Literature DB >> 29239711

Interval Breast Cancer Rates and Histopathologic Tumor Characteristics after False-Positive Findings at Mammography in a Population-based Screening Program.

Solveig Hofvind1, Silje Sagstad1, Sofie Sebuødegård1, Ying Chen1, Marta Roman1, Christoph I Lee1.   

Abstract

Purpose To compare rates and tumor characteristics of interval breast cancers (IBCs) detected after a negative versus false-positive screening among women participating in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. Materials and Methods The Cancer Registry Regulation approved this retrospective study. Information about 423 445 women aged 49-71 years who underwent 789 481 full-field digital mammographic screening examinations during 2004-2012 was extracted from the Cancer Registry of Norway. Rates and odds ratios of IBC among women with a negative (the reference group) versus a false-positive screening were estimated by using logistic regression models adjusted for age at diagnosis and county of residence. Results A total of 1302 IBCs were diagnosed after 789 481 screening examinations, of which 7.0% (91 of 1302) were detected among women with a false-positive screening as the most recent breast imaging examination before detection. By using negative screening as the reference, adjusted odds ratios of IBCs were 3.3 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.6, 4.2) and 2.8 (95% CI: 1.8, 4.4) for women with a false-positive screening without and with needle biopsy, respectively. Women with a previous negative screening had a significantly lower proportion of tumors that were 10 mm or less (14.3% [150 of 1049] vs 50.0% [seven of 14], respectively; P < .01) and grade I tumors (13.2% [147 of 1114] vs 42.9% [six of 14]; P < .01), but a higher proportion of cases with lymph nodes positive for cancer (40.9% [442 of 1080] vs 13.3% [two of 15], respectively; P = .03) compared with women with a previous false-positive screening with benign biopsy. A retrospective review of the screening mammographic examinations identified 42.9% (39 of 91) of the false-positive cases to be the same lesion as the IBC. Conclusion By using a negative screening as the reference, a false-positive screening examination increased the risk of an IBC three-fold. The tumor characteristics of IBC after a negative screening were less favorable compared with those detected after a previous false-positive screening. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29239711     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017162159

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  7 in total

1.  Impact of New Technology Adoption on Breast Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Christoph I Lee; Janie M Lee
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-12-11       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Artificial Intelligence Evaluation of 122 969 Mammography Examinations from a Population-based Screening Program.

Authors:  Marthe Larsen; Camilla F Aglen; Christoph I Lee; Solveig R Hoff; Håkon Lund-Hanssen; Kristina Lång; Jan F Nygård; Giske Ursin; Solveig Hofvind
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2022-03-29       Impact factor: 29.146

3.  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

4.  Personalized breast cancer screening strategies: A systematic review and quality assessment.

Authors:  Marta Román; Maria Sala; Laia Domingo; Margarita Posso; Javier Louro; Xavier Castells
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-12-16       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Interval breast cancer is associated with other types of tumors.

Authors:  Felix Grassmann; Wei He; Mikael Eriksson; Marike Gabrielson; Per Hall; Kamila Czene
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2019-10-22       Impact factor: 14.919

6.  Screen-detected and interval breast cancer after concordant and discordant interpretations in a population based screening program using independent double reading.

Authors:  Marit A Martiniussen; Silje Sagstad; Marthe Larsen; Anne Sofie F Larsen; Tone Hovda; Christoph I Lee; Solveig Hofvind
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2022-04-02       Impact factor: 7.034

7.  Effectiveness of Organized Mammography Screening for Different Breast Cancer Molecular Subtypes.

Authors:  Lilu Ding; Marcel J W Greuter; Inge Truyen; Mathijs Goossens; Bert Van der Vegt; Harlinde De Schutter; Guido Van Hal; Geertruida H de Bock
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-10-03       Impact factor: 6.575

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.