Literature DB >> 26631292

Increased Risk of Developing Breast Cancer after a False-Positive Screening Mammogram.

Louise M Henderson1, Rebecca A Hubbard2, Brian L Sprague3, Weiwei Zhu4, Karla Kerlikowske5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Women with a history of a false-positive mammogram result may be at increased risk of developing subsequent breast cancer.
METHODS: Using 1994 to 2009 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium data, we included women ages 40 to 74 years with a screening mammogram that resulted in a false-positive with recommendation for additional imaging, false-positive with recommendation for biopsy, or true-negative with no cancer within one year following the examination. We used partly conditional Cox proportional hazards survival models to assess the association between a false-positive mammogram result and subsequent breast cancer, adjusting for potential confounders. Adjusted survival curves stratified by breast density and false-positive result were used to evaluate changes in risk over time.
RESULTS: During 12,022,560 person-years of follow-up, 48,735 cancers were diagnosed. Compared with women with a true-negative examination, women with a false-positive with additional imaging recommendation had increased risk of developing breast cancer [adjusted HR (aHR) = 1.39; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.35-1.44] as did women with a false-positive with a biopsy recommendation (aHR = 1.76; 95% CI,1.65-1.88). Results stratifying by breast density were similar to overall results except among women with almost entirely fatty breasts in which aHRs were similar for both the false-positive groups. Women with a false-positive result had persistently increased risk of developing breast cancer 10 years after the false-positive examination. CONCLUSION/IMPACT: Women with a history of a false-positive screening mammogram or biopsy recommendation were at increased risk of developing breast cancer for at least a decade, suggesting that prior false-positive screening may be useful in risk prediction models. ©2015 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26631292      PMCID: PMC4670607          DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0623

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


  16 in total

1.  Categorizing breast mammographic density: intra- and interobserver reproducibility of BI-RADS density categories.

Authors:  S Ciatto; N Houssami; A Apruzzese; E Bassetti; B Brancato; F Carozzi; S Catarzi; M P Lamberini; G Marcelli; R Pellizzoni; B Pesce; G Risso; F Russo; A Scorsolini
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 4.380

2.  Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database.

Authors:  R Ballard-Barbash; S H Taplin; B C Yankaskas; V L Ernster; R D Rosenberg; P A Carney; W E Barlow; B M Geller; K Kerlikowske; B K Edwards; C F Lynch; N Urban; C A Chrvala; C R Key; S P Poplack; J K Worden; L G Kessler
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 3.  False-positive results in mammographic screening for breast cancer in Europe: a literature review and survey of service screening programmes.

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

4.  Detection of breast cancer after biopsy for false-positive screening mammography. An increased risk?

Authors:  R P Groenendijk; M P Kochen; K C van Engelenburg; C Boetes; L J Strobbe; T J Ruers; T Wobbes
Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 4.424

5.  Partly conditional survival models for longitudinal data.

Authors:  Yingye Zheng; Patrick J Heagerty
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Reproducibility of BI-RADS breast density measures among community radiologists: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Mary C Spayne; Charlotte C Gard; Joan Skelly; Diana L Miglioretti; Pamela M Vacek; Berta M Geller
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2012-05-21       Impact factor: 2.431

7.  Benign breast disease, mammographic breast density, and the risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  Jeffrey A Tice; Ellen S O'Meara; Donald L Weaver; Celine Vachon; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2013-06-06       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Outcomes of screening mammography by frequency, breast density, and postmenopausal hormone therapy.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Weiwei Zhu; Rebecca A Hubbard; Berta Geller; Kim Dittus; Dejana Braithwaite; Karen J Wernli; Diana L Miglioretti; Ellen S O'Meara
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2013-05-13       Impact factor: 21.873

9.  Breast cancer risk for women with a false positive screening test.

Authors:  P H Peeters; M Mravunac; J H Hendriks; A L Verbeek; R Holland; P G Vooijs
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1988-08       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Impact of false-positive mammography on subsequent screening attendance and risk of cancer.

Authors:  Jenny McCann; Diane Stockton; Sara Godward
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2002-07-17       Impact factor: 6.466

View more
  9 in total

1.  Implications of false-positive results for future cancer screenings.

Authors:  Glen B Taksler; Nancy L Keating; Michael B Rothberg
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2018-04-23       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  A half-second glimpse often lets radiologists identify breast cancer cases even when viewing the mammogram of the opposite breast.

Authors:  Karla K Evans; Tamara Miner Haygood; Julie Cooper; Anne-Marie Culpan; Jeremy M Wolfe
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-08-29       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  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

4.  Breast cancer risk is increased in the years following false-positive breast cancer screening.

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

5.  Radiologists can detect the 'gist' of breast cancer before any overt signs of cancer appear.

Authors:  Patrick C Brennan; Ziba Gandomkar; Ernest U Ekpo; Kriscia Tapia; Phuong D Trieu; Sarah J Lewis; Jeremy M Wolfe; Karla K Evans
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-06-07       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Long-term risk of screen-detected and interval breast cancer after false-positive results at mammography screening: joint analysis of three national cohorts.

Authors:  Marta Román; Solveig Hofvind; My von Euler-Chelpin; Xavier Castells
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2018-12-19       Impact factor: 7.640

7.  Association of Microcalcification Clusters with Short-term Invasive Breast Cancer Risk and Breast Cancer Risk Factors.

Authors:  Maya Alsheh Ali; Kamila Czene; Per Hall; Keith Humphreys
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-10-10       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Extraordinary Claims Don't always Require Extraordinary Evidence, but They Do Require Good Quality Evidence.

Authors:  David Hawkes
Journal:  Asian Pac J Cancer Prev       Date:  2019-07-01

9.  Preliminary Results of a New Auxiliary Mechatronic Near-Field Radar System to 3D Mammography for Early Detection of Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Ashkan Ghanbarzadeh Dagheyan; Ali Molaei; Richard Obermeier; Andrew Westwood; Aida Martinez; Jose Angel Martinez Lorenzo
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2018-01-25       Impact factor: 3.576

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.