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

Román, Marta; Castells, Xavier; Hofvind, Solveig; Euler‐Chelpin, My von

doi:10.1002/cam4.646

Cited by 22 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This latter result highlights one aspect of the potential clinical relevance of the gist signal since it is well known that women who have cancer in one breast are more likely to have future cancer in the other breast 20 . It has also been shown that women recalled at screening by radiologists who felt there was something wrong but could not localise any cancer assessment, have a 1.4–6.6 fold increased risk of developing aggressive and larger cancers (≥20 mm) within 3–10 years compared to those who were not recalled 21 , 22 . This evidence suggests that a gist signal could be predictive of future cancer if it was visible in a mammogram with no visible overt signs of cancer.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiologists can detect the ‘gist’ of breast cancer before any overt signs of cancer appear

Brennan

Gandomkar

Ekpo

et al. 2018

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Radiologists can detect abnormality in mammograms at above-chance levels after a momentary glimpse of an image. The study investigated this instantaneous perception of an abnormality, known as a “gist” response, when 23 radiologists viewed prior mammograms of women that were reported as normal, but later diagnosed with breast cancer at subsequent screening. Five categories of cases were included: current cancer-containing mammograms, current mammograms of the normal breast contralateral to the cancer, prior mammograms of normal cases, prior mammograms with visible cancer signs in a breast from women who were initially reported as normal, but later diagnosed with breast cancer at subsequent screening in the same breast, and prior mammograms without any visible cancer signs from women labelled as initially normal but subsequently diagnosed with cancer. Our findings suggest that readers can distinguish patients who were diagnosed with cancer, from individuals without breast cancer (normal category), at above-chance levels based on a half-second glimpse of the mammogram even before any lesion becomes visible on the mammogram. Although 20 of the 23 radiologists demonstrated this ability, radiologists’ abilities for perceiving the gist of the abnormal varied between the readers and appeared to be linked to expertise. These results could have implications for identifying women of higher than average risk of a future malignancy event, thus impacting upon tailored screening strategies.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiologists can detect the ‘gist’ of breast cancer before any overt signs of cancer appear

Brennan

Gandomkar

Ekpo

et al. 2018

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We ask the reader to note that resources saved by cutting suboptimal testing in low‐risk groups may justify spending more resources on high‐risk groups. Intensified screening has been proposed for women with high mammographic density and for women with false‐positive screening results …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimizing performance of BreastScreen Norway using value of information in graphical models

Lilleborge

Hofvind

Sebuødegård

et al. 2018

Statistics in Medicine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study proposes a method to optimize the performance of BreastScreen Norway through a stratified recommendation of tests including independent double or single reading of the screening mammograms and additional imaging with or without core needle biopsy. This is carefully evaluated by a value of information analysis. An estimated graphical probabilistic model describing the relationship between a set of risk factors and the corresponding risk of breast cancer is used for this analysis, together with a Bayesian network modeling screening test results conditional on the true (but unknown) breast cancer status of a woman. This study contributes towards evaluating a possibility of improving the efficiency of the screening program, where all women aged 50 to 69 are invited every second year, regardless of individual risk factors. Our stratified recommendation of tests is dependent on the probability that an asymptomatic woman has developed breast cancer at the time she is invited to a screening.

show abstract

“…BREAST IMAGING: Breast Cancer after False-Positive Findings at Mammography Hofvind et al analyses (7)(8)(9). Recent studies (19)(20)(21)(22)(23) showed an increased risk of subsequent screening-detected breast cancer after a previous false-positive screening. An increased risk of IBC might also be expected after a false-positive screening versus a negative screening.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Interval Breast Cancer Rates and Histopathologic Tumor Characteristics after False-Positive Findings at Mammography in a Population-based Screening Program

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To compare rates and tumor characteristics of interval breast cancers (IBCs) detected after a negative versus false-positive screening among women participating in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. Materials and Methods The Cancer Registry Regulation approved this retrospective study. Information about 423 445 women aged 49-71 years who underwent 789 481 full-field digital mammographic screening examinations during 2004-2012 was extracted from the Cancer Registry of Norway. Rates and odds ratios of IBC among women with a negative (the reference group) versus a false-positive screening were estimated by using logistic regression models adjusted for age at diagnosis and county of residence. Results A total of 1302 IBCs were diagnosed after 789 481 screening examinations, of which 7.0% (91 of 1302) were detected among women with a false-positive screening as the most recent breast imaging examination before detection. By using negative screening as the reference, adjusted odds ratios of IBCs were 3.3 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.6, 4.2) and 2.8 (95% CI: 1.8, 4.4) for women with a false-positive screening without and with needle biopsy, respectively. Women with a previous negative screening had a significantly lower proportion of tumors that were 10 mm or less (14.3% [150 of 1049] vs 50.0% [seven of 14], respectively; P < .01) and grade I tumors (13.2% [147 of 1114] vs 42.9% [six of 14]; P < .01), but a higher proportion of cases with lymph nodes positive for cancer (40.9% [442 of 1080] vs 13.3% [two of 15], respectively; P = .03) compared with women with a previous false-positive screening with benign biopsy. A retrospective review of the screening mammographic examinations identified 42.9% (39 of 91) of the false-positive cases to be the same lesion as the IBC. Conclusion By using a negative screening as the reference, a false-positive screening examination increased the risk of an IBC three-fold. The tumor characteristics of IBC after a negative screening were less favorable compared with those detected after a previous false-positive screening. RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

show abstract

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

Cited by 22 publications

References 39 publications

Radiologists can detect the ‘gist’ of breast cancer before any overt signs of cancer appear

Radiologists can detect the ‘gist’ of breast cancer before any overt signs of cancer appear

Optimizing performance of BreastScreen Norway using value of information in graphical models

Interval Breast Cancer Rates and Histopathologic Tumor Characteristics after False-Positive Findings at Mammography in a Population-based Screening Program

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About