Factors Impacting False Positive Recall in Screening Mammography

Honig, Evan; Müllen, Lisa A.; Amir, Tali; Alvin, Matthew D.; Jones, Mary Kate; Ambinder, Emily B.; Falomo, Eniola; Harvey, Susan C.

doi:10.1016/j.acra.2019.01.020

Cited by 16 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We assessed correlates associated with false-positive results, and noted findings similar to those reported in prior studies using 2-D mammography among insured populations ( Román et al, 2012 ) – younger pre-menopausal women demonstrated higher odds of false-positive results than younger post-menopausal women, and there was no significant association between race and false-positive results ( Honig et al, 2019 , Nelson et al, 2016 ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 52%

Prevalence and correlates of false-positive results after 3-D screening mammography among uninsured women in a community outreach program

Nair

Lee

Zhu

et al. 2022

Preventive Medicine Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 52%

Prevalence and correlates of false-positive results after 3-D screening mammography among uninsured women in a community outreach program

Nair

Lee

Zhu

et al. 2022

Preventive Medicine Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…An up to 3-fold increased risk of a later diagnosis of screen-detected or interval cancer has been demonstrated in women with a false positive screening result (119)(120)(121)(122). Comparison with prior images when interpreting the current screening examination may reduce the rate of false-positive recall, and increased knowledge and experience among screen-readers has the potential to increase specificity (123,124).…”

Section: Biases In Screeningmentioning

confidence: 99%

True and Missed Interval Cancer in Organized Mammographic Screening: A Retrospective Review Study of Diagnostic and Prior Screening Mammograms

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…As previously described, 12 clinical data and imaging findings were recorded using a clinically integrated data collection system, MachForm. Additional clinical data was reviewed in the electronic medical record (Epic, Madison, WI).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…True-positive cases were defined as any case with malignant pathology on core biopsy or surgical excision within one year. 12 Breast cancer was defined as invasive ductal cancer, invasive lobular cancer, or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Positive predictive value (PPV1) was defined as the percentage of positive screening examinations (BI-RADS 0) that result in a tissue diagnosis of cancer within one year.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2 Multiple studies have demonstrated that breast cancer screening programs reduce breast cancer mortality by 19-49%. [3][4][5] Screening mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is associated with improved cancer detection rates, 6 decreased false-positive rates, [7][8][9][10][11] and reduced recalls 12 compared to full-field digital mammogram (FFDM). Additionally, invasive cancers detected on screening DBT may be smaller and more likely to be node negative compared with those detected by digital mammography, especially in younger women, [13][14][15] suggesting cancers detected on DBT portend a better prognosis.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Benefits of digital breast tomosynthesis: A lesion-level analysis

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To compare outcome metrics of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) breast cancer screening with full-field digital mammogram (FFDM); specifically, to compare recall rates by the type of recalled finding, and to assess if screening with DBT versus FFDM changes biopsy recommendations and if the likelihood of malignancy varied by lesion type, if detected on DBT or FFDM screening mammogram. Methods The outcomes of 22,055 FFDM and DBT screening mammograms were retrospectively reviewed. The exams were performed at an academic institution between August 2015 and September 2016. Performance of screening with FFDM versus DBT was compared in terms of recall rate and percentage of recalled lesions resulting in a cancer diagnosis, with subset analyses performed for specific mammographic findings. Results The recall rate was 10.6% for FFDM and 8.0% for DBT ( p < 0.001). Architectural distortion was more likely to be recalled on DBT screening than FFDM ( p = 0.002), and was associated with an increased likelihood of malignancy ( p = 0.008). Asymmetries were less likely to be recalled on DBT than FFDM ( p < 0.001) screening mammogram, but more likely to be recommended for biopsy when detected on DBT. Calcifications more frequently required short-term follow-up or biopsy on both DBT and FFDM. Conclusions DBT screening confers an advantage in detection of architectural distortion representing malignancy. Recall rate of asymmetries are reduced with screening DBT, probably due to reduction of tissue superimposition. Calcifications pose a particularly difficult diagnostic challenge for breast imagers, regardless of screening mammogram type.

show abstract

Factors Impacting False Positive Recall in Screening Mammography

Cited by 16 publications

References 33 publications

Prevalence and correlates of false-positive results after 3-D screening mammography among uninsured women in a community outreach program

Prevalence and correlates of false-positive results after 3-D screening mammography among uninsured women in a community outreach program

True and Missed Interval Cancer in Organized Mammographic Screening: A Retrospective Review Study of Diagnostic and Prior Screening Mammograms

Benefits of digital breast tomosynthesis: A lesion-level analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About