Literature DB >> 29382701

Factors Associated with False Positive Results on Screening Mammography in a Population of Predominantly Hispanic Women.

Julia E McGuinness1, William Ueng2, Meghna S Trivedi1,3, Hae Seung Yi4, Raven David5, Alejandro Vanegas1,3, Jennifer Vargas1,3, Rossy Sandoval3, Rita Kukafka5,6, Katherine D Crew7,2,3.   

Abstract

Background: Potential harms of screening mammography include false positive results, such as recall breast imaging or biopsies.
Methods: We recruited women undergoing screening mammography at Columbia University Medical Center in New York, New York. They completed a questionnaire on breast cancer risk factors and permitted access to their medical records. Breast cancer risk status was determined using the Gail model and a family history screener. High risk was defined as a 5-year invasive breast cancer risk of ≥1.67% or eligible for BRCA genetic testing. False positive results were defined as recall breast imaging (BIRADS score of 0, 3, 4, or 5) and/or biopsies that did not yield breast cancer.
Results: From November 2014 to October 2015, 2,361 women were enrolled and 2,019 were evaluable, of whom 76% were Hispanic and 10% non-Hispanic white. Fewer Hispanic women met high-risk criteria for breast cancer than non-Hispanic whites (18.0% vs. 68.1%), but Hispanics more frequently engaged in annual screening (71.9% vs. 60.8%). Higher breast density (heterogeneously/extremely dense vs. mostly fat/scattered fibroglandular densities) and more frequent screening (annual vs. biennial) were significantly associated with false positive results [odds ratio (OR), 1.64; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.32-2.04 and OR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.70-2.80, respectively].Conclusions: We observed that women who screened more frequently or had higher breast density were at greater risk for false positive results. In addition, Hispanic women were screening more frequently despite having a lower risk of breast cancer compared with whites.Impact: Our results highlight the need for risk-stratified screening to potentially minimize the harms of screening mammography. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 27(4); 446-53. ©2018 AACR. ©2018 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29382701      PMCID: PMC5884721          DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-17-0009

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


  30 in total

1.  Perceptions of the screening mammography experience by Hispanic and non-Hispanic White women.

Authors:  Kimberly K Engelman; Amy M Cizik; Edward F Ellerbeck; Veronica F Rempusheski
Journal:  Womens Health Issues       Date:  2012-06-01

2.  Collaborative Modeling of the Benefits and Harms Associated With Different U.S. Breast Cancer Screening Strategies.

Authors:  Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Natasha K Stout; Clyde B Schechter; Jeroen J van den Broek; Diana L Miglioretti; Martin Krapcho; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Diego Munoz; Sandra J Lee; Donald A Berry; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Oguzhan Alagoz; Karla Kerlikowske; Anna N A Tosteson; Aimee M Near; Amanda Hoeffken; Yaojen Chang; Eveline A Heijnsdijk; Gary Chisholm; Xuelin Huang; Hui Huang; Mehmet Ali Ergun; Ronald Gangnon; Brian L Sprague; Sylvia Plevritis; Eric Feuer; Harry J de Koning; Kathleen A Cronin
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  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

4.  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

5.  Multi-level Intervention to increase participation in mammography screening: ¡Fortaleza Latina! study design.

Authors:  Gloria D Coronado; Ricardo Jimenez; Javiera Martinez-Gutierrez; Dale McLerran; India Ornelas; Donald Patrick; Robert Gutierrez; Sonia Bishop; Shirley A A Beresford
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2014-06-18       Impact factor: 2.226

6.  Effect of age and breast density on screening mammograms with false-positive findings.

Authors:  C D Lehman; E White; S Peacock; M J Drucker; N Urban
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations.

Authors:  J G Elmore; M B Barton; V M Moceri; S Polk; P J Arena; S W Fletcher
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1998-04-16       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Predicting the cumulative risk of false-positive mammograms.

