Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 1/2015

01-01-2015 | Epidemiology

Toward the breast screening balance sheet: cumulative risk of false positives for annual versus biennial mammograms commencing at age 40 or 50

Authors: Caleb J. Winch, Kerry A. Sherman, John Boyages

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

This study aimed to: (1) Estimate cumulative risk of recall from breast screening where no cancer is detected (a harm) in Australia; (2) Compare women screened annually versus biennially, commencing age 40 versus 50; and (3) Compare with international findings. At the no-cost metropolitan program studied, women attended biennial screening, but were offered annual screening if regarded at elevated risk for breast cancer. The cumulative risk of at least one recall was estimated using discrete-time survival analysis. Cancer detection statistics were computed. In total, 801,636 mammograms were undertaken in 231,824 women. Over 10 years, cumulative risk of recall was 13.3 % (95 % CI 12.7–13.8) for those screened biennially, and 19.9 % (CI 16.6–23.2) for those screened annually from age 50–51. Cumulative risk of complex false positive involving a biopsy was 3.1 % (CI 2.9–3.4) and 5.0 % (CI 3.4–6.6), respectively. From age 40–41, the risk of recall was 15.1 % (CI 14.3–16.0) and 22.5 % (CI 17.9–27.1) for biennial and annual screening, respectively. Corresponding rates of complex false positive were 3.3 % (CI 2.9–3.8) and 6.3 % (CI 3.4–9.1). Over 10 mammograms, invasive cancer was detected in 3.4 % (CI 3.3–3.5) and ductal carcinoma in situ in 0.7 % (CI 0.6–0.7) of women, with a non-significant trend toward a larger proportion of Tis and T1N0 cancers in women screened annually (74.5 %) versus biennially (70.1 %), χ 2 = 2.77, p = 0.10. Cancer detection was comparable to international findings. Recall risk was equal to European estimates for women screening from 50 and lower for screening from 40. Recall risk was half of United States’ rates across start age and rescreening interval categories. Future benefit/harm balance sheets may be useful for communicating these findings to women.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
2.
go back to reference Breast Screen Australia Quality Improvement Program (2008) National accreditation standards. Department of Health and Ageing, Canberra Breast Screen Australia Quality Improvement Program (2008) National accreditation standards. Department of Health and Ageing, Canberra
9.
go back to reference Molins E, Comas M, Román R, Rodríguez-Blanco T, Sala M, Macià F, Murta-Nascimento C, Castells X (2009) Effect of participation on the cumulative risk of false-positive recall in a breast cancer screening programme. Public Health 123(9):635–637. doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2009.07.007 PubMedCrossRef Molins E, Comas M, Román R, Rodríguez-Blanco T, Sala M, Macià F, Murta-Nascimento C, Castells X (2009) Effect of participation on the cumulative risk of false-positive recall in a breast cancer screening programme. Public Health 123(9):635–637. doi:10.​1016/​j.​puhe.​2009.​07.​007 PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Castells X, Molins E, Macia F (2006) Cumulative false positive recall rate and association with participant related factors in a population based breast cancer screening programme. J Epidemiol Community Health 60(4):316–321PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Castells X, Molins E, Macia F (2006) Cumulative false positive recall rate and association with participant related factors in a population based breast cancer screening programme. J Epidemiol Community Health 60(4):316–321PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Braithwaite D, Zhu W, Hubbard RA, O’Meara ES, Miglioretti DL, Geller B, Dittus K, Moore D, Wernli KJ, Mandelblatt J, Kerlikowske K, for the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (2013) 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? J Natl Cancer Inst 105(5):334–341. doi:10.1093/jnci/djs645 CrossRef Braithwaite D, Zhu W, Hubbard RA, O’Meara ES, Miglioretti DL, Geller B, Dittus K, Moore D, Wernli KJ, Mandelblatt J, Kerlikowske K, for the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (2013) 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? J Natl Cancer Inst 105(5):334–341. doi:10.​1093/​jnci/​djs645 CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Hubbard RA, Kerlikowske K, Flowers CI, Yankaskas BC, Weiwei Z, Miglioretti DL (2011) Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 155(8):481-W-147CrossRef Hubbard RA, Kerlikowske K, Flowers CI, Yankaskas BC, Weiwei Z, Miglioretti DL (2011) Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 155(8):481-W-147CrossRef
16.
