Literature DB >> 27187600

Is the false-positive rate in mammography in North America too high?

Michelle T Le1, Carmel E Mothersill1, Colin B Seymour1, Fiona E McNeill1.   

Abstract

The practice of investigating pathological abnormalities in the breasts of females who are asymptomatic is primarily employed using X-ray mammography. The importance of breast screening is reflected in the mortality-based benefits observed among females who are found to possess invasive breast carcinoma prior to the manifestation of clinical symptoms. It is estimated that population-based screening constitutes a 17% reduction in the breast cancer mortality rate among females affected by invasive breast carcinoma. In spite of the significant utility that screening confers in those affected by invasive cancer, limitations associated with screening manifest as potential harms affecting individuals who are free of invasive disease. Disease-free and benign tumour-bearing individuals who are subjected to diagnostic work-up following a screening examination constitute a population of cases referred to as false positives (FPs). This article discusses factors contributing to the FP rate in mammography and extends the discussion to an assessment of the consequences associated with FP reporting. We conclude that the mammography FP rate in North America is in excess based upon the observation of overtreatment of in situ lesions and the disproportionate distribution of detriment and benefit among the population of individuals recalled for diagnostic work-up subsequent to screening. To address the excessive incidence of FPs in mammography, we investigate solutions that may be employed to remediate the current status of the FP rate. Subsequently, it can be suggested that improvements in the breast-screening protocol, medical litigation risk, image interpretation software and the implementation of image acquisition modalities that overcome superimposition effects are promising solutions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27187600      PMCID: PMC5124917          DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20160045

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  137 in total

1.  NHS breast screening: the progression from one to two views.

Authors:  Juliette Patnick
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 2.136

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

Authors:  Anetta Bolejko; Peter Hagell; Christine Wann-Hansson; Sophia Zackrisson
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 4.254

3.  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

4.  Mammography interval and breast cancer mortality in women over the age of 75.

Authors:  Michael S Simon; Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller; Cynthia A Thomson; Roberta M Ray; F Allan Hubbell; Lawrence Lessin; Dorothy S Lane; Lew H Kuller
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2014-09-25       Impact factor: 4.872

5.  Impact of the new density reporting laws: radiologist perceptions and actual behavior.

Authors:  David Gur; Amy H Klym; Jill L King; Andriy I Bandos; Jules H Sumkin
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2015-03-30       Impact factor: 3.173

6.  Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-09-16       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Biennial versus annual mammography and the risk of late-stage breast cancer.

Authors:  Emily White; Diana L Miglioretti; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Berta M Geller; Robert D Rosenberg; Karla Kerlikowske; Laura Saba; Pamela M Vacek; Patricia A Carney; Diana S M Buist; Nina Oestreicher; William Barlow; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Stephen H Taplin
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2004-12-15       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Effects of radiotherapy and surgery in early breast cancer. An overview of the randomized trials.

Authors: 
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1995-11-30       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 9.  Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a systematic review of incidence, treatment, and outcomes.

Authors:  Beth A Virnig; Todd M Tuttle; Tatyana Shamliyan; Robert L Kane
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-01-13       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Population-based mammography screening below age 50: balancing radiation-induced vs prevented breast cancer deaths.

Authors:  R de Gelder; G Draisma; E A M Heijnsdijk; H J de Koning
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2011-03-01       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  13 in total

1.  Quality of the screening process: An overlooked critical factor and an essential component of shared decision making about screening.

Authors:  James A Dickinson; Roland Grad; Brenda J Wilson; Neil R Bell; Harminder Singh; Olga Szafran; Guylène Thériault
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 3.275

2. 

Authors:  James A Dickinson; Roland Grad; Brenda J Wilson; Neil R Bell; Harminder Singh; Olga Szafran; Guylène Thériault
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 3.275

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

4. 

Authors:  James A Dickinson; Nicholas Pimlott; Roland Grad; Harminder Singh; Olga Szafran; Brenda J Wilson; Stéphane Groulx; Guylène Thériault; Neil R Bell
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 3.275

5.  Screening: when things go wrong.

Authors:  James A Dickinson; Nicholas Pimlott; Roland Grad; Harminder Singh; Olga Szafran; Brenda J Wilson; Stéphane Groulx; Guylène Thériault; Neil R Bell
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 3.275

6.  Wherein the authors attempt to minimize the confusion generated by their study "Breast cancer mortality after a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ" by several commentators who disagree with them and a few who don't: a qualitative study.

Authors:  S A Narod; H Ahmed; V Sopik
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2017-08-31       Impact factor: 3.677

7.  Evaluation of the accuracy of mammography, ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in suspect breast lesions.

Authors:  Renato de Oliveira Pereira; Larissa Almondes da Luz; Diego Cipriano Chagas; Jefferson Rodrigues Amorim; Elmo de Jesus Nery-Júnior; Araci Castelo Branco Rodrigues Alves; Flávio Teixeira de Abreu-Neto; Maria da Conceição Barros Oliveira; Danylo Rafhael Costa Silva; José Maria Soares-Júnior; Benedito Borges da Silva
Journal:  Clinics (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2020-07-22       Impact factor: 2.365

Review 8.  Eye Movements in Medical Image Perception: A Selective Review of Past, Present and Future.

Authors:  Chia-Chien Wu; Jeremy M Wolfe
Journal:  Vision (Basel)       Date:  2019-06-20

9.  Importance of quality in breast cancer screening practice - a natural experiment in Alberta, Canada.

Authors:  Yan Yuan; Khanh Vu; Ye Shen; James Dickinson; Marcy Winget
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-01-06       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  Identifying normal mammograms in a large screening population using artificial intelligence.

Authors:  Kristina Lång; Magnus Dustler; Victor Dahlblom; Anna Åkesson; Ingvar Andersson; Sophia Zackrisson
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2020-09-02       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.