Literature DB >> 29682740

Implications of false-positive results for future cancer screenings.

Glen B Taksler1, Nancy L Keating2,3, Michael B Rothberg1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: False-positive cancer screening results may affect a patient's willingness to obtain future screening.
METHODS: The authors conducted logistic regression analysis of 450,484 person-years of electronic medical records (2006-2015) in 92,405 individuals aged 50 to 75 years. Exposures were false-positive breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer screening test results (repeat breast imaging or negative breast biopsy ≤3 months after screening mammography, repeat prostate-specific antigen [PSA] test ≤3 months after PSA test result ≥4.0 ng/mL or negative prostate biopsy ≤3 months after any PSA result, or negative colonoscopy [without biopsy/polypectomy] ≤6 months after a positive fecal occult blood test). Outcomes were up-to-date status with breast or colorectal cancer screening. Covariates included prior screening history, clinical information (eg, family history, obesity, and smoking status), comorbidity, and demographics.
RESULTS: Women were more likely to be up to date with breast cancer screening if they previously had false-positive mammography findings (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.43 [95% confidence interval, 1.34-1.51] without breast biopsy and AOR, 2.02 [95% confidence interval, 1.56-2.62] with breast biopsy; both P<.001). The same women were more likely to be up to date with colorectal cancer screening (AOR range, 1.25-1.47 depending on breast biopsy; both P<.001). Men who previously had false-positive PSA testing were more likely to be up to date with colorectal cancer screening (AOR, 1.22 [P = .039] without prostate imaging/biopsy and AOR, 1.60 [P = .028] with imaging/biopsy). Results were stronger for individuals with more false-positive results (all P≤.005). However, women with previous false-positive colorectal cancer fecal occult blood test screening results were found to be less likely to be up to date with breast cancer screening (AOR, 0.73; P<.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients who previously had a false-positive breast or prostate cancer screening test were more likely to engage in future screening. Cancer 2018;124:2390-8.
© 2018 American Cancer Society. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cancer screening; cancer screening tests; diagnostic errors; early detection of cancer; false-positive reactions; mass screening

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29682740      PMCID: PMC5992010          DOI: 10.1002/cncr.31271

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  37 in total

1.  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

2.  Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-08-05       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 3.  Mammography screening from the perspective of quality of life: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Bjørg Hafslund; Monica W Nortvedt
Journal:  Scand J Caring Sci       Date:  2009-01-08

4.  US women's attitudes to false positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: cross sectional survey.

Authors:  L M Schwartz; S Woloshin; H C Sox; B Fischhoff; H G Welch
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-06-17

5.  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

Review 6.  Systematic review: the long-term effects of false-positive mammograms.

Authors:  Noel T Brewer; Talya Salz; Sarah E Lillie
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2007-04-03       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer: update of early detection guidelines for prostate, colorectal, and endometrial cancers. Also: update 2001--testing for early lung cancer detection.

Authors:  R A Smith; A C von Eschenbach; R Wender; B Levin; T Byers; D Rothenberger; D Brooks; W Creasman; C Cohen; C Runowicz; D Saslow; V Cokkinides; H Eyre
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2001 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 508.702

8.  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

9.  A model of the influence of false-positive mammography screening results on subsequent screening.

Authors:  Jessica T Defrank; Noel Brewer
Journal:  Health Psychol Rev       Date:  2010

Review 10.  A systematic assessment of benefits and risks to guide breast cancer screening decisions.

Authors:  Lydia E Pace; Nancy L Keating
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2014-04-02       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  6 in total

1.  Changes in the uptake of screening for prostate cancer with prostate-specific antigen in Ontario between 2003 to 2012.

Authors:  Louis Watson
Journal:  Can Oncol Nurs J       Date:  2020-04-01

2.  Changements dans les pratiques de dépistage de l'antigène prostatique spécifique en Ontario entre 2003 et 2012.

Authors:  Louis Watson
Journal:  Can Oncol Nurs J       Date:  2020-04-01

3.  Sociodemographic correlates of colorectal cancer screening completion among women adherent to mammography screening guidelines by place of birth.

Authors:  Deeonna E Farr; Leslie E Cofie; Alison T Brenner; Ronny A Bell; Daniel S Reuland
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2022-04-21       Impact factor: 2.742

4.  Subsequent attendance in a breast cancer screening program after a false-positive result in the Local Health Authority of Bologna (Italy).

Authors:  Lorena Squillace; Lorenzo Pizzi; Flavia Rallo; Carmen Bazzani; Gianni Saguatti; Francesca Mezzetti
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-04-20       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on breast cancer screening volumes and patient screening behaviors.

Authors:  Matthew M Miller; Max O Meneveau; Carrie M Rochman; Anneke T Schroen; Courtney M Lattimore; Patricia A Gaspard; Richard S Cubbage; Shayna L Showalter
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2021-05-25       Impact factor: 4.624

Review 6.  Circulating Exosome Cargoes Contain Functionally Diverse Cancer Biomarkers: From Biogenesis and Function to Purification and Potential Translational Utility.

Authors:  Megan I Mitchell; Junfeng Ma; Claire L Carter; Olivier Loudig
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-07-10       Impact factor: 6.575

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.