Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 1/2011

01-05-2011 | Epidemiology

Association of diagnostic work-up with subsequent attendance in a breast cancer screening program for false-positive cases

Authors: Arnaud Seigneurin, C. Exbrayat, J. Labarère, P. Delafosse, F. Poncet, M. Colonna

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 1/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

The objective of this study is to determine whether the likelihood of returning for routine breast cancer screening differed for false-positive cases depending on the diagnostic work-up. Using the original data from a French population-based breast cancer screening program, we compared the attendance rates at the subsequent round of screening for 16,946 and 1,127 participants who received negative (i.e., American College of Radiology, ACR, categories 1–2) and false-positive mammograms, respectively. False-positive mammograms were categorized ACR 0 (i.e., warranting additional imaging evaluation), 3 (i.e., warranting clinical and imaging follow-up), and 4–5 (i.e., warranting biopsy). We estimated the odds ratios of attendance at subsequent screening round using logistic regression, adjusting for age and history of previous mammography. The attendance rates at the subsequent screening round were 80.6% for women who received negative mammograms versus 69.6, 74.3, and 70.1% for women who received false-positive mammograms warranting additional imaging evaluation, clinical and imaging follow-up, or biopsy, respectively. In comparison to women who received negative mammograms, the corresponding adjusted odds ratios of returning for routine screening were 0.6 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4–0.8], 0.8 (95% CI 0.6–0.9), and 0.6 (95% CI 0.4–0.8). No significant differences were found in odds ratios of attendance across ACR categories among women who received false-positive mammograms. Similar figures were observed for attending at least one of the two subsequent screening rounds. In conclusion, in comparison to women with normal or benign findings on index mammograms, false-positive cases warranting additional imaging evaluation, clinical and imaging follow-up, or biopsy had uniformly decreased odds of attending subsequent routine screening rounds.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Elmore JG, Armstrong K, Lehman CD, Fletcher SW (2005) Screening for breast cancer. JAMA 293:1245–1256PubMedCrossRef Elmore JG, Armstrong K, Lehman CD, Fletcher SW (2005) Screening for breast cancer. JAMA 293:1245–1256PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Yankaskas BC, Klabunde CN, Ancelle-Park R, Rennert G, Wang H, Fracheboud J et al (2004) International comparison of performance measures for screening mammography: can it be done? J Med Screen 11:187–193PubMedCrossRef Yankaskas BC, Klabunde CN, Ancelle-Park R, Rennert G, Wang H, Fracheboud J et al (2004) International comparison of performance measures for screening mammography: can it be done? J Med Screen 11:187–193PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Elmore JG, Barton MB, Moceri VM, Polk S, Arena PJ, Fletcher SW (1998) Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. N Engl J Med 338:1089–1096PubMedCrossRef Elmore JG, Barton MB, Moceri VM, Polk S, Arena PJ, Fletcher SW (1998) Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. N Engl J Med 338:1089–1096PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Brewer NT, Salz T, Lillie SE (2007) Systematic review: the long-term effects of false-positive mammograms. Ann Intern Med 146:502–510PubMed Brewer NT, Salz T, Lillie SE (2007) Systematic review: the long-term effects of false-positive mammograms. Ann Intern Med 146:502–510PubMed
5.
