Literature DB >> 26311562

Prevalence, Long-term Development, and Predictors of Psychosocial Consequences of False-Positive Mammography among Women Attending Population-Based Screening.

Anetta Bolejko1, Peter Hagell2, Christine Wann-Hansson3, Sophia Zackrisson4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cancer screening aims to detect cancer at an asymptomatic stage, although side effects from screening also occur. We investigated the prevalence, longitudinal development, and predictors of psychosocial consequences of false-positive breast cancer screening.
METHODS: Three hundred ninety-nine women with false-positive screening mammography responded to the Consequences of Screening-Breast Cancer (COS-BC) questionnaire immediately after a negative diagnosis (free from breast cancer) following recall examination(s) (baseline), and 6 and 12 months later. Age-matched controls (n = 499) with a negative mammogram responded to the COS-BC at the same occasions. Five COS-BC scales (Sense of dejection, Anxiety, Behavioral, Sleep, and Existential values) were used as outcome measures.
RESULTS: Women with false-positive mammography had consistently higher prevalence of all five consequences compared with controls (P < 0.001). The prevalences decreased between baseline and 6 months (P < 0.001) but were stable between 6 and 12 months (P ≥ 0.136). Early recall profoundly predicted long-term consequences for all five outcomes (OR, 3.05-10.31), along with dissatisfaction with information at recall (OR, 2.28-2.56), being foreign-born (OR, 2.35-3.71), and lack of social support (OR, 1.13-1.25).
CONCLUSION: This 1-year longitudinal study shows that women experience psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening mammography. Early recall should be performed cautiously, and provision of information as well as social support may reduce psychosocial consequences. IMPACT: Although delivery of population-based screening reduces breast cancer mortality, it also raises the issue of its impact on the psychosocial well-being of healthy women. Our findings identify predictors that can be targeted in future efforts to reduce the side effects of mammographic screening. ©2015 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26311562     DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0060

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  9 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Factors Associated with False Positive Results on Screening Mammography in a Population of Predominantly Hispanic Women.

Authors:  Julia E McGuinness; William Ueng; Meghna S Trivedi; Hae Seung Yi; Raven David; Alejandro Vanegas; Jennifer Vargas; Rossy Sandoval; Rita Kukafka; Katherine D Crew
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2018-01-30       Impact factor: 4.254

3.  False-positive screening events and worry influence decisions about surgery among high-risk women.

Authors:  M Robyn Andersen; Beth Y Karlan; Charles W Drescher; Pamela Paley; Sarah Hawley; Melanie Palomares; Mary B Daly; Nicole Urban
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2018-11-15       Impact factor: 5.556

4.  Breast cancer risk, worry, and anxiety: Effect on patient perceptions of false-positive screening results.

Authors:  Janie M Lee; Kathryn P Lowry; Jessica E Cott Chubiz; J Shannon Swan; Tina Motazedi; Elkan F Halpern; Anna N A Tosteson; G Scott Gazelle; Karen Donelan
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2020-02-13       Impact factor: 4.380

5.  The Challenges of Screening Mammography in Racial/Ethnic Minority Populations in the United States: A mini-review and observations from a predominantly Hispanic community.

Authors:  Julia E McGuinness; Katherine D Crew
Journal:  J Cancer Treatment Diagn       Date:  2018-04-05

6.  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

7.  Systematic review on women's values and preferences concerning breast cancer screening and diagnostic services.

Authors:  Alexander G Mathioudakis; Minna Salakari; Liisa Pylkkanen; Zuleika Saz-Parkinson; Anke Bramesfeld; Silvia Deandrea; Donata Lerda; Luciana Neamtiu; Hector Pardo-Hernandez; Ivan Solà; Pablo Alonso-Coello
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2019-03-24       Impact factor: 3.894

8.  Breast cancer survivors' risk of interval cancers and false positive results in organized mammography screening.

Authors:  Sisse Helle Njor; Ilse Vejborg; Mette Bach Larsen
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2020-06-30       Impact factor: 4.452

9.  False positives in breast cancer screening with one-view breast tomosynthesis: An analysis of findings leading to recall, work-up and biopsy rates in the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial.

Authors:  Kristina Lång; Matilda Nergården; Ingvar Andersson; Aldana Rosso; Sophia Zackrisson
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-03-04       Impact factor: 5.315

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.