Katja Kemp Jacobsen1, Linn Abraham2, Diana S M Buist2, Rebecca A Hubbard3, Ellen S O'Meara2, Brian L Sprague4, Karla Kerlikowske5, Ilse Vejborg6, My Von Euler-Chelpin7, Sisse Helle Njor7. 1. Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen K, Denmark. Electronic address: kkja@sund.ku.dk. 2. Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, United States. 3. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States. 4. Department of Surgery, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, United States. 5. Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, CA, United States; General Internal Medicine Section, Department of Veterans Affairs, University of California, San Francisco, CA, United States. 6. Center of Diagnostic Imaging, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Denmark. 7. Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen K, Denmark.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In the United States (US), about one-half of women screened with annual mammography have at least one false-positive test after ten screens. The estimate for European women screened ten times biennially is much lower. We evaluate to what extent screening interval, mammogram type, and statistical methods, can explain the reported differences. METHODS: We included all screens from women first screened at age 50-69 years in the US Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) (n=99,455) between 1996-2010, and from two population-based mammography screening programs in Denmark (n=230,452 and n=400,204), between 1991-2012 and 1993-2013, respectively. Model-based cumulative false-positive risks were computed for the entire sample, using two statistical methods (Hubbard Njor) previously used to estimate false-positive risks in the US and Europe. RESULTS: Empirical cumulative risk of at least one false-positive test after eight (annual or biennial) screens was 41.9% in BCSC, 16.1% in Copenhagen, and 7.4% in Funen. Variation in screening interval and mammogram type did not explain the differences by country. Using the Hubbard method, the model-based cumulative risks after eight screens was 45.1% in BCSC, 9.6% in Copenhagen, and 8.8% in Funen. Using the Njor method, these risks were estimated to be 43.6, 10.9 and 8.0%. CONCLUSION: Choice of statistical method, screening interval and mammogram type does not explain the substantial differences in cumulative false-positive risk between the US and Europe.
INTRODUCTION: In the United States (US), about one-half of women screened with annual mammography have at least one false-positive test after ten screens. The estimate for European women screened ten times biennially is much lower. We evaluate to what extent screening interval, mammogram type, and statistical methods, can explain the reported differences. METHODS: We included all screens from women first screened at age 50-69 years in the US Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) (n=99,455) between 1996-2010, and from two population-based mammography screening programs in Denmark (n=230,452 and n=400,204), between 1991-2012 and 1993-2013, respectively. Model-based cumulative false-positive risks were computed for the entire sample, using two statistical methods (Hubbard Njor) previously used to estimate false-positive risks in the US and Europe. RESULTS: Empirical cumulative risk of at least one false-positive test after eight (annual or biennial) screens was 41.9% in BCSC, 16.1% in Copenhagen, and 7.4% in Funen. Variation in screening interval and mammogram type did not explain the differences by country. Using the Hubbard method, the model-based cumulative risks after eight screens was 45.1% in BCSC, 9.6% in Copenhagen, and 8.8% in Funen. Using the Njor method, these risks were estimated to be 43.6, 10.9 and 8.0%. CONCLUSION: Choice of statistical method, screening interval and mammogram type does not explain the substantial differences in cumulative false-positive risk between the US and Europe.
Authors: Rebecca A Hubbard; Karla Kerlikowske; Chris I Flowers; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Weiwei Zhu; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Karen Blanchard; James A Colbert; Daniel B Kopans; Richard Moore; Elkan F Halpern; Kevin S Hughes; Barbara L Smith; Kenneth K Tanabe; James S Michaelson Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Solveig Hofvind; Antonio Ponti; Julietta Patnick; Nieves Ascunce; Sisse Njor; Mireille Broeders; Livia Giordano; Alfonso Frigerio; Sven Törnberg; G Van Hal; P Martens; O Májek; J Danes; M von Euler-Chelpin; A Aasmaa; A Anttila; N Becker; Z Péntek; A Budai; S Mádai; P Fitzpatrick; T Mooney; M Zappa; L Ventura; A Scharpantgen; S Hofvind; P Seroczynski; A Morais; V Rodrigues; M J Bento; J Gomes de Carvalho; C Natal; M Prieto; C Sánchez-Contador Escudero; R Zubizarreta Alberti; S B Fernández Llanes; N Ascunce; M Ederra Sanza; G Sarriugarte Irigoien; D Salas Trejo; J Ibáñez Cabanell; M Wiege; G Ohlsson; S Törnberg; M Korzeniewska; C de Wolf; J Fracheboud; J Patnick; L Lancucki; S Ducarroz; E Suonio Journal: J Med Screen Date: 2012 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: Dejana Braithwaite; Weiwei Zhu; Rebecca A Hubbard; Ellen S O'Meara; Diana L Miglioretti; Berta Geller; Kim Dittus; Dan Moore; Karen J Wernli; Jeanne Mandelblatt; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2013-02-05 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Heidi D Nelson; Ellen S O'Meara; Karla Kerlikowske; Steven Balch; Diana Miglioretti Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Diana L Miglioretti; Jane Lange; Jeroen J van den Broek; Christoph I Lee; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Dominique Ritley; Karla Kerlikowske; Joshua J Fenton; Joy Melnikow; Harry J de Koning; Rebecca A Hubbard Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Elsebeth Lynge; Martin Bak; My von Euler-Chelpin; Niels Kroman; Anders Lernevall; Nikolaj Borg Mogensen; Walter Schwartz; Adam Jan Wronecki; Ilse Vejborg Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2017-12-28 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Francesco Sardanelli; Hildegunn S Aase; Marina Álvarez; Edward Azavedo; Henk J Baarslag; Corinne Balleyguier; Pascal A Baltzer; Vanesa Beslagic; Ulrich Bick; Dragana Bogdanovic-Stojanovic; Ruta Briediene; Boris Brkljacic; Julia Camps Herrero; Catherine Colin; Eleanor Cornford; Jan Danes; Gérard de Geer; Gul Esen; Andrew Evans; Michael H Fuchsjaeger; Fiona J Gilbert; Oswald Graf; Gormlaith Hargaden; Thomas H Helbich; Sylvia H Heywang-Köbrunner; Valentin Ivanov; Ásbjörn Jónsson; Christiane K Kuhl; Eugenia C Lisencu; Elzbieta Luczynska; Ritse M Mann; Jose C Marques; Laura Martincich; Margarete Mortier; Markus Müller-Schimpfle; Katalin Ormandi; Pietro Panizza; Federica Pediconi; Ruud M Pijnappel; Katja Pinker; Tarja Rissanen; Natalia Rotaru; Gianni Saguatti; Tamar Sella; Jana Slobodníková; Maret Talk; Patrice Taourel; Rubina M Trimboli; Ilse Vejborg; Athina Vourtsis; Gabor Forrai Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-11-02 Impact factor: 5.315