The Impact of False Positive Breast Cancer Screening Mammograms on Screening Retention: A Retrospective Population Cohort Study in Alberta, Canada

Overview

Journal Can J Public Health

Publisher Springer Nature

Specialty Public Health

Date 2018 Jan 23

PMID 29356661

Citations 3

Authors

Ye Shen

Marcy Winget

Yan Yuan

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: The impact of false positives on breast cancer screening retention is inconsistent across international studies. We investigate factors associated with screening retention, including false positive screening results, invasiveness of diagnostic procedures, and geographic variation in Alberta, Canada.

Methods: A total of 213 867 women aged 50-67 years who had an index screen mammogram between July 2006 and June 2008 were evaluated at 30 months post index screen to determine the screening retention rate. The association of screening retention with invasiveness of the diagnostic procedure, time to diagnostic resolution, and region of residence were investigated using multivariable log binomial regression, adjusting for women's age.

Results: Women with false positive screening results were less likely to return for their next recommended screening than those with a true negative result (62.0% vs. 68.7%). Compared to women with normal screening results, the adjusted risk ratios of fail-to-rescreen for women with imaging-only follow-up, needle sampling, and open biopsy were 1.08 (95% CI: 1.05-1.12), 1.72 (95% CI: 1.44-2.07) and 2.29 (95% CI: 2.09-2.50) respectively. Screening retention rates were slightly higher for rural residents than urban residents. Time to diagnostic resolution was not associated with screening retention. Screening retention peaked at one year from the index date of the previous screening.

Conclusion: Higher awareness of the strong negative impact that biopsies in the case of a false positive screening have on screening retention is needed. Such awareness can inform intervention strategies to mitigate the impact and improve screening retention rate.

Citing Articles

Towards Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS)-Based Newborn Screening: A Technical Study to Prepare for the Challenges Ahead.

Veldman A, Kiewiet M, Heiner-Fokkema M, Nelen M, Sinke R, Sikkema-Raddatz B Int J Neonatal Screen. 2022; 8(1).

PMID: 35323196 PMC: 8949100. DOI: 10.3390/ijns8010017.

Pri-miR526b and Pri-miR655 Are Potential Blood Biomarkers for Breast Cancer.

Majumder M, Ugwuagbo K, Maiti S, Lala P, Brackstone M Cancers (Basel). 2021; 13(15).

PMID: 34359739 PMC: 8345356. DOI: 10.3390/cancers13153838.

Importance of quality in breast cancer screening practice - a natural experiment in Alberta, Canada.

Yuan Y, Vu K, Shen Y, Dickinson J, Winget M BMJ Open. 2020; 10(1):e028766.

PMID: 31911508 PMC: 6955468. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028766.

References

Gur D, Sumkin J, Hardesty L, Clearfield R, Cohen C, Ganott M . Recall and detection rates in screening mammography. Cancer. 2004; 100(8):1590-4. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.20053. View

Chiarelli A, Halapy E, Nadalin V, Shumak R, OMalley F, Mai V . Performance measures from 10 years of breast screening in the Ontario Breast Screening Program, 1990/91 to 2000. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2005; 15(1):34-42. DOI: 10.1097/01.cej.0000195713.02567.36. View

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

Jibaja-Weiss M, Volk R, Kingery P, Smith Q, Holcomb J . Tailored messages for breast and cervical cancer screening of low-income and minority women using medical records data. Patient Educ Couns. 2003; 50(2):123-32. DOI: 10.1016/s0738-3991(02)00119-2. View

Taylor K, Britton P, OKeeffe S, Wallis M . Quantification of the UK 5-point breast imaging classification and mapping to BI-RADS to facilitate comparison with international literature. Br J Radiol. 2011; 84(1007):1005-10. PMC: 3473699. DOI: 10.1259/bjr/48490964. View

Maxwell A, Beattie C, Lavelle J, Lyburn I, Sinnatamby R, Garnett S . The effect of false positive breast screening examinations on subsequent attendance: retrospective cohort study. J Med Screen. 2013; 20(2):91-8. DOI: 10.1177/0969141313499147. View

Bond M, Pavey T, Welch K, Cooper C, Garside R, Dean S . Psychological consequences of false-positive screening mammograms in the UK. Evid Based Med. 2012; 18(2):54-61. DOI: 10.1136/eb-2012-100608. View

Alamo-Junquera D, Murta-Nascimento C, Macia F, Bare M, Galceran J, Ascunce N . Effect of false-positive results on reattendance at breast cancer screening programmes in Spain. Eur J Public Health. 2011; 22(3):404-8. DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/ckr057. View

Taplin S, Barlow W, Ludman E, MacLehos R, Meyer D, Seger D . Testing reminder and motivational telephone calls to increase screening mammography: a randomized study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000; 92(3):233-42. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/92.3.233. View

10.

Tonelli M, Connor Gorber S, Joffres M, Dickinson J, Singh H, Lewin G . Recommendations on screening for breast cancer in average-risk women aged 40-74 years. CMAJ. 2011; 183(17):1991-2001. PMC: 3225421. DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.110334. View

11.

Nelson H, OMeara E, Kerlikowske K, Balch S, Miglioretti D . Factors Associated With Rates of False-Positive and False-Negative Results From Digital Mammography Screening: An Analysis of Registry Data. Ann Intern Med. 2016; 164(4):226-35. PMC: 5091936. DOI: 10.7326/M15-0971. View

12.

Yuan Y, Li M, Yang J, Winget M . Using administrative data to estimate time to breast cancer diagnosis and percent of screen-detected breast cancers – a validation study in Alberta, Canada. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2014; 24(3):367-75. DOI: 10.1111/ecc.12277. View

13.

Altobelli E, Lattanzi A . Breast cancer in European Union: an update of screening programmes as of March 2014 (review). Int J Oncol. 2014; 45(5):1785-92. PMC: 4203333. DOI: 10.3892/ijo.2014.2632. View

14.

White E, Miglioretti D, Yankaskas B, Geller B, Rosenberg R, Kerlikowske K . Biennial versus annual mammography and the risk of late-stage breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004; 96(24):1832-9. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djh337. View

15.

Chiarelli A, Moravan V, Halapy E, Majpruz V, Mai V, Tatla R . False-positive result and reattendance in the Ontario Breast Screening Program. J Med Screen. 2003; 10(3):129-33. DOI: 10.1177/096914130301000306. View

16.

Duffy S, Tabar L, Olsen A, Vitak B, Allgood P, Chen T . Absolute numbers of lives saved and overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening, from a randomized trial and from the Breast Screening Programme in England. J Med Screen. 2010; 17(1):25-30. PMC: 3104821. DOI: 10.1258/jms.2009.009094. View

17.

. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151(10):716-26, W-236. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-10-200911170-00008. View

18.

Brewer N, Salz T, Lillie S . Systematic review: the long-term effects of false-positive mammograms. Ann Intern Med. 2007; 146(7):502-10. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-146-7-200704030-00006. View

19.

Bond M, Pavey T, Welch K, Cooper C, Garside R, Dean S . Systematic review of the psychological consequences of false-positive screening mammograms. Health Technol Assess. 2013; 17(13):1-170, v-vi. PMC: 4781086. DOI: 10.3310/hta17130. View

20.

Vahabi M, Lofters A, Kumar M, Glazier R . Breast cancer screening disparities among urban immigrants: a population-based study in Ontario, Canada. BMC Public Health. 2015; 15:679. PMC: 4508905. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-015-2050-5. View