17.
go back to reference Blanchard K, Colbert JA, Kopans DB, Moore R, Halpern EF, Hughes KS, Smith BL, Tanabe KK, Michaelson JS (2006) Long-term risk of false-positive screening results and subsequent biopsy as a function of mammography use 1. Radiology 240(2):335–342PubMedCrossRef Blanchard K, Colbert JA, Kopans DB, Moore R, Halpern EF, Hughes KS, Smith BL, Tanabe KK, Michaelson JS (2006) Long-term risk of false-positive screening results and subsequent biopsy as a function of mammography use 1. Radiology 240(2):335–342PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Cockburn J, Pit S, Redman S (1999) Perceptions of screening mammography among women aged 40–49. Aust N Z J Public Health 23(3):318–321PubMedCrossRef Cockburn J, Pit S, Redman S (1999) Perceptions of screening mammography among women aged 40–49. Aust N Z J Public Health 23(3):318–321PubMedCrossRef
24.
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. West J Med 173(5):307–312PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef 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. West J Med 173(5):307–312PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Ganott MA, Sumkin JH, King JL, Klym AH, Catullo VJ, Cohen CS, Gur D (2006) Screening mammography: do women prefer a higher recall rate given the possibility of earlier detection of cancer? Radiology 238(3):793–800. doi:10.1148/radiol.2383050852 PubMedCrossRef Ganott MA, Sumkin JH, King JL, Klym AH, Catullo VJ, Cohen CS, Gur D (2006) Screening mammography: do women prefer a higher recall rate given the possibility of earlier detection of cancer? Radiology 238(3):793–800. doi:10.​1148/​radiol.​2383050852 PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Sherman KA, Winch CJ, Borecky N, Boyages J (2013) Psychological distress and streamlined BreastScreen follow-up assessment versus standard assessment. Med J Aust 199(9):599–603PubMedCrossRef Sherman KA, Winch CJ, Borecky N, Boyages J (2013) Psychological distress and streamlined BreastScreen follow-up assessment versus standard assessment. Med J Aust 199(9):599–603PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Tyndel S, Austoker J, Henderson BJ, Brain K, Bankhead C, Clements A, Watson EK (2007) What is the psychological impact of mammographic screening on younger women with a family history of breast cancer? Findings from a prospective cohort study by the PIMMS management group. J Clin Oncol 25(25):3823–3830. doi:10.1200/jco.2007.11.0437 PubMedCrossRef Tyndel S, Austoker J, Henderson BJ, Brain K, Bankhead C, Clements A, Watson EK (2007) What is the psychological impact of mammographic screening on younger women with a family history of breast cancer? Findings from a prospective cohort study by the PIMMS management group. J Clin Oncol 25(25):3823–3830. doi:10.​1200/​jco.​2007.​11.​0437 PubMedCrossRef
28.
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(7):502–510PubMedCrossRef Brewer NT, Salz T, Lillie SE (2007) Systematic review: the long-term effects of false-positive mammograms. Ann Intern Med 146(7):502–510PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Brett J, Bankhead C, Henderson B, Watson E, Austoker J (2005) The psychological impact of mammographic screening: a systematic review. Psycho-Oncology 14(11):917–938PubMedCrossRef Brett J, Bankhead C, Henderson B, Watson E, Austoker J (2005) The psychological impact of mammographic screening: a systematic review. Psycho-Oncology 14(11):917–938PubMedCrossRef
30.
go back to reference Salz T, Richman AR, Brewer NT (2010) Meta-analyses of the effect of false-positive mammograms on generic and specific psychosocial outcomes. Psychooncology 19(10):1026–1034. doi:10.1002/pon.1676 PubMedCrossRef Salz T, Richman AR, Brewer NT (2010) Meta-analyses of the effect of false-positive mammograms on generic and specific psychosocial outcomes. Psychooncology 19(10):1026–1034. doi:10.​1002/​pon.​1676 PubMedCrossRef
31.
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(4):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(4):292–300PubMedCrossRef
32.
go back to reference Sim MJH, Prema Siva S, Ramli IS, Fritschi L, Tresham J, Wylie EJ (2012) Effect of false-positive screening mammograms on rescreening in Western Australia. Med J Aust 196(11):693PubMedCrossRef Sim MJH, Prema Siva S, Ramli IS, Fritschi L, Tresham J, Wylie EJ (2012) Effect of false-positive screening mammograms on rescreening in Western Australia. Med J Aust 196(11):693PubMedCrossRef
34.
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(3):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(3):145–148PubMedCrossRef
41.
go back to reference Hofvind S, Ponti A, Patnick J, Ascunce N, Njor S, Broeders M, Giordano L, Frigerio A, Törnberg S (2012) False-positive results in mammographic screening for breast cancer in Europe: a literature review and survey of service screening programmes. J Med Screen 19(suppl 1):57–66. doi:10.1258/jms.2012.012083 PubMedCrossRef Hofvind S, Ponti A, Patnick J, Ascunce N, Njor S, Broeders M, Giordano L, Frigerio A, Törnberg S (2012) False-positive results in mammographic screening for breast cancer in Europe: a literature review and survey of service screening programmes. J Med Screen 19(suppl 1):57–66. doi:10.​1258/​jms.​2012.​012083 PubMedCrossRef
42.
go back to reference Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2012) BreastScreen Australia monitoring report 2009–2010. Cancer series no. 72. Cat. no. CAN 68. AIHW, Canberra Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2012) BreastScreen Australia monitoring report 2009–2010. Cancer series no. 72. Cat. no. CAN 68. AIHW, Canberra
43.
go back to reference BreastScreen Australia Evaluation Advisory Committee (2009) Evaluation of the BreastScreen Australia program—evaluation final report. AGPS, Canberra BreastScreen Australia Evaluation Advisory Committee (2009) Evaluation of the BreastScreen Australia program—evaluation final report. AGPS, Canberra
44.
go back to reference AJCC (2010) Breast. In: Edge S, Byrd D, Compton C, Fritz A, Greene F, Trotti A (eds) AJCC cancer staging manual, 7th edn. Springer, New York AJCC (2010) Breast. In: Edge S, Byrd D, Compton C, Fritz A, Greene F, Trotti A (eds) AJCC cancer staging manual, 7th edn. Springer, New York
45.
go back to reference Singer JD, Willett JB (2003) Applied longitudinal data analysis. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRef Singer JD, Willett JB (2003) Applied longitudinal data analysis. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRef
46.
go back to reference Winch CJ, Sherman KA, Boyages J (2012) Comparison of a metropolitan Australian breast screening program to international contexts: false negatives, false positives, assessment procedures, and cancer detection. In: Proceedings of the international cancer screening network, Sydney, Australia, 23–25 October 2012 Winch CJ, Sherman KA, Boyages J (2012) Comparison of a metropolitan Australian breast screening program to international contexts: false negatives, false positives, assessment procedures, and cancer detection. In: Proceedings of the international cancer screening network, Sydney, Australia, 23–25 October 2012
47.
go back to reference Blanch J, Sala M, Roman M, Ederra M, Salas D, Zubizarreta R, Sanchez M, Rue M, Castells X (2013) Cumulative risk of cancer detection in breast cancer screening by protocol strategy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 138(3):869–877. doi:10.1007/s10549-013-2458-5 PubMedCrossRef Blanch J, Sala M, Roman M, Ederra M, Salas D, Zubizarreta R, Sanchez M, Rue M, Castells X (2013) Cumulative risk of cancer detection in breast cancer screening by protocol strategy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 138(3):869–877. doi:10.​1007/​s10549-013-2458-5 PubMedCrossRef
48.
go back to reference Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin D, Forman D, Bray F (2013) GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11 [Internet]. In: International Agency for Research on Cancer. http://globocan.iarc.fr. Accessed 30 Sept 2014 Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin D, Forman D, Bray F (2013) GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11 [Internet]. In: International Agency for Research on Cancer. http://​globocan.​iarc.​fr. Accessed 30 Sept 2014
49.
go back to reference Welch HG, Frankel BA (2011) Likelihood that a woman with screen-detected breast cancer has had her “life saved” by that screening. Arch Intern Med 171(22):2043–2046PubMedCrossRef Welch HG, Frankel BA (2011) Likelihood that a woman with screen-detected breast cancer has had her “life saved” by that screening. Arch Intern Med 171(22):2043–2046PubMedCrossRef
50.
go back to reference Giordano L, von Karsa L, Tomatis M, Majek O, de Wolf C, Lancucki L, Hofvind S, Nyström L, Segnan N, Ponti A (2012) Mammographic screening programmes in Europe: organization, coverage and participation. J Med Screen 19(1):72–82. doi:10.1258/jms.2012.012085 PubMedCrossRef Giordano L, von Karsa L, Tomatis M, Majek O, de Wolf C, Lancucki L, Hofvind S, Nyström L, Segnan N, Ponti A (2012) Mammographic screening programmes in Europe: organization, coverage and participation. J Med Screen 19(1):72–82. doi:10.​1258/​jms.​2012.​012085 PubMedCrossRef
51.
go back to reference Burrell HC, Sibbering DM, Wilson A, Pinder SE, Evans AJ, Yeoman LJ, Elston CW, Ellis IO, Blamey RW, Robertson J (1996) Screening interval breast cancers: mammographic features and prognosis factors. Radiology 199(3):811–817PubMedCrossRef Burrell HC, Sibbering DM, Wilson A, Pinder SE, Evans AJ, Yeoman LJ, Elston CW, Ellis IO, Blamey RW, Robertson J (1996) Screening interval breast cancers: mammographic features and prognosis factors. Radiology 199(3):811–817PubMedCrossRef
52.
go back to reference BreastScreen Australia Evaluation Advisory Committee (2009) Chapter 6: health outcomes. In: Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing (ed) Evaluation of the BreastScreen Australia program—evaluation final report. AGPS, Canberra, pp 32–59 BreastScreen Australia Evaluation Advisory Committee (2009) Chapter 6: health outcomes. In: Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing (ed) Evaluation of the BreastScreen Australia program—evaluation final report. AGPS, Canberra, pp 32–59
53.
go back to reference Adcock KA (2004) Initiative to improve mammogram interpretation. Perm J 8(2):12–18 Adcock KA (2004) Initiative to improve mammogram interpretation. Perm J 8(2):12–18
55.
go back to reference Bowles EJA, Geller BM (2009) Best ways to provide feedback to radiologists on mammography performance. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193(1):157CrossRef Bowles EJA, Geller BM (2009) Best ways to provide feedback to radiologists on mammography performance. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193(1):157CrossRef
56.
go back to reference Morrell S, Barratt A, Irwig L, Howard K, Biesheuvel C, Armstrong B (2010) Estimates of overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer associated with screening mammography. Cancer Causes Control 21(2):275–282PubMedCrossRef Morrell S, Barratt A, Irwig L, Howard K, Biesheuvel C, Armstrong B (2010) Estimates of overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer associated with screening mammography. Cancer Causes Control 21(2):275–282PubMedCrossRef
57.
go back to reference Taylor R, Morrell S, Estoesta J, Brassil A (2004) Mammography screening and breast cancer mortality in New South Wales, Australia. Cancer Causes Control 15(6):543–550PubMedCrossRef Taylor R, Morrell S, Estoesta J, Brassil A (2004) Mammography screening and breast cancer mortality in New South Wales, Australia. Cancer Causes Control 15(6):543–550PubMedCrossRef
58.
go back to reference Broeders M, Moss S, Nyström L, Njor S, Jonsson H, Paap E, Massat N, Duffy S, Lynge E, Paci E (2012) The impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality in Europe: a review of observational studies. J Med Screen 19(1):14–25. doi:10.1258/jms.2012.012078 PubMedCrossRef Broeders M, Moss S, Nyström L, Njor S, Jonsson H, Paap E, Massat N, Duffy S, Lynge E, Paci E (2012) The impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality in Europe: a review of observational studies. J Med Screen 19(1):14–25. doi:10.​1258/​jms.​2012.​012078 PubMedCrossRef
59.
go back to reference Moss SM, Nyström L, Jonsson H, Paci E, Lynge E, Njor S, Broeders M (2012) The impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality in Europe: a review of trend studies. J Med Screen 19(suppl 1):26–32. doi:10.1258/jms.2012.012079 PubMedCrossRef Moss SM, Nyström L, Jonsson H, Paci E, Lynge E, Njor S, Broeders M (2012) The impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality in Europe: a review of trend studies. J Med Screen 19(suppl 1):26–32. doi:10.​1258/​jms.​2012.​012079 PubMedCrossRef
60.
go back to reference Njor S, Nyström L, Moss S, Paci E, Broeders M, Segnan N, Lynge E (2012) Breast cancer mortality in mammographic screening in Europe: a review of incidence-based mortality studies. J Med Screen 19(1):33–41PubMedCrossRef Njor S, Nyström L, Moss S, Paci E, Broeders M, Segnan N, Lynge E (2012) Breast cancer mortality in mammographic screening in Europe: a review of incidence-based mortality studies. J Med Screen 19(1):33–41PubMedCrossRef
62.
go back to reference International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 2002 World Health Organization (WHO) (2002) IARC Handbooks on cancer prevention. Breast cancer screening, vol 7. IARC Press, Lyon International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 2002 World Health Organization (WHO) (2002) IARC Handbooks on cancer prevention. Breast cancer screening, vol 7. IARC Press, Lyon
Metadata
Title
Toward the breast screening balance sheet: cumulative risk of false positives for annual versus biennial mammograms commencing at age 40 or 50
Authors
Caleb J. Winch
Kerry A. Sherman
John Boyages
Publication date
01-01-2015
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 1/2015
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-014-3226-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 1/2015 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