go back to reference Brett J, Bankhead C, Henderson B, Watson E, Austoker J (2005) The psychological impact of mammographic screening. A systematic review. Psychooncology 14:917–938PubMedCrossRef Brett J, Bankhead C, Henderson B, Watson E, Austoker J (2005) The psychological impact of mammographic screening. A systematic review. Psychooncology 14:917–938PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Lampic C, Thurfjell E, Sjoden PO (2003) The influence of a false-positive mammogram on a woman’s subsequent behaviour for detecting breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 39:1730–1737PubMedCrossRef Lampic C, Thurfjell E, Sjoden PO (2003) The influence of a false-positive mammogram on a woman’s subsequent behaviour for detecting breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 39:1730–1737PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Seigneurin A, Exbrayat C, Labarere J, Colonna M (2009) Comparison of interval breast cancer rates for two-versus single-view screening mammography: a population-based study. Breast 18:284–288PubMedCrossRef Seigneurin A, Exbrayat C, Labarere J, Colonna M (2009) Comparison of interval breast cancer rates for two-versus single-view screening mammography: a population-based study. Breast 18:284–288PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Billette de Villemeur A, Exbrayat C, Garnier A, Ancelle-Park R, Ferley JP, Jestin C (2007) Evaluation of a combined screening programme for breast, cervical and colorectal cancers in France. Eur J Cancer Prev 16:26–35PubMedCrossRef Billette de Villemeur A, Exbrayat C, Garnier A, Ancelle-Park R, Ferley JP, Jestin C (2007) Evaluation of a combined screening programme for breast, cervical and colorectal cancers in France. Eur J Cancer Prev 16:26–35PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Stines J (2007) BI-RADS: use in the French radiologic community. How to overcome with some difficulties. Eur J Radiol 61:224–234PubMedCrossRef Stines J (2007) BI-RADS: use in the French radiologic community. How to overcome with some difficulties. Eur J Radiol 61:224–234PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Pinckney RG, Geller BM, Burman M, Littenberg B (2003) Effect of false-positive mammograms on return for subsequent screening mammography. Am J Med 114:120–125PubMedCrossRef Pinckney RG, Geller BM, Burman M, Littenberg B (2003) Effect of false-positive mammograms on return for subsequent screening mammography. Am J Med 114:120–125PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Hofvind SS, Wang H, Thoresen S (2003) The Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program: re-attendance related to the women’s experiences, intentions and previous screening result. Cancer Causes Control 14:391–398PubMedCrossRef Hofvind SS, Wang H, Thoresen S (2003) The Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program: re-attendance related to the women’s experiences, intentions and previous screening result. Cancer Causes Control 14:391–398PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Fracheboud J, de Koning HJ, Beemsterboer PM, Boer R, Hendriks JH, Verbeek AL et al (1998) Nation-wide breast cancer screening in The Netherlands: results of initial and subsequent screening 1990–1995. National Evaluation Team for Breast Cancer Screening. Int J Cancer 75:694–698PubMedCrossRef Fracheboud J, de Koning HJ, Beemsterboer PM, Boer R, Hendriks JH, Verbeek AL et al (1998) Nation-wide breast cancer screening in The Netherlands: results of initial and subsequent screening 1990–1995. National Evaluation Team for Breast Cancer Screening. Int J Cancer 75:694–698PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Ganott MA, Sumkin JH, King JL, Klym AH, Catullo VJ, Cohen CS et al (2006) Screening mammography: do women prefer a higher recall rate given the possibility of earlier detection of cancer? Radiology 238:793–800PubMedCrossRef Ganott MA, Sumkin JH, King JL, Klym AH, Catullo VJ, Cohen CS et al (2006) Screening mammography: do women prefer a higher recall rate given the possibility of earlier detection of cancer? Radiology 238:793–800PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Sox HC, Fischhoff B, Welch HG (2000) US women’s attitudes to false positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: cross sectional survey. BMJ 320:1635–1640PubMedCrossRef Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Sox HC, Fischhoff B, Welch HG (2000) US women’s attitudes to false positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: cross sectional survey. BMJ 320:1635–1640PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Chiarelli AM, Moravan V, Halapy E, Majpruz V, Mai V, Tatla RK (2003) False-positive result and reattendance in the Ontario Breast Screening Program. J Med Screen 10:129–133PubMedCrossRef Chiarelli AM, Moravan V, Halapy E, Majpruz V, Mai V, Tatla RK (2003) False-positive result and reattendance in the Ontario Breast Screening Program. J Med Screen 10:129–133PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Johnson MM, Hislop TG, Kan L, Coldman AJ, Lai A (1996) Compliance with the screening mammography program of British Columbia: will she return? Can J Public Health 87:176–180PubMed Johnson MM, Hislop TG, Kan L, Coldman AJ, Lai A (1996) Compliance with the screening mammography program of British Columbia: will she return? Can J Public Health 87:176–180PubMed
