Literature DB >> 24748569

Re-attendance at biennial screening mammography following a repeated false positive recall.

Elisabeth G Klompenhouwer1, Lucien E M Duijm, Adri C Voogd, Gerard J den Heeten, Luc J Strobbe, Marieke W Louwman, Jan Willem Coebergh, Dick Venderink, Mireille J M Broeders.   

Abstract

We determined the re-attendance rate at screening mammography after a single or a repeated false positive recall and we assessed the effects of transition from screen-film mammography (SFM) to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) on screening outcome in women recalled twice for the same mammographic abnormality. The study population consisted of a consecutive series of 302,912 SFM and 90,288 FFDM screens. During a 2 years follow-up period (until the next biennial screen), we collected the breast imaging reports and biopsy results of all recalled women. Re-attendance at biennial screening mammography was 93.2 % (95 % CI 93.1-93.3 %) for women with a negative screen (i.e., no recall at screening mammography), 65.4 % (95 % CI 64.0-66.8 %) for women recalled once, 56.7 % (95 % CI 47.1-66.4 %) for women recalled twice but for different lesions and 44.3 % (95 % CI 31.4-57.1 %) for women recalled twice for the same lesion. FFDM recalls comprised a significantly larger proportion of women who had been recalled twice for the same lesion (1.9 % of recalls (52 women) at FFDM vs. 0.9 % of recalls (37 women) at SFM, P < 0.001) and the positive predictive value of these recalls (PPV) was significantly lower at FFDM (15.4 vs. 35.1 %, P = 0.03). At review, 20 of 52 women (39.5 %, all with benign outcome) would not have been recalled for a second time at FFDM if the previous hard copy SFM screen had been available for comparison. We conclude that a repeated false positive recall for the same lesion significantly lowered the probability of screening re-attendance. The first round of FFDM significantly increased the proportion of women recalled twice for the same lesion, with a significantly lower PPV of these lesions. Almost 40 % of repeatedly recalled women would not have been recalled the second time if the previous hard copy SFM screen had been available for comparison at the time of FFDM.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24748569     DOI: 10.1007/s10549-014-2959-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.872


  10 in total

1.  Discrepant screening mammography assessments at blinded and non-blinded double reading: impact of arbitration by a third reader on screening outcome.

Authors:  Elisabeth G Klompenhouwer; Adri C Voogd; Gerard J den Heeten; Luc J A Strobbe; Vivianne C Tjan-Heijnen; Mireille J M Broeders; Lucien E M Duijm
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-04-18       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  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

3.  Screening outcome in women repeatedly recalled for the same mammographic abnormality before, during and after the transition from screen-film to full-field digital screening mammography.

Authors:  Rob van Bommel; Adri C Voogd; Marieke W Louwman; Luc J Strobbe; Dick Venderink; Lucien E M Duijm
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-05-14       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Towards personalized screening: Cumulative risk of breast cancer screening outcomes in women with and without a first-degree relative with a history of breast cancer.

Authors:  Theodora Maria Ripping; Rebecca A Hubbard; Johannes D M Otten; Gerard J den Heeten; André L M Verbeek; Mireille J M Broeders
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2015-11-20       Impact factor: 7.396

5.  Nonhomogeneous Markov chain for estimating the cumulative risk of multiple false positive screening tests.

Authors:  Marzieh K Golmakani; Rebecca A Hubbard; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2021-05-18       Impact factor: 1.701

Review 6.  The WISDOM Study: breaking the deadlock in the breast cancer screening debate.

Authors:  Laura J Esserman
Journal:  NPJ Breast Cancer       Date:  2017-09-13

7.  Interval breast cancer characteristics before, during and after the transition from screen-film to full-field digital screening mammography.

Authors:  Rob M G van Bommel; Roy Weber; Adri C Voogd; Joost Nederend; Marieke W J Louwman; Dick Venderink; Luc J A Strobbe; Matthieu J C Rutten; Menno L Plaisier; Paul N Lohle; Marianne J H Hooijen; Vivianne C G Tjan-Heijnen; Lucien E M Duijm
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2017-05-05       Impact factor: 4.430

8.  Factors associated with false-positive mammography at first screen in an Asian population.

Authors:  Peh Joo Ho; Chek Mei Bok; Hanis Mariyah Mohd Ishak; Li Yan Lim; Jenny Liu; Fuh Yong Wong; Kee Seng Chia; Min-Han Tan; Wen Yee Chay; Mikael Hartman; Jingmei Li
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-03-11       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Rapid Access to Contrast-Enhanced spectral mammogRaphy in women recalled from breast cancer screening: the RACER trial study design.

Authors:  L M F H Neeter; I P L Houben; P J Nelemans; T J A Van Nijnatten; R M Pijnappel; C Frotscher; M Osinga-de Jong; F Sanders; T Van Dalen; H P J Raat; B A B Essers; J E Wildberger; M L Smidt; M B I Lobbes
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2019-12-23       Impact factor: 2.279

10.  Psychosocial Factors Associated With Withdrawal From the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening After 1 Episode of Repeat Screening.

Authors:  Valerie Jenkins; Lesley Fallowfield; Carolyn Langridge; Jessica Barrett; Andy Ryan; Ian Jacobs; Justine Kilkerr; Usha Menon; Vernon Farewell
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 3.437

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.