Breast cancer risk for women with a false positive screening test

Peeters, Petra H.M.; Mravunac, M.; Hendriks, Jan H. C. L.; Verbeek, A.L.M.; Holland, Roland; Vooijs, P.

doi:10.1038/bjc.1988.195

Cited by 14 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We examined our results stratified by menopausal status and found that the HR for the false-positive recommendations were similar by menopausal status [comparing false-positive with additional imaging to true negative for premenopausal HR=1.32 (95%CI: 1.25–1.39) versus for postmenopausal HR=1.43 (95%CI: 1.38–1.48); comparing false positive with biopsy to true-negative for premenopausal HR=1.69 (95%CI: 1.49–1.91) versus for postmenopausal HR=1.78 (95%CI: 1.64–1.92)]. In contrast to other studies (5–8), two small studies from the Netherlands reported no excess breast cancer risk among women with a prior false-positive compared to women with no history of a false-positive (3, 4). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Increased Risk of Developing Breast Cancer after a False-Positive Screening Mammogram

Henderson

Hubbard

Sprague

et al. 2015

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers &Amp; Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Women with a history of false-positive mammogram result may be at increased risk of developing subsequent breast cancer. Methods Using 1994 to 2009 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium data we included women ages 40–74 years with a screening mammogram that resulted in a false-positive with recommendation for additional imaging, false-positive with recommendation for biopsy, or true-negative with no cancer within one year following the examination. We used partly conditional Cox proportional hazards survival models to assess the association between a false-positive mammogram result and subsequent breast cancer, adjusting for potential confounders. Adjusted survival curves stratified by breast density and false-positive result were used to evaluate changes in risk over time. Results During 12,022,560 person-years of follow-up, 48,735 cancers were diagnosed. Compared to women with a true-negative examination, women with a false-positive with additional imaging recommendation had increased risk of developing breast cancer (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR)=1.39, 95%CI:1.35–1.44) as did women with a false-positive with a biopsy recommendation (aHR=1.76, 95%CI:1.65–1.88). Results stratifying by breast density were similar to overall results except among women with almost entirely fatty breasts in which aHRs were similar for both false-positive groups. Women with a false-positive result had persistently increased risk of developing breast cancer 10-years after the false-positive examination. Conclusion/Impact Women with a history of a false-positive screening mammogram or biopsy recommendation were at increased risk of developing breast cancer for at least a decade, suggesting that prior false-positive screening may be useful in risk prediction models.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…Prior studies examining the risk of breast cancer among women with a history of a false-positive screening mammogram report conflicting findings (3–8). The majority of these studies were conducted in Europe where false-positive rates are substantially lower than in the United States (9–10).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Increased Risk of Developing Breast Cancer after a False-Positive Screening Mammogram

Henderson

Hubbard

Sprague

et al. 2015

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers &Amp; Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several studies have reported an excess risk of breast cancer in women with false‐positive screening results . One of the first studies on the topic was carried out in the Netherlands in 1988 by Peeters et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One of the first studies on the topic was carried out in the Netherlands in 1988 by Peeters et al. . In a mean follow‐up of 5 years, they found a relative risk of breast cancer of 2.72 for women with a false‐positive screening result.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Risk of breast cancer after false‐positive results in mammographic screening

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Women with false‐positive results are commonly referred back to routine screening. Questions remain regarding their long‐term outcome of breast cancer. We assessed the risk of screen‐detected breast cancer in women with false‐positive results. We conducted a joint analysis using individual level data from the population‐based screening programs in Copenhagen and Funen in Denmark, Norway, and Spain. Overall, 150,383 screened women from Denmark (1991–2008), 612,138 from Norway (1996–2010), and 1,172,572 from Spain (1990–2006) were included. Poisson regression was used to estimate the relative risk (RR) of screen‐detected cancer for women with false‐positive versus negative results. We analyzed information from 1,935,093 women 50–69 years who underwent 6,094,515 screening exams. During an average 5.8 years of follow‐up, 230,609 (11.9%) women received a false‐positive result and 27,849 (1.4%) were diagnosed with screen‐detected cancer. The adjusted RR of screen‐detected cancer after a false‐positive result was 2.01 (95% CI: 1.93–2.09). Women who tested false‐positive at first screen had a RR of 1.86 (95% CI: 1.77–1.96), whereas those who tested false‐positive at third screening had a RR of 2.42 (95% CI: 2.21–2.64). The RR of breast cancer at the screening test after the false‐positive result was 3.95 (95% CI: 3.71–4.21), whereas it decreased to 1.25 (95% CI: 1.17–1.34) three or more screens after the false‐positive result. Women with false‐positive results had a twofold risk of screen‐detected breast cancer compared to women with negative tests. The risk remained significantly higher three or more screens after the false‐positive result. The increased risk should be considered when discussing stratified screening strategies.

show abstract

Screening for breast cancer in nijmegen. report of 6 screening rounds, 1975–1986

Peeters

Verbeek

Hendriks

et al. 1989

Intl Journal of Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A population-based screening programme for breast cancer was initiated in Nijmegen in 1975 with mammography as the only screening procedure. Up to January 1987, 6 screening rounds were carried out with a 2-year screening interval. Rates of attendance, referral, biopsy and detection were calculated and numbers of interval cancers are presented in order to give a clear view of what repeated screening can accomplish in a population. At the first screening round the attendance rate was 87% for women under age 50 and 83% for women aged 50-64. For women aged 65 or over the initial attendance rate was 40%. Rates of attendance declined in subsequent years. Detection rates were highest for elderly women at their first examination: 9.5 per 1,000 screened women. Corresponding rates were 5.6 and 2.3 per 1,000 for women aged 50-64 and below 50 respectively. The positive predictive value for referral was, on average, 20% for women under age 50 and 50% for elderly women, although a sharp increase was seen in the last 2 screening examinations for all age-groups. Predictive values for biopsy were higher: 30% on average for women aged under 50 and 60%-70% for elderly women, again with a sharp increase in the last 2 screening rounds. Interval cancer rates, calculated as the number of cancers occurring within 2 years among negatively screened women at risk, showed no particular trend and varied between 0.9-1.3 per 1,000 woman-years after each screening round. Compared to screen-detected cancers, interval cancers occurred more frequently in younger women. In women under age 50, the ratio between screen-detected and interval cancer was about 1:1, while it was about 2:1 for elderly women.

show abstract

Breast cancer risk for women with a false positive screening test

Cited by 14 publications

References 9 publications

Increased Risk of Developing Breast Cancer after a False-Positive Screening Mammogram

Increased Risk of Developing Breast Cancer after a False-Positive Screening Mammogram

Risk of breast cancer after false‐positive results in mammographic screening

Screening for breast cancer in nijmegen. report of 6 screening rounds, 1975–1986

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About