Impact of false-positive mammography on subsequent screening attendance and risk of cancer

Breast Cancer Research

Sara Godward¹  Diane Stockton²  Jenny McCann¹ 

[1] Cancer Intelligence Unit, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Cambridge, UK;Scottish Cancer Surveillance Group, Information and Statistics Division, Scottish NHS, Edinburgh, UK

关键词: screening attendance;    screen-detected cancer;    interval cancer;    false-positive mammography;    breast screening;   

Others  :  1118823
DOI  :  10.1186/bcr455

 received in 2002-03-28, accepted in 2002-06-12,  发布年份 2002

【 摘 要 】

Background

One area of concern within the largely successful UK National Health Service breast screening programme is the relatively high proportion of women showing mammographic abnormalities who undergo further diagnostic tests that prove negative. Previous studies suggest that, in addition to increasing anxiety, such false-positive mammography is associated with increased risk of subsequent interval cancer. In the present article, we quantify this increased risk, investigate whether it extends to cancers detected at rescreening, and determine whether cancers differ between women who have, and have not, experienced false-positive mammography.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of 140,387 women aged 49–63 years routinely invited for first screening by the East Anglian National Health Service breast screening programme. Proportions reattending, and subsequent risk and pathological attributes of cancer were compared between women who underwent further (negative) assessment following false-positive mammography and women mammographically normal at first screen.

Results

At first screen, 108,617 (91.9%) of the screened women were mammographically normal, 4278 (3.6%) were assessed and then judged normal, and 514 (0.4%) underwent benign biopsy. Compared with nonassessed normal women, reattendance was lower among assessed women: 83.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 82.0–84.1) versus 85.7% (95% CI, 85.5–85.9) (odds ratio [OR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.76–0.89). Assessed women were at greater risk of interval cancer (rate per 1000 women screened, 9.6 [95% CI, 6.8–12.4] versus 3.0 [95% CI, 2.7–3.4]; OR, 3.19 [95% CI, 2.34–4.35]), and also of cancer detected at second screen (rate per 1000, 8.4 [95% CI, 5.8–10.9] versus 3.9 [95% CI, 3.5–4.3]; OR, 2.15 [95% CI, 1.55–2.98]). More cancers in assessed women measured ≥ 20 mm (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 0.99–2.55).

Conclusions

Women undergoing false-positive mammography at first screen were less likely to reattend for subsequent screens than were nonassessed women, yet they were more likely to develop interval cancers or cancers at second screen, and their cancers were larger. Factors predisposing for false-positive mammography require investigation. Women should be encouraged to continue with screening.

