Literature DB >> 9545356

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

J G Elmore1, M B Barton, V M Moceri, S Polk, P J Arena, S W Fletcher.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The cumulative risk of a false positive result from a breast-cancer screening test is unknown.
METHODS: We performed a 10-year retrospective cohort study of breast-cancer screening and diagnostic evaluations among 2400 women who were 40 to 69 years old at study entry. Mammograms or clinical breast examinations that were interpreted as indeterminate, aroused a suspicion of cancer, or prompted recommendations for additional workup in women in whom breast cancer was not diagnosed within the next year were considered to be false positive tests.
RESULTS: A total of 9762 screening mammograms and 10,905 screening clinical breast examinations were performed, for a median of 4 mammograms and 5 clinical breast examinations per woman over the 10-year period. Of the women who were screened, 23.8 percent had at least one false positive mammogram, 13.4 percent had at least one false positive breast examination, and 31.7 percent had at least one false positive result for either test. The estimated cumulative risk of a false positive result was 49.1 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 40.3 to 64.1 percent) after 10 mammograms and 22.3 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 19.2 to 27.5 percent) after 10 clinical breast examinations. The false positive tests led to 870 outpatient appointments, 539 diagnostic mammograms, 186 ultrasound examinations, 188 biopsies, and 1 hospitalization. We estimate that among women who do not have breast cancer, 18.6 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 9.8 to 41.2 percent) will undergo a biopsy after 10 mammograms, and 6.2 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 3.7 to 11.2 percent) after 10 clinical breast examinations. For every 100 dollars spent for screening, an additional 33 dollars was spent to evaluate the false positive results.
CONCLUSIONS: Over 10 years, one third of women screened had an abnormal test result that required additional evaluation, even though no breast cancer was present. Techniques are needed to decrease false positive results while maintaining high sensitivity. Physicians should educate women about the risk of a false positive result from a screening test for breast cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9545356     DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199804163381601

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  N Engl J Med        ISSN: 0028-4793            Impact factor:   91.245


  191 in total

1.  Screening mammography for women aged 40-49: are we off the fence yet?

Authors:  M B Barton
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2001-02-20       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 2.  Preventive health care, 2001 update: screening mammography among women aged 40-49 years at average risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  J Ringash
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2001-02-20       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 3.  False-positive results in breast cancer screening.

Authors:  M F Evans
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 3.275

4.  Is it time to stop teaching breast self-examination?

Authors:  L Nekhlyudov; S W Fletcher
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2001-06-26       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 5.  Clinical practice. Mammographic screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  Suzanne W Fletcher; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-04-24       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Screening mammograms by community radiologists: variability in false-positive rates.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Diana L Miglioretti; Lisa M Reisch; Mary B Barton; William Kreuter; Cindy L Christiansen; Suzanne W Fletcher
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2002-09-18       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Tomosynthesis-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: A feasibility study.

Authors:  Christian Waldherr; Gilles Berclaz; Hans Jörg Altermatt; Peter Cerny; Patrik Keller; Uwe Dietz; Katharina Buser; Michele Ciriolo; Martin Josef Sonnenschein
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-09-18       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  A semiparametric censoring bias model for estimating the cumulative risk of a false-positive screening test under dependent censoring.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2013-02-05       Impact factor: 2.571

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.  A randomized trial of three videos that differ in the framing of information about mammography in women 40 to 49 years old.

Authors:  Carmen L Lewis; Michael P Pignone; Stacey L Sheridan; Stephen M Downs; Linda S Kinsinger
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 5.128

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.