influence of personal factors including age, ethnic group and screening history, and the centre where screening was performed, on the likelihood a new screen would result in a false positive and whether a biopsy was required. The resulting probabilities were combined to provide values for lifetime screening algorithms.
RESULTS: Age, screen sequence number, history of previous abnormal screens and centre where screening was performed were significantly related to the likelihood a new screen would be a false positive. British Columbia women screened biennially between the ages of 50 and 69 have a projected 41% chance of a false-positive screen and a 5.6% risk of a related biopsy, with the best performing centres having rates of 26% and 3%, respectively.
INTERPRETATION: Model projections for BC overall are comparable to other North American estimates. Estimates varied depending upon screening centre attended.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast neoplasms; mammography; mass screening; sensitivity and specificity

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23618020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Public Health        ISSN: 0008-4263


  7 in total

1.  Quality of the screening process: An overlooked critical factor and an essential component of shared decision making about screening.

Authors:  James A Dickinson; Roland Grad; Brenda J Wilson; Neil R Bell; Harminder Singh; Olga Szafran; Guylène Thériault
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 3.275

2. 

Authors:  James A Dickinson; Roland Grad; Brenda J Wilson; Neil R Bell; Harminder Singh; Olga Szafran; Guylène Thériault
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 3.275

3.  Controversies on Mammography Screening in the World and Bahceşehir Population-Based Organized Mammography Screening Project in Turkey.

Authors:  Vahit Özmen
Journal:  J Breast Health       Date:  2015-10-01

Review 4.  Is the false-positive rate in mammography in North America too high?

Authors:  Michelle T Le; Carmel E Mothersill; Colin B Seymour; Fiona E McNeill
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-06-08       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Importance of quality in breast cancer screening practice - a natural experiment in Alberta, Canada.

Authors:  Yan Yuan; Khanh Vu; Ye Shen; James Dickinson; Marcy Winget
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-01-06       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  The OncoSim-Breast Cancer Microsimulation Model.

Authors:  Jean H E Yong; Claude Nadeau; William M Flanagan; Andrew J Coldman; Keiko Asakawa; Rochelle Garner; Natalie Fitzgerald; Martin J Yaffe; Anthony B Miller
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2022-03-03       Impact factor: 3.677

7.  Breast effects of oral, combined 17β-estradiol, and progesterone capsules in menopausal women: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  James H Liu; Denise R Black; Lisa Larkin; Shelli Graham; Brian Bernick; Sebastian Mirkin
Journal:  Menopause       Date:  2020-12       Impact factor: 3.310

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.