Risk of Breast Cancer After False-Positive Test Results in Screening Mammography

Euler‐Chelpin, My von; Risør, Louise Madeleine; Thorsted, Brian Larsen; Vejborg, Ilse

doi:10.1093/jnci/djs176

Cited by 28 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A study from the Copenhagen program in Denmark by von Euler‐Chelpin et al. found a 67% increased risk of breast cancer diagnosis in women with false‐positive results . Castells et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

“…A study from the Copenhagen program in Denmark by von Euler‐Chelpin et al. found a 67% increased risk of breast cancer diagnosis in women with false‐positive results . Castells et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A 2012 study from Denmark examined the long-term risk of breast cancer and found a 67% increased risk among women with a prior false-positive result (7). More recently, data from a population-based breast cancer screening program in Spain reported that false-positive results involving fine needle aspiration cytology or a biopsy had a higher subsequent cancer detection risk than those false-positive results involving additional imaging procedures alone (8).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

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

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

“…The density coding was re-evaluated using data from a Copenhagen study on long-term breast cancer risk in women with false-positive screening test [21]. In total, 118 negative screening mammograms taken prior to the false-positive screening were re-evaluated.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mammographic density in birth cohorts of Danish women: a longitudinal study

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundBreast cancer is the leading malignant disease among western women with incidence increasing over time. High mammographic density is a well-established risk factor for breast cancer. We explored trends in mammographic density across birth cohorts to gain further insight into possible time trends in women’s mammographic density that might explain the historical increase in breast cancer incidence.MethodsData derived from two mammography screening programs in Denmark from 1991 to 2001, including on average 41,091 women from Copenhagen and 52,938 women from Funen aged 50–69. Mammographic density was assessed qualitatively (fatty or mixed/dense) by senior screening radiologists. The proportion of women with mixed/dense mammographic density was calculated by age at screening, screening period, and birth cohort. The Generalized Estimating Equations were used to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. All statistical tests were two-sided.ResultsThe proportion of women with mixed/dense mammographic density increased from 45% among women born in the 1920s to 75-80% among women born in the 1940s. In Copenhagen, the age-adjusted odds ratio (95% CI) of mixed/dense mammographic density in women born in 1941–42 was 2.48 (2.22-2.76) compared with women born in 1921–22. In Funen, the age-adjusted odds ratio of mixed/dense mammographic density in women born in 1946–47 was 5.89 (5.32-6.51) compared with women born in 1924–25. Hormone use had a greater impact on mammographic density in birth cohorts of the 1920s compared with those of the 1940s.ConclusionsWe found suggestive evidence of a birth cohort pattern in mammographic density and an attenuated impact of hormone use in younger compared with older birth cohorts suggesting that postmenopausal mammographic density could be linked to changing exposures accumulated over time in women’s lives.

show abstract

Risk of Breast Cancer After False-Positive Test Results in Screening Mammography

Cited by 28 publications

References 26 publications

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

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

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

Mammographic density in birth cohorts of Danish women: a longitudinal study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About