Literature DB >> 24756610

Consequences of false-positive screening mammograms.

Anna N A Tosteson1, Dennis G Fryback2, Cristina S Hammond1, Lucy G Hanna3, Margaret R Grove1, Mary Brown4, Qianfei Wang1, Karen Lindfors5, Etta D Pisano6.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: False-positive mammograms, a common occurrence in breast cancer screening programs, represent a potential screening harm that is currently being evaluated by the US Preventive Services Task Force.
OBJECTIVE: To measure the effect of false-positive mammograms on quality of life by measuring personal anxiety, health utility, and attitudes toward future screening. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) quality-of-life substudy telephone survey was performed shortly after screening and 1 year later at 22 DMIST sites and included randomly selected DMIST participants with positive and negative mammograms. EXPOSURE: Mammogram requiring follow-up testing or referral without a cancer diagnosis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The 6-question short form of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory state scale (STAI-6) and the EuroQol EQ-5D instrument with US scoring. Attitudes toward future screening as measured by women's self-report of future intention to undergo mammographic screening and willingness to travel and stay overnight to undergo a hypothetical new type of mammography that would identify as many cancers with half the false-positive results.
RESULTS: Among 1450 eligible women invited to participate, 1226 (84.6%) were enrolled, with follow-up interviews obtained in 1028 (83.8%). Anxiety was significantly higher for women with false-positive mammograms (STAI-6, 35.2 vs 32.7), but health utility scores did not differ and there were no significant differences between groups at 1 year. Future screening intentions differed by group (25.7% vs 14.2% more likely in false-positive vs negative groups); willingness to travel and stay overnight did not (9.9% vs 10.5% in false-positive vs negative groups). Future screening intention was significantly increased among women with false-positive mammograms (odds ratio, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.54-2.93), younger age (2.78; 1.5-5.0), and poorer health (1.63; 1.09-2.43). Women's anticipated high-level anxiety regarding future false-positive mammograms was associated with willingness to travel overnight (odds ratio, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.28-2.95). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: False-positive mammograms were associated with increased short-term anxiety but not long-term anxiety, and there was no measurable health utility decrement. False-positive mammograms increased women's intention to undergo future breast cancer screening and did not increase their stated willingness to travel to avoid a false-positive result. Our finding of time-limited harm after false-positive screening mammograms is relevant for clinicians who counsel women on mammographic screening and for screening guideline development groups.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24756610      PMCID: PMC4071565          DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.981

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Intern Med        ISSN: 2168-6106            Impact factor:   21.873


  34 in total

1.  False-positive findings in mammography screening induces short-term distress - breast cancer-specific concern prevails longer.

Authors:  A R Aro; S Pilvikki Absetz; T M van Elderen; E van der Ploeg; L J van der Kamp
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 9.162

Review 2.  Successful methods to reduce false-positive mammography interpretations.

Authors:  E A Sickles
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 2.303

3.  A time-tradeoff method for cost-effectiveness models applied to radiology.

Authors:  J S Swan; D G Fryback; W F Lawrence; F Sainfort; M E Hagenauer; D M Heisey
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2000 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.583

4.  US women's attitudes to false positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: cross sectional survey.

Authors:  L M Schwartz; S Woloshin; H C Sox; B Fischhoff; H G Welch
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-06-17

5.  Increased patient concern after false-positive mammograms: clinician documentation and subsequent ambulatory visits.

Authors:  M B Barton; S Moore; S Polk; E Shtatland; J G Elmore; S W Fletcher
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 6.  Systematic review of the psychological consequences of false-positive screening mammograms.

Authors:  M Bond; T Pavey; K Welch; C Cooper; R Garside; S Dean; C Hyde
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 4.014

7.  Women who are recalled for further investigation for breast screening: psychological consequences 3 years after recall and factors affecting re-attendance.

Authors:  J Brett; J Austoker
Journal:  J Public Health Med       Date:  2001-12

8.  Predicting the cumulative risk of false-positive mammograms.

Authors:  C L Christiansen; F Wang; M B Barton; W Kreuter; J G Elmore; A E Gelfand; S W Fletcher
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2000-10-18       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography in patients with dense breasts who underwent problem-solving mammography: effects of image processing and lesion type.

Authors:  Elodia B Cole; Etta D Pisano; Emily O Kistner; Keith E Muller; Marylee E Brown; Stephen A Feig; Roberta A Jong; Andrew D A Maidment; Melinda J Staiger; Cherie M Kuzmiak; Rita I Freimanis; Nadine Lesko; Eric L Rosen; Ruth Walsh; Margaret Williford; M Patricia Braeuning
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer.

Authors:  John M Lewin; Carl J D'Orsi; R Edward Hendrick; Lawrence J Moss; Pamela K Isaacs; Andrew Karellas; Gary R Cutter
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 3.959

View more
  44 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.  Organization Communication Factors and Abnormal Mammogram Follow-up: a Qualitative Study Among Ethnically Diverse Women Across Three Healthcare Systems.

Authors:  Jazmine D Kenny; Leah S Karliner; Karla Kerlikowske; Celia P Kaplan; Ana Fernandez-Lamothe; Nancy J Burke
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2020-06-29       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Fragility, uncertainty, and healthcare.

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

Review 4.  Imaging-based screening: maximizing benefits and minimizing harms.

Authors:  Jessica C Germino; Joann G Elmore; Ruth C Carlos; Christoph I Lee
Journal:  Clin Imaging       Date:  2015-06-12       Impact factor: 1.605

5.  Effect of Screening Mammography on Other Preventive Services in Older Women.

Authors:  Gary J Whitman; Scott B Cantor
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-06-05       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Can digital breast tomosynthesis perform better than standard digital mammography work-up in breast cancer assessment clinic?

Authors:  S Mall; J Noakes; M Kossoff; W Lee; M McKessar; A Goy; J Duncombe; M Roberts; B Giuffre; A Miller; N Bhola; C Kapoor; C Shearman; G DaCosta; S Choi; J Sterba; M Kay; K Bruderlin; N Winarta; K Donohue; B Macdonell-Scott; F Klijnsma; K Suzuki; P Brennan; C Mello-Thoms
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-05-30       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Automatic classification of ultrasound breast lesions using a deep convolutional neural network mimicking human decision-making.

Authors:  Alexander Ciritsis; Cristina Rossi; Matthias Eberhard; Magda Marcon; Anton S Becker; Andreas Boss
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-03-29       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Communication Practices of Mammography Facilities and Timely Follow-up of a Screening Mammogram with a BI-RADS 0 Assessment.

Authors:  Marilyn M Schapira; William E Barlow; Emily F Conant; Brian L Sprague; Anna N A Tosteson; Jennifer S Haas; Tracy Onega; Elisabeth F Beaber; Martha Goodrich; Anne Marie McCarthy; Sally D Herschorn; Celette Sugg Skinner; Tory O Harrington; Berta Geller
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2018-02-09       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 9.  Psychological distress associated with cancer screening: A systematic review.

Authors:  Emma Chad-Friedman; Sarah Coleman; Lara N Traeger; William F Pirl; Roberta Goldman; Steven J Atlas; Elyse R Park
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2017-08-22       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  Benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts.

Authors:  Brian L Sprague; Natasha K Stout; Clyde Schechter; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Mucahit Cevik; Oguzhan Alagoz; Christoph I Lee; Jeroen J van den Broek; Diana L Miglioretti; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Harry J de Koning; Karla Kerlikowske; Constance D Lehman; Anna N A Tosteson
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2015-02-03       Impact factor: 25.391

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.