» Articles » PMID: 28183826

Impact of a False-Positive Screening Mammogram on Subsequent Screening Behavior and Stage at Breast Cancer Diagnosis

Overview
Date 2017 Feb 11
PMID 28183826
Citations 17
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Experiencing a false positive (FP) screening mammogram is economically, physically, and emotionally burdensome, which may affect future screening behavior by delaying the next scheduled mammogram or by avoiding screening altogether. We sought to examine the impact of a FP screening mammogram on the subsequent screening mammography behavior. Delay in obtaining subsequent screening was defined as any mammogram performed more than 12 months from index mammogram. The Kaplan-Meier (product limit) estimator and Cox proportional hazards model were used to estimate the unadjusted delay and the hazard ratio (HR) of delay of the subsequent screening mammogram within the next 36 months from the index mammogram date. A total of 650,232 true negative (TN) and 90,918 FP mammograms from 261,767 women were included. The likelihood of a subsequent mammogram was higher in women experiencing a TN result than women experiencing a FP result (85.0% vs. 77.9%, < 0.001). The median delay in returning to screening was higher for FP versus TN (13 months vs. 3 months, < 0.001). Women with TN result were 36% more likely to return to screening in the next 36 months compared with women with a FP result HR = 1.36 (95% CI, 1.35-1.37). Experiencing a FP mammogram increases the risk of late stage at diagnosis compared with prior TN mammogram ( < 0.001). Women with a FP mammogram were more likely to delay their subsequent screening compared with women with a TN mammogram. A prior FP experience may subsequently increase the 4-year cumulative risk of late stage at diagnosis. .

Citing Articles

Factors associated with false-positive screening mammography in São Paulo, Brazil.

Camara A, Duarte L, Cury L, Wunsch Filho V Sci Rep. 2025; 15(1):4849.

PMID: 39924548 PMC: 11808087. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-86993-x.


Informed choices for some, but not for others: An exploration of Australian midlife women's participation in mammography screening by social class.

Batchelor S, Lunnay B, Macdonald S, Ward P Womens Health (Lond). 2025; 21():17455057241305730.

PMID: 39825767 PMC: 11742167. DOI: 10.1177/17455057241305730.


ESR Essentials: screening for breast cancer - general recommendations by EUSOBI.

Marcon M, Fuchsjager M, Clauser P, Mann R Eur Radiol. 2024; 34(10):6348-6357.

PMID: 38656711 PMC: 11399176. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-024-10740-5.


False-positive incidental lesions detected on contrast-enhanced breast MRI: clinical and imaging features.

Alikhassi A, Li X, Au F, Kulkarni S, Ghai S, Allison G Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2023; 198(2):321-334.

PMID: 36740611 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-023-06861-y.


Prioritizing Screening Mammograms for Immediate Interpretation and Diagnostic Evaluation on the Basis of Risk for Recall.

Ho T, Bissell M, Lee C, Lee J, Sprague B, Tosteson A J Am Coll Radiol. 2022; 20(3):299-310.

PMID: 36273501 PMC: 10044471. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2022.09.030.


References
1.
Hofvind S, Wang H, Thoresen S . The Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program: re-attendance related to the women's experiences, intentions and previous screening result. Cancer Causes Control. 2003; 14(4):391-8. DOI: 10.1023/a:1023918610664. View

2.
Mushlin A, Kouides R, Shapiro D . Estimating the accuracy of screening mammography: a meta-analysis. Am J Prev Med. 1998; 14(2):143-53. DOI: 10.1016/s0749-3797(97)00019-6. View

3.
Brodersen J, Siersma V . Long-term psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening mammography. Ann Fam Med. 2013; 11(2):106-15. PMC: 3601385. DOI: 10.1370/afm.1466. View

4.
Lipkus I, Halabi S, Strigo T, Rimer B . The impact of abnormal mammograms on psychosocial outcomes and subsequent screening. Psychooncology. 2000; 9(5):402-10. DOI: 10.1002/1099-1611(200009/10)9:5<402::aid-pon475>3.0.co;2-u. View

5.
Woloshin S, Schwartz L . The benefits and harms of mammography screening: understanding the trade-offs. JAMA. 2010; 303(2):164-5. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2009.2007. View