nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.02.2012 | Breast

Impact of intermediate mammography assessment on the likelihood of false-positive results in breast cancer screening programmes

verfasst von: Nieves Ascunce, María Ederra, Josu Delfrade, Araceli Baroja, Nieves Erdozain, Raquel Zubizarreta, Dolores Salas, Xavier Castells, the Cumulative False Positive Risk (CFPR) Group

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 2/2012

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

Breast cancer screening is offered to 100% of the target population in Spain and intermediate mammograms (IMs) are sometimes indicated. This study was aimed at analysing the frequency of IMs, the factors determining their recommendation, and their impact on the risk of false–positive results and the detection rate.

Methods

Data from 3,471,307 mammograms from Spanish breast cancer screening programmes were included.

Results

3.36% of the mammograms were IMs. The factors associated with the use of IMs were age, initial screening, previous invasive tests, a familial history of breast cancer and use of hormone replacement therapy. In screening episodes with an IM, the probability of a false–positive result was 13.74% (95% CI: 13.43–14.05), almost double that in episodes without IMs (6.02%, 95% CI 5.99–6.05). In young women with previous invasive procedures, a familial history of breast cancer or hormone replacement therapy use who were undergoing their initial screen, this probability was lower when IMs were performed. IMs always increased the detection rate.

Conclusions

The factors prompting IMs should be characterised so that radiologists can systematise their recommendations according to the presence of the factors maximising the benefits and minimising the adverse effects of this procedure.

Key Points

• Intermediate mammograms in breast screening offer potential benefits but also disadvantages.

• Intermediate mammograms increase the false–positive rate except in specific groups.

• Intermediate mammograms reduce the false–positive rate in younger women and initial screens.

• Intermediate mammograms also reduce false–positive results in women with personal risk factors

• Intermediate mammograms increase cancer detection mainly in women without risk factors.

Gabe R, Duffy SW (2005) Evaluation of service screening mammography in practice: the impact on breast cancer mortality. Ann Oncol 16(Suppl 2):ii153–ii162PubMedCrossRef

Schopper D, de Wolf C (2009) How effective are breast cancer screening programmes by mammography? Review of the current evidence. Eur J Cancer 45:1916–1923PubMedCrossRef

Ascunce N, Moreno-Iribas C, Barcos Urtiaga A, Ardanaz E, Ederra M, Castilla J, Egües N (2007) Changes in breast cancer mortality in Navarre (Spain) after introduction of a screening programme. J Med Screen 14:14–20PubMedCrossRef

Council recommendation of 2 December on cancer screening (2003) Off J Eur Union 878:34–38

Von Karsa L, Anttila A, Ronco G, Ponti A, Malila N, Arbyn M, Segnan N, Castillo-Beltran M, Boniol M, Ferlay J, Hery C, Sauvaget C, Voti L, Autier P (2008) Cancer screening in the European Union. Report on the implementation of the council recommendation on cancer screening—First Report. Services of the European Commission, Luxembourg.

Ascunce N, Salas D, Zubizarreta R, Almazán R, Ibañez J, Ederra M (2010) Cancer screening in Spain. Ann Oncol 21(Suppl 3):iii43–iii51PubMedCrossRef

Buillard JL, Sasieni P, Klabunde C, De Landsheer JP, Yankaskas BC, Fracheboud J (2006) Methodological issues in international comparison of interval breast cancers. Int J Cancer 119:1158–1163CrossRef

Kerlikowski K, Smith-Bindman R, Abraham LA, Lehman CD, Yankaskas B, Ballard-Barbash R, Barlow W, Voeks JH, Geller BM, Carney PA, Sickles EA (2005) Breast cancer yield for screening mammographic examinations with recommendation for short-interval follow-up. Radiology 234:684–692CrossRef

D’Orsi CJ, Basset LW, Berg WA (2003) Breast imaging reporting and data system: mammography: ACR BI-RADS, 4th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA

10.

Rosselli del Turco M, Hendriks J, Perry N, Azavedo E, Skaane P (2006) Radiological Guidelines. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. 4th edition. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

11.

NHS Breast Screening Radiologists Quality Assurance (1997) Quality assurance guidelines for radiologists. NHSBSP Publications, No 15, Sheffield.

12.

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

13.

Hofvind S, Thoresen S, Tretli S (2004) The cumulative risk of a false-positive recall in the Norwegian breast cancer screening program. Cancer 101:1501–1507PubMedCrossRef

14.

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 60:316–321PubMedCrossRef

15.

Njor SH, Olsen AH, Schwartz W, Vejborg I, Lynge E (2007) Predicting the risk of a false-positive test for women following a mammography screening programme. J Med Screen 14:94–97PubMedCrossRef

16.

Román R, Sala M, Salas D, Ascunce N, Zubizarreta R, Castells X, Cumulative False Positive Risk Group (2011) Effect of protocol-related variables and women’s characteristics on the cumulative false-positive risk in breast cancer screening. Ann Oncol. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdr032

17.

Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, Von Karsa L (eds) (2006) European Guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis, 4th edn. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg

18.

Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (2000) Interpretation of the fitted logistic regression model. Applied logistic regression, 2nd edn. Wiley Interscience, USA, pp 47–90

19.