17.
go back to reference Lipkus IM, Halabi S, Strigo TS, Rimer BK (2000) The impact of abnormal mammograms on psychosocial outcomes and subsequent screening. Psychooncology 9:402–410PubMedCrossRef Lipkus IM, Halabi S, Strigo TS, Rimer BK (2000) The impact of abnormal mammograms on psychosocial outcomes and subsequent screening. Psychooncology 9:402–410PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference O’Sullivan I, Sutton S, Dixon S, Perry N (2001) False positive results do not have a negative effect on reattendance for subsequent breast screening. J Med Screen 8:145–148PubMedCrossRef O’Sullivan I, Sutton S, Dixon S, Perry N (2001) False positive results do not have a negative effect on reattendance for subsequent breast screening. J Med Screen 8:145–148PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Aro AR, de Koning HJ, Absetz P, Schreck M (2001) Two distinct groups of non-attenders in an organized mammography screening program. Breast Cancer Res Treat 70:145–153PubMedCrossRef Aro AR, de Koning HJ, Absetz P, Schreck M (2001) Two distinct groups of non-attenders in an organized mammography screening program. Breast Cancer Res Treat 70:145–153PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Klabunde CN, Sancho-Garnier H, Taplin S, Thoresen S, Ohuchi N, Ballard-Barbash R (2002) Quality assurance in follow-up and initial treatment for screening mammography programs in 22 countries. Int J Qual Health Care 14:449–461PubMedCrossRef Klabunde CN, Sancho-Garnier H, Taplin S, Thoresen S, Ohuchi N, Ballard-Barbash R (2002) Quality assurance in follow-up and initial treatment for screening mammography programs in 22 countries. Int J Qual Health Care 14:449–461PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Brett J, Austoker J (2001) Women who are recalled for further investigation for breast screening: psychological consequences 3 years after recall and factors affecting re-attendance. J Public Health Med 23:292–300PubMedCrossRef Brett J, Austoker J (2001) Women who are recalled for further investigation for breast screening: psychological consequences 3 years after recall and factors affecting re-attendance. J Public Health Med 23:292–300PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference McCaul KD, Branstetter AD, Schroeder DM, Glasgow RE (1996) What is the relationship between breast cancer risk and mammography screening? A meta-analytic review. Health Psychol 15:423–429PubMedCrossRef McCaul KD, Branstetter AD, Schroeder DM, Glasgow RE (1996) What is the relationship between breast cancer risk and mammography screening? A meta-analytic review. Health Psychol 15:423–429PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Vernon SW (1999) Risk perception and risk communication for cancer screening behaviors: a review. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 25:101–119 Vernon SW (1999) Risk perception and risk communication for cancer screening behaviors: a review. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 25:101–119
24.
go back to reference Andersen SB, Vejborg I, von Euler-Chelpin M (2008) Participation behaviour following a false positive test in the Copenhagen mammography screening programme. Acta Oncol 47:550–555PubMedCrossRef Andersen SB, Vejborg I, von Euler-Chelpin M (2008) Participation behaviour following a false positive test in the Copenhagen mammography screening programme. Acta Oncol 47:550–555PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Association of diagnostic work-up with subsequent attendance in a breast cancer screening program for false-positive cases
Authors
Arnaud Seigneurin
C. Exbrayat
J. Labarère
P. Delafosse
F. Poncet
M. Colonna
Publication date
01-05-2011
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 1/2011
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-010-1118-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2011

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 1/2011 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine