Literature DB >> 25476499

Toward the breast screening balance sheet: cumulative risk of false positives for annual versus biennial mammograms commencing at age 40 or 50.

Caleb J Winch1, Kerry A Sherman, John Boyages.   

Abstract

This study aimed to: (1) Estimate cumulative risk of recall from breast screening where no cancer is detected (a harm) in Australia; (2) Compare women screened annually versus biennially, commencing age 40 versus 50; and (3) Compare with international findings. At the no-cost metropolitan program studied, women attended biennial screening, but were offered annual screening if regarded at elevated risk for breast cancer. The cumulative risk of at least one recall was estimated using discrete-time survival analysis. Cancer detection statistics were computed. In total, 801,636 mammograms were undertaken in 231,824 women. Over 10 years, cumulative risk of recall was 13.3 % (95 % CI 12.7-13.8) for those screened biennially, and 19.9 % (CI 16.6-23.2) for those screened annually from age 50-51. Cumulative risk of complex false positive involving a biopsy was 3.1 % (CI 2.9-3.4) and 5.0 % (CI 3.4-6.6), respectively. From age 40-41, the risk of recall was 15.1 % (CI 14.3-16.0) and 22.5 % (CI 17.9-27.1) for biennial and annual screening, respectively. Corresponding rates of complex false positive were 3.3 % (CI 2.9-3.8) and 6.3 % (CI 3.4-9.1). Over 10 mammograms, invasive cancer was detected in 3.4 % (CI 3.3-3.5) and ductal carcinoma in situ in 0.7 % (CI 0.6-0.7) of women, with a non-significant trend toward a larger proportion of Tis and T1N0 cancers in women screened annually (74.5 %) versus biennially (70.1 %), χ (2) = 2.77, p = 0.10. Cancer detection was comparable to international findings. Recall risk was equal to European estimates for women screening from 50 and lower for screening from 40. Recall risk was half of United States' rates across start age and rescreening interval categories. Future benefit/harm balance sheets may be useful for communicating these findings to women.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25476499     DOI: 10.1007/s10549-014-3226-x

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


  6 in total

1.  The mammography debate, round two: science, smoke and mirrors.

Authors:  C Kaniklidis
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 3.677

2.  Combined Benefit of Quantitative Three-Compartment Breast Image Analysis and Mammography Radiomics in the Classification of Breast Masses in a Clinical Data Set.

Authors:  Karen Drukker; Maryellen L Giger; Bonnie N Joe; Karla Kerlikowske; Heather Greenwood; Jennifer S Drukteinis; Bethany Niell; Bo Fan; Serghei Malkov; Jesus Avila; Leila Kazemi; John Shepherd
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-12-11       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  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

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.  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

6.  Current Available Computer-Aided Detection Catches Cancer but Requires a Human Operator.

Authors:  Florentino Saenz Rios; Giri Movva; Hari Movva; Quan D Nguyen
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2020-12-19
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.