【 授权许可】

   
2002 McCann et al., licensee BioMed Central Ltd

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Day NE, Williams DRR, Khaw KT: Breast cancer screening programmes: the development of a monitoring and evaluation system. Br J Cancer 1989, 59:954-958.
• [2]Forrest P: Breast Cancer Screening. London: HMSO;. 1986.
• [3]Secretary of State for Health: The Health of the Nation. A Strategy for Health in England. London: HMSO;. 1992.
• [4]Lancucki L, Ed: Statistical Bulletin 2001/10; Breast Screening Programme, England: 2000–2001. London: Department of Health;. 2002.
• [5]Ong G, Austoker J, Brett J: Breast screening; adverse psychological consequences one month after placing women on early recall because of a diagnostic uncertainty. A multicentre study. J Med Screen 1997, 4:158-168.
• [6]Meldrun P, Turnbull D, Dobson HM, Colquhoun C, Harper Gilmour W, McIlwaine GM: Tailored written invitations for a second round breast screening: a randomised controlled trial. J Med Screen 1994, 1:245-258.
• [7]Orton M, Fitzpatrick F, Fuller A, Mant D, Mlynek C, Thorogood M: Factors affecting women's response to an invitation to attend for a second breast screening examination. Br J Gen Pract 1991, 41:320-323.
• [8]O'Sullivan I, Sutton S, Dixon S, Perry N: False positive results do not have a negative effect on reattendance for subsequent breast screening. J Med Screen 2001, 8:145-148.
• [9]McCann J, Britton P, Warren RML, Hunnam G: Radiological peer review of interval cancers in the East Anglian Breast Screening Programme: what are we missing? J Med Screen 2001, 8:77-85.
• [10]Everington D, Gilbert FJ, Tyack C, Warner J: The Scottish Breast Screening Programme's experience of monitoring interval cancers. J Med Screen 1999, 6:21-27.
• [11]McCann J, Stockton D, Day NE: Breast cancer in East Anglia: the impact of the breast screening programme on stage at diagnosis. J Med Screen 1998, 5:42-48.
• [12]McCann J, Duffy S, Day NE: Predicted long term mortality reduction associated with the second round of breast screening in East Anglia. Br J Cancer 2001, 84:423-428.
• [13]World Health Organisation: International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems – Oncology, 2nd revision. Geneva: World Health Organisation;. 1990.
• [14]World Health Organisation: International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision. Geneva: World Health Organisation;. 1992.
• [15]Ellis EO, Galea M, Broughton N, Locker A, Blamey RW, Elston CW: Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer II. Histological type. Relationship with survival in a large study with long follow up. Histopathology 1992, 20:479-489.
• [16]Northridge ME, Rhoads GG, Wartenberg D, Koffman D: The importance of histologic type on breast cancer survival. J Clin Epidemiol 1997, 50:283-290.
• [17]Tabar L, Duffy S, Chen HH, Vitak B, Prevost T: The natural history of breast carcinoma. What have we learned from screening? Cancer 1999, 86:449-462.
• [18]McCullagh P, Nelder JA: Generalised Linear Models, 2nd edition. London: Chapman & Hall;. 1989.
• [19]Ainsworth A, Gravestock S, Linklater L, Page M: Information and Training Manual for Cancer Registration in England and Wales. London: UK Association of Cancer Registries Consultative Group;. 1993.
• [20]Hermanek P, Sobin LH, Eds: UICC International Union against Cancer: TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours, 5th edition. Berlin: Springer-Verlag;. 1997.
• [21]Elmore JG, Barton MB, Moceri VM, Polk S, Arena PJ, Fletcher SW: Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. N Engl J Med 1998, 338:1089-1096.
• [22]Laya MB, Larson EB, Taplin SH, White E: Effect of oestrogen replacement therapy on the specificity and sensitivity of screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996, 88:643-649.
• [23]Banks E: Hormone replacement therapy and the sensitivity and specificity of breast cancer screening: a review. J Med Screen 2001, 8:29-35.
• [24]Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer: Breast cancer and hormone replacement therapy: collaborative reanalysis of data from 51 epidemiological studies of 52 705 women with breast cancer and 108 411 women without breast cancer. Lancet 1997, 350:1047-1059.
• [25]Sala E, Warren JL, McCann J, Duffy S, Luben R, Day NE: High risk mammographic parenchymal patterns, hormone replacement therapy and other risk factors: a case control study. Int J Epidemiol 2000, 29:629-636.
• [26]Lehman CD, White E, Peacock S, Drucker MJ, Urban N: Effect of age and breast density on screening mammograms with false positive findings. Am J Roentgenol 1999, 173:1651-1655.
• [27]Kavanagh AM, Mitchell H, Giles GG: Hormone replacement therapy and the accuracy of mammographic screening. Lancet 2000, 355:270-274.
• [28]Wolfe JN: Breast patterns as an index of risk for developing breast cancer. Am J Roentgenol 1976, 126:1130-1139.
• [29]Sala E, Solomon L, Warren RML, McCann J, Duffy S, Luben R, Day NE: Size, node status and grade of breast tumours: association with mammographic parenchymal pattern. Eur Radiol 2000, 10:157-161.
• [30]Burman ML, Taplin S, Herta DF, Elmore JG: Effect of false positive mammograms on interval breast cancer screening in a health maintenance organisation. Ann Intern Med 1999, 131:1-6.
• [31]Pisano ED, Earp JA, Gallant TL: Screening mammography behaviour after a false positive mammogram. Cancer Detect Prev 1998, 22:161-167.
• [32]Sutton S, Saidi G, Bickler G, Hunter J: Does routine screening for breast cancer raise anxiety? Results from a three wave prospective study in England. J Epidemiol Community Health 1995, 49:413-418.
• [33]Cockburn J, Staples M, Hurley SF, De Luise T: Psychological consequences of screening mammography. J Med Screen 1994, 1:7-12.
• [34]Olsson P, Armelius K, Nordahl G, Lenner P, Westman G: Women with false positive screening mammograms – how do they cope? J Med Screen 1999, 6:89-93.
• [35]Lidbrink E, Elfving J, Frisell J, Jonsson E: Neglected aspects of false positive findings of mammography in breast cancer screening: analysis of false positive cases from the Stockholm trial. BMJ 1996, 312:273-276.
• [36]Fletcher S: False positive screening mammograms: good news, but more to do. Ann Intern Med 1999, 131:60-62.
• [37]NHS Breast Screening Programme: Guidelines on Quality Assurance Visits, publication number 40. Sheffield: NHS Breast Screening Programme;. 1998.
• [38]NHS Breast Screening Programme: NHS Breast Screening Programme Review 1999. Sheffield: NHS Breast Screening Programme;. 2000.
• [39]Thurfjell MG, Vitak B, Azavedo E, Svane G, Thurfjell E: Effect on sensitivity and specificity of mammography screening with or without comparison of old mammograms. Acta Radiol 1999, 41:52-56.