Authors:  C L Christiansen; F Wang; M B Barton; W Kreuter; J G Elmore; A E Gelfand; S W Fletcher
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2000-10-18       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  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

10.  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

View more
  12 in total

1.  Mental Illness and BRCA1/2 Genetic Testing Intention Among Multiethnic Women Undergoing Screening Mammography.

Authors:  Tarsha Jones; Katherine Freeman; Marra Ackerman; Meghna S Trivedi; Thomas Silverman; Peter Shapiro; Rita Kukafka; Katherine D Crew
Journal:  Oncol Nurs Forum       Date:  2020-01-01       Impact factor: 2.172

2.  Uptake of genetic testing for germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants in a predominantly Hispanic population.

Authors:  Julia E McGuinness; Meghna S Trivedi; Thomas Silverman; Awilda Marte; Jennie Mata; Rita Kukafka; Katherine D Crew
Journal:  Cancer Genet       Date:  2019-04-24

3.  Identifying Women at High Risk for Breast Cancer Using Data From the Electronic Health Record Compared With Self-Report.

Authors:  Xinyi Jiang; Julia E McGuinness; Margaret Sin; Thomas Silverman; Rita Kukafka; Katherine D Crew
Journal:  JCO Clin Cancer Inform       Date:  2019-03

4.  Patient and Provider Web-Based Decision Support for Breast Cancer Chemoprevention: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Katherine D Crew; Gauri Bhatkhande; Thomas Silverman; Jacquelyn Amenta; Tarsha Jones; Julia E McGuinness; Jennie Mata; Ashlee Guzman; Ting He; Jill Dimond; Wei-Yann Tsai; Rita Kukafka
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2022-10-04

5.  Prevalence and correlates of false-positive results after 3-D screening mammography among uninsured women in a community outreach program.

Authors:  Rasmi G Nair; Simon J Craddock Lee; Hong Zhu; Firouzeh K Arjmandi; Emily Berry; Keith E Argenbright; Jasmin A Tiro; Celette Sugg Skinner
Journal:  Prev Med Rep       Date:  2022-04-05

6.  Strategies to Identify and Recruit Women at High Risk for Breast Cancer to a Randomized Controlled Trial of Web-based Decision Support Tools.

Authors:  Julia E McGuinness; Gauri Bhatkhande; Jacquelyn Amenta; Thomas Silverman; Jennie Mata; Ashlee Guzman; Ting He; Jill Dimond; Tarsha Jones; Rita Kukafka; Katherine D Crew
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2022-06-02

7.  Pilot study of decision support tools on breast cancer chemoprevention for high-risk women and healthcare providers in the primary care setting.

Authors:  Rita Kukafka; Jiaqi Fang; Alejandro Vanegas; Thomas Silverman; Katherine D Crew
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2018-12-17       Impact factor: 2.796

8.  The Challenges of Screening Mammography in Racial/Ethnic Minority Populations in the United States: A mini-review and observations from a predominantly Hispanic community.

Authors:  Julia E McGuinness; Katherine D Crew
Journal:  J Cancer Treatment Diagn       Date:  2018-04-05

9.  Factors associated with false-positive mammography at first screen in an Asian population.

Authors:  Peh Joo Ho; Chek Mei Bok; Hanis Mariyah Mohd Ishak; Li Yan Lim; Jenny Liu; Fuh Yong Wong; Kee Seng Chia; Min-Han Tan; Wen Yee Chay; Mikael Hartman; Jingmei Li
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-03-11       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Study protocol: Randomized controlled trial of web-based decision support tools for high-risk women and healthcare providers to increase breast cancer chemoprevention.

Authors:  Katherine D Crew; Thomas B Silverman; Alejandro Vanegas; Meghna S Trivedi; Jill Dimond; Jennie Mata; Margaret Sin; Tarsha Jones; Mary Beth Terry; Wei-Yann Tsai; Rita Kukafka
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials Commun       Date:  2019-08-22
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.