Literature DB >> 8611781

Neglected aspects of false positive findings of mammography in breast cancer screening: analysis of false positive cases from the Stockholm trial.

E Lidbrink1, J Elfving, J Frisell, E Jonsson.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To examine the implications of false positive results of mammography in terms of the time lag from screening and complete mammography to the point when women with false positive results are declared free of cancer; the extra examinations, biopsies, and check ups required; and the cost of these extra procedures.
DESIGN: Review of women with false positive results from the Stockholm mammography screening trial.
SETTING: Department of Oncology, South Hospital, Stockholm.
SUBJECTS: 352 and 150 women with false positive results of mammography from the first and second screening rounds of the Stockholm trial. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Extra examinations and investigations required and the cost of these procedures.
RESULTS: The 352 women from the first screening round made 1112 visits to the physician and had 397 fine needle aspiration biopsies, 187 mammograms, and 90 surgical biopsies before being declared free of cancer. After six months 64% of the women (219/342) were declared cancer free. The 150 women in the second round made 427 visits to the physician and had 145 fine needle aspiration biopsies, 70 mammograms, and 28 surgical biopsies, and after six months 73% (107/147) were declared cancer free. The follow up costs of the false positive screening results were Kr2.54m (250,000 pounds) in the first round and Kr0.85m (84,000 pounds) in the second round. Women under 50 accounted for about 41% of these costs.
CONCLUSIONS: The examinations and investigation carried out after false positive mammography --especially in women under 50--and the cost of these procedures are a neglected but substantial problem.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8611781      PMCID: PMC2349888          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.312.7026.273

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  30 in total

1.  [Mammographic screening for breast cancer--a cost-benefit analysis].

Authors:  G G Erichsen
Journal:  Nord Med       Date:  1990

2.  False alarms of breast cancer.

Authors:  J E Devitt
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1989-11-25       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  The cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening.

Authors:  P J van der Maas; H J de Koning; B M van Ineveld; G J van Oortmarssen; J D Habbema; K T Lubbe; A T Geerts; H J Collette; A L Verbeek; J H Hendriks
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  1989-06-15       Impact factor: 7.396

4.  Pensive women, painful vigils: consequences of delay in assessment of mammographic abnormalities.

Authors:  I S Fentiman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1988-05-07       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  The Stockholm breast cancer screening trial--5-year results and stage at discovery.

Authors:  J Frisell; G Eklund; L Hellström; U Glas; A Somell
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  1989-01       Impact factor: 4.872

6.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of mass screening for breast cancer in Japan.

Authors:  I Okubo; H Glick; H Frumkin; J M Eisenberg
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1991-04-15       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Randomized study of mammography screening--preliminary report on mortality in the Stockholm trial.

Authors:  J Frisell; G Eklund; L Hellström; E Lidbrink; L E Rutqvist; A Somell
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  1991-03       Impact factor: 4.872

8.  Breast cancer screening and cost-effectiveness; policy alternatives, quality of life considerations and the possible impact of uncertain factors.

Authors:  H J de Koning; B M van Ineveld; G J van Oortmarssen; J C de Haes; H J Collette; J H Hendriks; P J van der Maas
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  1991-10-21       Impact factor: 7.396

9.  Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Randomised trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare.

Authors:  L Tabár; C J Fagerberg; A Gad; L Baldetorp; L H Holmberg; O Gröntoft; U Ljungquist; B Lundström; J C Månson; G Eklund
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1985-04-13       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  Quality of life following a false positive mammogram.

Authors:  I T Gram; E Lund; S E Slenker
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1990-12       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  26 in total

1.  Equity in prevention and health care.

Authors:  V Lorant; B Boland; P Humblet; D Deliège
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 3.710

2.  "What does this mean?" How Web-based consumer health information fails to support information seeking in the pursuit of informed consent for screening test decisions.

Authors:  Jacquelyn Burkell; D Grant Campbell
Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc       Date:  2005-07

3.  False positive findings of mammography will have psychological consequences.

Authors:  I S Tobias; M Baum
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-05-11

4.  How Many of the Biopsy Decisions Taken at Inexperienced Breast Radiology Units Were Correct?

Authors:  Özlem Demircioğlu; Meral Uluer; Erkin Arıbal
Journal:  J Breast Health       Date:  2017-01-01

5.  The impact of a suspicious prostate biopsy on patients' psychological, socio-behavioral, and medical care outcomes.

Authors:  Floyd J Fowler; Michael J Barry; Beth Walker-Corkery; Jean-Francois Caubet; David W Bates; Jeong Min Lee; Alison Hauser; Mary McNaughton-Collins
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  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

7.  HER2/neu protein expression and fine needle breast aspiration from Argentinean patients with non-palpable breast lesions.

Authors:  Wendy Gabriela Domínguez; Héctor Nardi; Héctor Montero; Esteban Vincent; María Marta Corte; Gabriela Andrea Balogh
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2010-07-01       Impact factor: 2.447

8.  False-positive results in the randomized controlled trial of mammographic screening from age 40 ("Age" trial).

Authors:  Louise E Johns; Sue M Moss
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2010-09-13       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  Psychological Outcomes After a False Positive Mammogram: Preliminary Evidence for Ethnic Differences Across Time.

Authors:  Yamile Molina; Shirley A A Beresford; Beti Thompson
Journal:  J Racial Ethn Health Disparities       Date:  2016-02-19

10.  Cumulative false positive recall rate and association with participant related factors in a population based breast cancer screening programme.

Authors:  Xavier Castells; Eduard Molins; Francesc Macià
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 3.710

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.