Literature DB >> 26756902

Factors Associated With Rates of False-Positive and False-Negative Results From Digital Mammography Screening: An Analysis of Registry Data.

Heidi D Nelson, Ellen S O'Meara, Karla Kerlikowske, Steven Balch, Diana Miglioretti.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Women screened with digital mammography may receive false-positive and false-negative results and subsequent imaging and biopsies. How these outcomes vary by age, time since the last screening, and individual risk factors is unclear.
OBJECTIVE: To determine factors associated with false-positive and false-negative digital mammography results, additional imaging, and biopsies among a general population of women screened for breast cancer.
DESIGN: Analysis of registry data.
SETTING: Participating facilities at 5 U.S. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium breast imaging registries with linkages to pathology databases and tumor registries. PATIENTS: 405,191 women aged 40 to 89 years screened with digital mammography between 2003 and 2011. A total of 2963 were diagnosed with invasive cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ within 12 months of screening. MEASUREMENTS: Rates of false-positive and false-negative results and recommendations for additional imaging and biopsies from a single screening round; comparisons by age, time since the last screening, and risk factors.
RESULTS: Rates of false-positive results (121.2 per 1000 women [95% CI, 105.6 to 138.7]) and recommendations for additional imaging (124.9 per 1000 women [CI, 109.3 to 142.3]) were highest among women aged 40 to 49 years and decreased with increasing age. Rates of false-negative results (1.0 to 1.5 per 1000 women) and recommendations for biopsy (15.6 to 17.5 per 1000 women) did not differ greatly by age. Results did not differ by time since the last screening. False-positive rates were higher for women with risk factors, particularly family history of breast cancer; previous benign breast biopsy result; high breast density; and, for younger women, low body mass index. LIMITATIONS: Confounding by variation in patient-level characteristics and outcomes across registries and regions may have been present. Some factors, such as numbers of first- and second-degree relatives with breast cancer and diagnoses associated with previous benign biopsy results, were not examined.
CONCLUSION: False-positive mammography results and additional imaging are common, particularly for younger women and those with risk factors, whereas biopsies occur less often. Rates of false-negative results are low. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and National Cancer Institute.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26756902      PMCID: PMC5091936          DOI: 10.7326/M15-0971

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  34 in total

1.  Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Rebecca A Hubbard; Diana L Miglioretti; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Constance D Lehman; Stephen H Taplin; Edward A Sickles
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: a cohort study.

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

3.  Modelling the cumulative risk of a false-positive screening test.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Diana L Miglioretti; Robert A Smith
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2010-03-31       Impact factor: 3.021

4.  Sensitivity and specificity of mammographic screening as practised in Vermont and Norway.

Authors:  S Hofvind; B M Geller; J Skelly; P M Vacek
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-09-19       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  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

6.  Dual effects of weight and weight gain on breast cancer risk.

Authors:  Z Huang; S E Hankinson; G A Colditz; M J Stampfer; D J Hunter; J E Manson; C H Hennekens; B Rosner; F E Speizer; W C Willett
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1997-11-05       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Comparative effectiveness of combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for women with dense breasts.

Authors:  Christoph I Lee; Mucahit Cevik; Oguzhan Alagoz; Brian L Sprague; Anna N A Tosteson; Diana L Miglioretti; Karla Kerlikowske; Natasha K Stout; Jeffrey G Jarvik; Scott D Ramsey; Constance D Lehman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-10-28       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Screening outcomes in older US women undergoing multiple mammograms in community practice: does interval, age, or comorbidity score affect tumor characteristics or false positive rates?

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

9.  Impact of mammography screening interval on breast cancer diagnosis by menopausal status and BMI.

Authors:  Kim Dittus; Berta Geller; Donald L Weaver; Karla Kerlikowske; Weiwei Zhu; Rebecca Hubbard; Dejana Braithwaite; Ellen S O'Meara; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2013-06-13       Impact factor: 5.128

10.  Using clinical factors and mammographic breast density to estimate breast cancer risk: development and validation of a new predictive model.

Authors:  Jeffrey A Tice; Steven R Cummings; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Laura Ichikawa; William E Barlow; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-03-04       Impact factor: 25.391

View more
  47 in total

Review 1.  Novel imaging approaches to screen for breast cancer: Recent advances and future prospects.

Authors:  Christopher L Vaughan
Journal:  Med Eng Phys       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 2.242

2.  The Complexity of Achieving the Promise of Precision Breast Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Jennifer S Haas
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2017-01-27       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Optimization of Image Quality and Dose in Digital Mammography.

Authors:  Agnes M F Fausto; M C Lopes; M C de Sousa; Tânia A C Furquim; Anderson W Mol; Fermin G Velasco
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 4.056

Review 4.  Benefits and harms of endoscopic screening for gastric cancer.

Authors:  Chisato Hamashima
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-07-28       Impact factor: 5.742

5.  External validation of AI algorithms in breast radiology: the last healthcare security checkpoint?

Authors:  Teodoro Martin-Noguerol; Antonio Luna
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2021-06

6.  Harms and Benefits of Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Bernt-Peter Robra
Journal:  Recent Results Cancer Res       Date:  2021

7.  Finite element modelling and validation for breast cancer detection using digital image elasto-tomography.

Authors:  Hina M Ismail; Chris G Pretty; Matthew K Signal; Marcus Haggers; J Geoffrey Chase
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2018-03-10       Impact factor: 2.602

8.  Breast cancer screening initiation after turning 40 years of age within the PROSPR consortium.

Authors:  Elisabeth F Beaber; Anna N A Tosteson; Jennifer S Haas; Tracy Onega; Brian L Sprague; Donald L Weaver; Anne Marie McCarthy; Chyke A Doubeni; Virginia P Quinn; Celette Sugg Skinner; Ann G Zauber; William E Barlow
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2016-09-24       Impact factor: 4.872

9.  Racial Differences in Quantitative Measures of Area and Volumetric Breast Density.

Authors:  Anne Marie McCarthy; Brad M Keller; Lauren M Pantalone; Meng-Kang Hsieh; Marie Synnestvedt; Emily F Conant; Katrina Armstrong; Despina Kontos
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2016-04-29       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 10.  Cancer Screening in Older Adults: Individualized Decision-Making and Communication Strategies.

Authors:  Ashwin A Kotwal; Louise C Walter
Journal:  Med Clin North Am       Date:  2020-09-16       Impact factor: 5.456

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.