Literature DB >> 28183826

Impact of a False-Positive Screening Mammogram on Subsequent Screening Behavior and Stage at Breast Cancer Diagnosis.

Firas M Dabbous1, Therese A Dolecek2, Michael L Berbaum3, Sarah M Friedewald4, Wm Thomas Summerfelt5, Kent Hoskins6, Garth H Rauscher2.   

Abstract

Background: Experiencing a false positive (FP) screening mammogram is economically, physically, and emotionally burdensome, which may affect future screening behavior by delaying the next scheduled mammogram or by avoiding screening altogether. We sought to examine the impact of a FP screening mammogram on the subsequent screening mammography behavior.
Methods: Delay in obtaining subsequent screening was defined as any mammogram performed more than 12 months from index mammogram. The Kaplan-Meier (product limit) estimator and Cox proportional hazards model were used to estimate the unadjusted delay and the hazard ratio (HR) of delay of the subsequent screening mammogram within the next 36 months from the index mammogram date.
Results: A total of 650,232 true negative (TN) and 90,918 FP mammograms from 261,767 women were included. The likelihood of a subsequent mammogram was higher in women experiencing a TN result than women experiencing a FP result (85.0% vs. 77.9%, P < 0.001). The median delay in returning to screening was higher for FP versus TN (13 months vs. 3 months, P < 0.001). Women with TN result were 36% more likely to return to screening in the next 36 months compared with women with a FP result HR = 1.36 (95% CI, 1.35-1.37). Experiencing a FP mammogram increases the risk of late stage at diagnosis compared with prior TN mammogram (P < 0.001).Conclusions: Women with a FP mammogram were more likely to delay their subsequent screening compared with women with a TN mammogram.Impact: A prior FP experience may subsequently increase the 4-year cumulative risk of late stage at diagnosis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(3); 397-403. ©2017 AACR. ©2017 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28183826      PMCID: PMC5336525          DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-16-0524

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


  27 in total

1.  The benefits and harms of mammography screening: understanding the trade-offs.

Authors:  Steven Woloshin; Lisa M Schwartz
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2010-01-13       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Effect of false-positive mammograms on interval breast cancer screening in a health maintenance organization.

Authors:  M L Burman; S H Taplin; D F Herta; J G Elmore
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1999-07-06       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Cost of breast-related care in the year following false positive screening mammograms.

Authors:  Jessica Chubak; Denise M Boudreau; Paul A Fishman; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  The impact of abnormal mammograms on psychosocial outcomes and subsequent screening.

Authors:  I M Lipkus; S Halabi; T S Strigo; B K Rimer
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2000 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.894

5.  The Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program: re-attendance related to the women's experiences, intentions and previous screening result.

Authors:  Solveig S H Hofvind; Hege Wang; Steinar Thoresen
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 2.506

6.  False-positive result and reattendance in the Ontario Breast Screening Program.

Authors:  A M Chiarelli; V Moravan; E Halapy; V Majpruz; V Mai; R K Tatla
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.136

7.  Screening behavior of women after a false-positive mammogram.

Authors:  E D Pisano; J Earp; M Schell; K Vokaty; A Denham
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Long-term psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening mammography.

Authors:  John Brodersen; Volkert Dirk Siersma
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2013 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.166

9.  Estimating the accuracy of screening mammography: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  A I Mushlin; R W Kouides; D E Shapiro
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 5.043

Review 10.  Screening for breast cancer with mammography.

Authors:  Peter C Gøtzsche; Karsten Juhl Jørgensen
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-06-04
View more
  12 in total

1.  Harms and Benefits of Cancer Screening.

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

2.  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

3.  Personalized Screening for Breast Cancer: Rationale, Present Practices, and Future Directions.

Authors:  Tanir M Allweis; Naama Hermann; Rinat Berenstein-Molho; Michal Guindy
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-01-04       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 4.  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

5.  Use of Breast Cancer Screening and Its Association with Later Use of Preventive Services among Medicare Beneficiaries.

Authors:  Stella K Kang; Miao Jiang; Richard Duszak; Samantha L Heller; Danny R Hughes; Linda Moy
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-06-05       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Navigating Breast Cancer Screening in Rural Missouri: From Patient Navigation to Social Navigation.

Authors:  Jean Hunleth; Emily Steinmetz
Journal:  Med Anthropol       Date:  2022-01-20

Review 7.  The WISDOM Study: breaking the deadlock in the breast cancer screening debate.

Authors:  Laura J Esserman
Journal:  NPJ Breast Cancer       Date:  2017-09-13

8.  Not all false positive diagnoses are equal: On the prognostic implications of false-positive diagnoses made in breast MRI versus in mammography / digital tomosynthesis screening.

Authors:  Christiane K Kuhl; Annika Keulers; Kevin Strobel; Hannah Schneider; Nadine Gaisa; Simone Schrading
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2018-02-09       Impact factor: 6.466

9.  The "Sweet Spot" Revisited: Optimal Recall Rates for Cancer Detection With 2D and 3D Digital Screening Mammography in the Metro Chicago Breast Cancer Registry.

Authors:  Garth H Rauscher; Anne Marie Murphy; Qiong Qiu; Therese A Dolecek; Katherine Tossas; Yanyang Liu; Nila H Alsheik
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2021-02-10       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Breast cancer supplemental screening: Women's knowledge and utilization in the era of dense breast legislation.

Authors:  Jenerius A Aminawung; Jessica R Hoag; Kelly A Kyanko; Xiao Xu; Ilana B Richman; Susan H Busch; Cary P Gross
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2020-06-14       Impact factor: 4.452

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.