Bull AR, Campbell MJ (1991) Assessment of the psychological impact of a breast screening programme. Br J Radiol 64:510–515PubMedCrossRef

20.

Brewer NT, Salz T, Lillie SE (2007) Systematic review: the long-term effects of false-positive mammograms. Ann Intern Med 146:502–510PubMed

21.

Ong G, Austoker J, Brett J (1997) Breast screening: adverse psychological consequences 1 month after placing women on early recall because of a diagnostic uncertainty. A multicentre study. J Med Screen 4:158–168PubMed

22.

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2009) Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 151:716–726

23.

Mandelblatt JS, Cronin KA, Bailey S, Berry DA, De Koning HJ, Draisma G, Huang H, Lee SJ, Munsell M, Plevritis SK, Ravdin P, Schechter CB, Sigal B, Stoto MA, Stout NK, Van Ravesteyn NT, Venier J, Zelen M, Feuer EJ, for the Breast Cancer Working Group of the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) (2009) Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: model estimates of potential benefits and harms. Ann Intern Med 151:738–747PubMed

24.

White E, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, Geller BM, Rosenberg RD, Kerlikowske K, Saba L, Vacek PM, Carney PA, Buist DS, Oestreicher N, Barlow W, Ballard-Barbash R, Taplin SH (2004) Biennial versus annual mammography and the risk of late-stage breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 96:1832–1839PubMedCrossRef

25.

Wai ES, D’yachkova Y, Olivotto IA, Tyldesley S, Phillips N, Warren LJ, Coldman AJ (2005) Comparison of 1- and 2-year screening intervals for women undergoing screening mammography. Br J Cancer 92:961–966PubMedCrossRef

26.

Ong GJ, Austoker J, Michell M (1998) Early rescreen/recall in the UK national health service breast screening programme: epidemiological data. J Med Screen 5:146–155PubMed

27.

Yasmeen S, Romano PS, Pettinger M, Chelebowski RT, Robbins JA, Lane DS, Hendrix SL (2003) Frequency and predictive value of a mammographic recommendation for short-interval follow-up. J Nat Cancer Inst 95:429–436PubMedCrossRef

28.

Public Health Agency of Canada (2004) Organized breast cancer screenings programs in Canada. Report on program performance in 2003–2004. Available via http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/2008/obcsp-podcs-03-04/back-cont-eng.php. Accessed (12-05-2011)

29.

Kerlikowski K, Smith-Bindman R, Sickles E (2003) Short-interval follow-up mammography: are we doing the right thing? J Nat Cancer Inst 95:418–419CrossRef

30.

Zubizarreta Alberdi R, Fernández-Llanes AB, Almazán R, Roman R, Velarde JM, Queiro T, Natal C, Ederra M, Salas D, Castells X, the CFPR (Cumulative False Positive Risk) group (2011) Effect of radiologist experience on the risk of false-positive results in breast cancer screening programs. European Radiology. doi:10.1007/s00330-011-2160-0

31.

Salas D, Ibáñez J, Román R, Cuevas D, Sala M, Ascunce N, Zubizarreta R, Castells X, The CFPR, (Cumulative False Positive Risk) group, (2011) Effect of start age of breast cancer screening mammography on the risk of false-positive results. Prev Med. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.04

Titel: Impact of intermediate mammography assessment on the likelihood of false-positive results in breast cancer screening programmes
verfasst von: Nieves Ascunce
María Ederra
Josu Delfrade
Araceli Baroja
Nieves Erdozain
Raquel Zubizarreta
Dolores Salas
Xavier Castells
the Cumulative False Positive Risk (CFPR) Group
Publikationsdatum: 01.02.2012
Verlag: Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in: European Radiology / Ausgabe 2/2012
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2263-7

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

18.04.2024 | Pädiatrische Notfallmedizin | Nachrichten

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Impact of intermediate mammography assessment on the likelihood of false-positive results in breast cancer screening programmes

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Key Points

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

Fünf Dinge, die im Kindernotfall besser zu unterlassen sind

„Nur wer sich gut aufgehoben fühlt, kann auch für Patientensicherheit sorgen“

Wie toxische Männlichkeit der Gesundheit von Männern schadet

Studie bestätigt Potenzial von KI in der Radiologie

Update Radiologie

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Key Points

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2012

Radiology of advanced EVAR techniques in complex abdominal aortic aneurysms

CT image quality improvement using adaptive iterative dose reduction with wide-volume acquisition on 320-detector CT

Severity assessment of pulmonary embolism using dual energy CT – correlation of a pulmonary perfusion defect score with clinical and morphological parameters of blood oxygenation and right ventricular failure

Near-real time oculodynamic MRI: a feasibility study for evaluation of diplopia in comparison with clinical testing

Evaluation of a robotic technique for transrectal MRI-guided prostate biopsies

Volumetric feedback ablation of uterine fibroids using magnetic resonance-guided high intensity focused ultrasound therapy

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

Fünf Dinge, die im Kindernotfall besser zu unterlassen sind

„Nur wer sich gut aufgehoben fühlt, kann auch für Patientensicherheit sorgen“

Wie toxische Männlichkeit der Gesundheit von Männern schadet

Studie bestätigt Potenzial von KI in der Radiologie

Update Radiologie