Literature DB >> 24009091

The effect of false positive breast screening examinations on subsequent attendance: retrospective cohort study.

Anthony J Maxwell1, Cathryn Beattie, Janet Lavelle, Iain Lyburn, Ruchi Sinnatamby, Shelagh Garnett, Annie Herbert.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of false positive breast screening examination results on subsequent attendance in the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme.
METHODS: 253,017 previously screened women who were invited for rescreening were studied. Attendance rates of women who had received a normal result at the last (index) screen were compared with those of women who had received a false positive result. The effects of age, type of index screening examination (prevalent or incident) and tissue sampling at assessment were investigated.
RESULTS: Women who had a false positive prevalent index screening examination were significantly more likely to reattend than those who had a normal prevalent index screening examination (87.7% vs. 86.0%). There was no significant difference in reattendance rates between women who had a false positive incident index screening examination and those with a normal incident index screening examination. However, women who underwent needle sampling or open biopsy following false positive incident index screening examinations were 12% and 60% less likely to reattend, respectively, than women whose index screening examinations were normal (p < 0.001), although there was variation between centres. Increasing age significantly reduced the likelihood of reattendance. The overall reattendance of women who had been screened only once was six percentage points lower than that of women who had been screened more than once.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that most women who undergo the breast screening assessment process retain confidence in breast screening. Needle sampling and open biopsy should be used judiciously in the assessment of screen-detected abnormalities in view of the reduced reattendance that results from their use after incident screening examinations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24009091     DOI: 10.1177/0969141313499147

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


  6 in total

1.  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

2.  Client and practitioner perspectives on the screening mammography experience.

Authors:  P Whelehan; A Evans; G Ozakinci
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Care (Engl)       Date:  2016-10-13       Impact factor: 2.520

3.  How do women experience a false-positive test result from breast screening? A systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies.

Authors:  Hannah Long; Joanna M Brooks; Michelle Harvie; Anthony Maxwell; David P French
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2019-07-23       Impact factor: 7.640

4.  Factors associated with attendance at screening for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Rebecca Mottram; Wendy Lynn Knerr; Daniel Gallacher; Hannah Fraser; Lena Al-Khudairy; Abimbola Ayorinde; Sian Williamson; Chidozie Nduka; Olalekan A Uthman; Samantha Johnson; Alexander Tsertsvadze; Christopher Stinton; Sian Taylor-Phillips; Aileen Clarke
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-11-30       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  Comparison of the diagnostic workup of women referred at non-blinded or blinded double reading in a population-based screening mammography programme in the south of the Netherlands.

Authors:  Roy J P Weber; Elisabeth G Klompenhouwer; Adri C Voogd; Luc J A Strobbe; Mireille J M Broeders; Lucien E M Duijm
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2015-08-18       Impact factor: 7.640

6.  Flemish breast cancer screening programme: 15 years of key performance indicators (2002-2016).

Authors:  M Goossens; I De Brabander; J De Grève; C Van Ongeval; P Martens; E Van Limbergen; E Kellen
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2019-10-28       Impact factor: 4.430

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.