The Effect of False-Positive Results on Subsequent Participation in Chest X-ray Screening for Lung Cancer

被引:3
|
作者
Sato, Akira [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Hamada, Shota [1 ]
Urashima, Yuki [2 ]
Tanaka, Shiro [1 ]
Okamoto, Hiroaki [3 ]
Kawakami, Koji [1 ]
机构
[1] Kyoto Univ, Grad Sch Med & Publ Hlth, Dept Pharmacoepidemiol, Kyoto, Japan
[2] Yokohama Municipal Citizens Hosp, Ctr Canc, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan
[3] Yokohama Municipal Citizens Hosp, Dept Resp Med, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan
关键词
screening; false positives; lung cancer; adherence; chest X-ray; RANDOMIZED-TRIAL; JAPAN; PREFECTURE; POPULATION; MORTALITY; PROGRAM; EFFICACY;
D O I
10.2188/jea.JE20150106
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Background: High attendance rates and regular participation in disease screening programs are important contributors to program effectiveness. The objective of this study was to examine the effects of an initial false-positive result in chest X-ray screening for lung cancer on subsequent screening participation. Methods: This historical cohort study analyzed individuals who first participated in a lung cancer screening program conducted by Yokohama City between April 2007 and March 2011, and these participants were retrospectively tracked until March 2013. Subsequent screening participation was compared between participants with false-positive results and those with negative results in evaluation periods between 365 (for the primary outcome) and 730 days. The association of screening results with subsequent participation was evaluated using a generalized linear regression model, with adjustment for characteristics of patients and screening. Results: The proportions of subsequent screening participation within 365 days were 12.9% in 3132 participants with false-positive results and 6.7% in 15 737 participants with negative results. Although the differences in attendance rates were reduced with longer cutoffs, participants with false-positive results were consistently more likely to attend subsequent screening than patients with negative results (P < 0.01). The predictors of subsequent screening participation were false-positive results (risk ratio [RR] 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.54-1.92), older age (RR 1.17; 95% CI, 1.11-1.23), male sex (RR 1.46; 95% CI, 1.29-1.64), being a current smoker (RR 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69-0.93), current employment (RR 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70-0.90), and being screened at a hospital cancer center (vs public health centers; RR 1.36; 95% CI, 1.15-1.60). Conclusions: Our findings indicated that subsequent participation in lung cancer screening was more likely among participants with false-positive results in an initial screening than patients with negative results.
引用
收藏
页码:646 / 653
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Choice of Assessment and Subsequent Risk of Breast Cancer among Women with False-Positive Mammography Screening
    Sardini, Bayan
    Fogh Jorgensen, Susanne
    Bronsro Larsen, Lisbet
    Elhakim, Mohammad Talal
    Njor, Sisse Helle
    CANCERS, 2023, 15 (06)
  • [22] Chest X-Ray Screening for Lung Cancer: Overdiagnosis, Endpoints, and Randomized Population Trials
    Strauss, Gary M.
    Dominioni, Lorenzo
    JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2013, 108 (05) : 294 - 300
  • [23] Influence of false-positive mammography results on subsequent screening: do physician recommendations buffer negative effects?
    DeFrank, Jessica T.
    Rimer, Barbara K.
    Bowling, J. Michael
    Earp, Jo Anne
    Breslau, Erica S.
    Brewer, Noel T.
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCREENING, 2012, 19 (01) : 35 - 41
  • [24] False-positive screens and lung cancer risk in the National Lung Screening Trial: Implications for shared decision-making
    Pinsky, Paul F.
    Bellinger, Christina R.
    Miller, David P., Jr.
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCREENING, 2018, 25 (02) : 110 - 112
  • [25] Improved False-Positive Rates and the Overestimation of Unintended Harm from Lung Cancer Screening
    Justin Karush
    Andrew Arndt
    Palmi Shah
    Nicole Geissen
    Linda Dowling
    Ashley Levitan
    Gary Chmielewski
    Christopher Seder
    Michael Liptay
    Lung, 2019, 197 : 327 - 332
  • [26] Pathologic findings following false-positive screening tests for ovarian cancer in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial
    Nyante, Sarah J.
    Black, Amanda
    Kreimer, Aimee R.
    Duggan, Maire A.
    Carreon, J. Daniel
    Kessel, Bruce
    Buys, Saundra S.
    Ragard, Lawrence R.
    Johnson, Karen A.
    Dunn, Barbara K.
    Lamerato, Lois
    Commins, John M.
    Berg, Christine D.
    Sherman, Mark E.
    GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2011, 120 (03) : 474 - 479
  • [27] Lung cancer screening - Comparison of computed tomography and X-ray
    Fujikawa, Ayako
    Takiguchi, Yuichi
    Mizuno, Satoko
    Uruma, Takahiro
    Suzuki, Kiminori
    Nagao, Keiichi
    Niijima, Mafumi
    Edo, Hidenori
    Hino, Mitsunori
    Kuriyama, Takayuki
    LUNG CANCER, 2008, 61 (02) : 195 - 201
  • [28] Improved False-Positive Rates and the Overestimation of Unintended Harm from Lung Cancer Screening
    Karush, Justin
    Arndt, Andrew
    Shah, Palmi
    Geissen, Nicole
    Dowling, Linda
    Levitan, Ashley
    Chmielewski, Gary
    Seder, Christopher
    Liptay, Michael
    LUNG, 2019, 197 (03) : 327 - 332
  • [29] Chest X-Ray (CXR) Screening Improves Lung Cancer (LC) Survival in the Prostate Lung Colon and Ovary (PLCO) Randomized Population Trial (RPT)
    Flores, John Paul
    Moreno-Koehler, Alejandro
    Finkelman, Matthew
    Caro, Jaime
    Strauss, Gary
    JOURNAL OF THORACIC ONCOLOGY, 2017, 12 (01) : S582 - S583
  • [30] Immediate chest X-ray for patients at risk of lung cancer presenting in primary care: randomised controlled feasibility trial
    Neal, Richard D.
    Barham, Allan
    Bongard, Emily
    Edwards, Rhiannon Tudor
    Fitzgibbon, Jim
    Griffiths, Gareth
    Hamilton, Willie
    Hood, Kerenza
    Nelson, Annmarie
    Parker, David
    Porter, Cath
    Prout, Hayley
    Roberts, Kirsty
    Rogers, Trevor
    Thomas-Jones, Emma
    Tod, Angela
    Yeo, Seow Tien
    Hurt, Chris N.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2017, 116 (03) : 293 - 302