The cumulative risk of false-positive screening results across screening centres in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program

被引:7
|
作者
Roman, M. [1 ,2 ]
Skaane, P. [3 ]
Hofvind, S. [1 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Canc Registry Norway, N-0403 Oslo, Norway
[2] Oslo Univ Hosp, Dept Women & Childrens Hlth, Oslo, Norway
[3] Univ Oslo, Dept Radiol, Oslo Univ Hosp Ullevaal, Oslo, Norway
[4] Oslo & Akershus Univ, Coll Appl Sci, Fac Hlth Sci, Oslo, Norway
关键词
Breast neoplasms; Mass screening; Mammography; False positive reactions; Predictive value of tests; CORE NEEDLE-BIOPSY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FINE-NEEDLE; CONSEQUENCES; PERFORMANCE; ACCURACY; LESIONS; RECALL; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.05.038
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Background: Recall for assessment in mammographic screening entails an inevitable number of false-positive screening results. This study aimed to investigate the variation in the cumulative risk of a false positive screening result and the positive predictive value across the screening centres in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. Methods: We studied 618,636 women aged 50-69 years who underwent 2,090,575 screening exams (1996-2010. Recall rate, positive predictive value, rate of screen-detected cancer, and the cumulative risk of a false positive screening result, without and with invasive procedures across the screening centres were calculated. Generalized linear models were used to estimate the probability of a false positive screening result and to compute the cumulative false-positive risk for up to ten biennial screening examinations. Results: The cumulative risk of a false-positive screening exam varied from 10.7% (95% CI: 9.4-12.0%) to 41.5% (95% CI: 34.1-48.9%) across screening centres, with a highest to lowest ratio of 3.9 (95% CI:3.7-4.0). The highest to lowest ratio for the cumulative risk of undergoing an invasive procedure with a benign outcome was 4.3 (95% CI: 4.0-4.6). The positive predictive value of recall varied between 12.0% (95% CI: 11.0-12.9%) and 19.9% (95% CI: 18.3-21.5%), with a highest to lowest ratio of 1.7 (95% CI: 1.5-1.9). Conclusions: A substantial variation in the performance measures across the screening centres in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program was identified, despite of similar administration, procedures, and quality assurance requirements. Differences in the readers' performance is probably of influence for the variability. This results underscore the importance of continuous surveillance of the screening centres and the radiologists in order to sustain and improve the performance and effectiveness of screening programs. (C)2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1639 / 1644
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Breast cancer survivors' risk of interval cancers and false positive results in organized mammography screening
    Njor, Sisse Helle
    Vejborg, Ilse
    Larsen, Mette Bach
    CANCER MEDICINE, 2020, 9 (16): : 6042 - 6050
  • [32] The financial implications of investigating false-positive and true-positive mammograms in a national breast cancer screening program
    Soon, Jason
    Houssami, Nehmat
    Clemson, Michelle
    Lockie, Darren
    Farber, Rachel
    Barratt, Alexandra
    Elshaug, Adam
    Howard, Kirsten
    AUSTRALIAN HEALTH REVIEW, 2022, : 159 - 164
  • [33] Impact of a False-Positive Screening Mammogram on Subsequent Screening Behavior and Stage at Breast Cancer Diagnosis
    Dabbous, Firas M.
    Dolecek, Therese A.
    Berbaum, Michael L.
    Friedewald, Sarah M.
    Summerfelt, Wm. Thomas
    Hoskins, Kent
    Rauscher, Garth H.
    CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION, 2017, 26 (03) : 397 - 403
  • [34] Clinical and radiological features of breast tumors according to history of false-positive results in mammography screening
    Domingo, Laia
    Romero, Anabel
    Blanch, Jordi
    Salas, Dolores
    Sanchez, Mar
    Rodriguez-Arana, Ana
    Ferrer, Joana
    Ibanez, Josefa
    Vega, Alfonso
    Soledad Laso, M.
    Castells, Xavier
    Sala, Maria
    CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2013, 37 (05) : 660 - 665
  • [35] Cumulative Probability of False-Positive Results After 10 Years of Screening With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography
    Ho, Thao-Quyen H.
    Bissell, Michael C. S.
    Kerlikowske, Karla
    Hubbard, Rebecca A.
    Sprague, Brian L.
    Lee, Christoph, I
    Tice, Jeffrey A.
    Tosteson, Anna N. A.
    Miglioretti, Diana L.
    JAMA NETWORK OPEN, 2022, 5 (03) : E222440
  • [36] The Psychological Impact of a False-Positive Screening Mammogram in Barcelona
    Rebecca Espasa
    Cristiane Murta-Nascimento
    Ramón Bayés
    Maria Sala
    Montserrat Casamitjana
    Francesc Macià
    Xavier Castells
    Journal of Cancer Education, 2012, 27 : 780 - 785
  • [37] Positive predictive values by mammographic density and screening mode in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program
    Moshina, Nataliia
    Ursin, Giske
    Roman, Marta
    Sebuodegard, Sofie
    Hofvind, Solveig
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2016, 85 (01) : 248 - 254
  • [38] Healthcare professionals' experiences of caring for women with false-positive screening test results in the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme
    Long, Hannah A.
    Brooks, Joanna M.
    Maxwell, Anthony J.
    Peters, Sarah
    Harvie, Michelle
    French, David P.
    HEALTH EXPECTATIONS, 2024, 27 (02)
  • [39] Impact of intermediate mammography assessment on the likelihood of false-positive results in breast cancer screening programmes
    Ascunce, Nieves
    Ederra, Maria
    Delfrade, Josu
    Baroja, Araceli
    Erdozain, Nieves
    Zubizarreta, Raquel
    Salas, Dolores
    Castells, Xavier
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2012, 22 (02) : 331 - 340
  • [40] 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)