My von Euler-Chelpin1, Megumi Kuchiki2, Ilse Vejborg3. 1. Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, DK-1014 Copenhagen, Denmark. Electronic address: myeu@sund.ku.dk. 2. Department of Radiology, University Hospital of Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark. Electronic address: rqjps480@yahoo.co.jp. 3. Department of Radiology, University Hospital of Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark. Electronic address: Ilse.Vejborg@regionh.dk.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Studies have shown that women with a false-positive result from mammography screening have an excess risk for breast cancer compared with women who only have negative results. We aimed to assess the excess risk of cancer after a false-positive result excluding cases of misclassification, i.e. women who were actually false-negatives instead of false-positives. METHOD: We used data from the Copenhagen Mammography Screening Programme, Denmark. The study population was the 295 women, out of 4743 recalled women from a total of 58,003 participants, with a false-positive test during the screening period 1991-2005 and who later developed breast cancer. Cancers that developed in the same location as the finding that initially caused the recall was studied in-depth in order to establish whether there had been misclassification. RESULTS: Seventy-two cases were found to be misclassified. When the women with misclassified tests had been excluded, there was an excess risk of breast cancer of 27% (RR=1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-1.46) among the women with a false-positive test compared to women with only negative tests. Women with a false-positive test determined at assessment had an excess risk of 27%, while false-positives determined at surgery had an excess risk of 30%. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that the increased risk is not explained only by misclassification. The excess risk remains for false-positives determined at assessment as well as at surgery, which favours some biological susceptibility. Further research into the true excess risk of false positives is warranted.
INTRODUCTION: Studies have shown that women with a false-positive result from mammography screening have an excess risk for breast cancer compared with women who only have negative results. We aimed to assess the excess risk of cancer after a false-positive result excluding cases of misclassification, i.e. women who were actually false-negatives instead of false-positives. METHOD: We used data from the Copenhagen Mammography Screening Programme, Denmark. The study population was the 295 women, out of 4743 recalled women from a total of 58,003 participants, with a false-positive test during the screening period 1991-2005 and who later developed breast cancer. Cancers that developed in the same location as the finding that initially caused the recall was studied in-depth in order to establish whether there had been misclassification. RESULTS: Seventy-two cases were found to be misclassified. When the women with misclassified tests had been excluded, there was an excess risk of breast cancer of 27% (RR=1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-1.46) among the women with a false-positive test compared to women with only negative tests. Women with a false-positive test determined at assessment had an excess risk of 27%, while false-positives determined at surgery had an excess risk of 30%. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that the increased risk is not explained only by misclassification. The excess risk remains for false-positives determined at assessment as well as at surgery, which favours some biological susceptibility. Further research into the true excess risk of false positives is warranted.
Authors: Sylvia Heywang-Köbrunner; Alexander Jaensch; Astrid Hacker; Sabina Wulz-Horber; Thomas Mertelmeier; Dieter Hölzel Journal: Breast Care (Basel) Date: 2017-04-20 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Xavier Castells; Laia Domingo; Josep María Corominas; Isabel Torá-Rocamora; María Jesús Quintana; Marisa Baré; Carmen Vidal; Carmen Natal; Mar Sánchez; Francina Saladié; Joana Ferrer; Mar Vernet; Sonia Servitja; Ana Rodríguez-Arana; Marta Roman; Josep Alfons Espinàs; María Sala Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2014-12-13 Impact factor: 4.872
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