Long-term Risk of Screen-detected and Interval Breast Cancer After False-positive Results at Mammography Screening: Joint Analysis of Three National Cohorts

Overview

Journal Br J Cancer

Specialty Oncology

Date 2018 Dec 20

PMID 30563993

Citations 9

Authors

Marta Roman

Solveig Hofvind

My von Euler-Chelpin

Xavier Castells

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: We assessed the long-term risk of screen-detected and interval breast cancer in women with a first or second false-positive screening result.

Methods: Joint analysis had been performed using individual-level data from three population-based screening programs in Europe (Copenhagen in Denmark, Norway, and Spain). Overall, 75,513 screened women aged 50-69 years from Denmark (1991-2010), 556,640 from Norway (1996-2008), and 517,314 from Spain (1994-2010) were included. We used partly conditional Cox hazards models to assess the association between false-positive results and the risk of subsequent screen-detected and interval cancer.

Results: During follow-up, 1,149,467 women underwent 3,510,450 screening exams, and 10,623 screen-detected and 5700 interval cancers were diagnosed. Compared to women with negative tests, those with false-positive results had a two-fold risk of screen-detected (HR = 2.04, 95% CI: 1.93-2.16) and interval cancer (HR = 2.18, 95% CI: 2.02-2.34). Women with a second false-positive result had over a four-fold risk of screen-detected and interval cancer (HR = 4.71, 95% CI: 3.81-5.83 and HR = 4.22, 95% CI: 3.27-5.46, respectively). Women remained at an elevated risk for 12 years after the false-positive result.

Conclusions: Women with prior false-positive results had an increased risk of screen-detected and interval cancer for over a decade. This information should be considered to design personalised screening strategies based on individual risk.

Citing Articles

False-positive recalls in the prospective Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial.

Johnson K, Olinder J, Rosso A, Andersson I, Lang K, Zackrisson S Eur Radiol. 2023; 33(11):8089-8099.

PMID: 37145147 PMC: 10597871. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-023-09705-x.

Choice of Assessment and Subsequent Risk of Breast Cancer among Women with False-Positive Mammography Screening.

Sardini B, Jorgensen S, Larsen L, Elhakim M, Njor S Cancers (Basel). 2023; 15(6).

PMID: 36980754 PMC: 10046942. DOI: 10.3390/cancers15061867.

The Potential of Adding Mammography to Handheld Ultrasound or Automated Breast Ultrasound to Reduce Unnecessary Biopsies in BI-RADS Ultrasound Category 4a: A Multicenter Hospital-Based Study in China.

Ren W, Zhao X, Zhao X, Yan H, Hu S, Qiao Y Curr Oncol. 2023; 30(3):3301-3314.

PMID: 36975464 PMC: 10047589. DOI: 10.3390/curroncol30030251.

Cumulative 6-Year Risk of Screen-Detected Ductal Carcinoma In Situ by Screening Frequency.

Sprague B, Chen S, Miglioretti D, Gard C, Tice J, Hubbard R JAMA Netw Open. 2023; 6(2):e230166.

PMID: 36808238 PMC: 9941892. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.0166.

Effectiveness of Organized Mammography Screening for Different Breast Cancer Molecular Subtypes.

Ding L, Greuter M, Truyen I, Goossens M, van der Vegt B, De Schutter H Cancers (Basel). 2022; 14(19).

PMID: 36230754 PMC: 9562677. DOI: 10.3390/cancers14194831.

References

Hofvind S, Ponti A, Patnick J, Ascunce N, Njor S, Broeders M . False-positive results in mammographic screening for breast cancer in Europe: a literature review and survey of service screening programmes. J Med Screen. 2012; 19 Suppl 1:57-66. DOI: 10.1258/jms.2012.012083. View

Wolfe J, Saftlas A, Salane M . Mammographic parenchymal patterns and quantitative evaluation of mammographic densities: a case-control study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1987; 148(6):1087-92. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.148.6.1087. View

Hofvind S, Geller B, Skelly J, Vacek P . Sensitivity and specificity of mammographic screening as practised in Vermont and Norway. Br J Radiol. 2012; 85(1020):e1226-32. PMC: 3611728. DOI: 10.1259/bjr/15168178. View

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

Roman M, Castells X, Hofvind S, von Euler-Chelpin M . Risk of breast cancer after false-positive results in mammographic screening. Cancer Med. 2016; 5(6):1298-306. PMC: 4924388. DOI: 10.1002/cam4.646. View

Elmore J, Nakano C, Koepsell T, Desnick L, DOrsi C, Ransohoff D . International variation in screening mammography interpretations in community-based programs. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003; 95(18):1384-93. PMC: 3146363. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djg048. View

Groenendijk R, Kochen M, van Engelenburg K, Boetes C, Strobbe L, Ruers T . Detection of breast cancer after biopsy for false-positive screening mammography. An increased risk?. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2001; 27(1):17-20. DOI: 10.1053/ejso.2000.1045. View

von Euler-Chelpin M, Risor L, Thorsted B, Vejborg I . Risk of breast cancer after false-positive test results in screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012; 104(9):682-9. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djs176. View

Jacobsen K, von Euler-Chelpin M . Performance indicators for participation in organized mammography screening. J Public Health (Oxf). 2012; 34(2):272-8. DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fdr106. View

10.

Henderson L, Hubbard R, Sprague B, Zhu W, Kerlikowske K . Increased Risk of Developing Breast Cancer after a False-Positive Screening Mammogram. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2015; 24(12):1882-9. PMC: 4670607. DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0623. View

11.

Smith-Bindman R, Ballard-Barbash R, Miglioretti D, Patnick J, Kerlikowske K . Comparing the performance of mammography screening in the USA and the UK. J Med Screen. 2005; 12(1):50-4. DOI: 10.1258/0969141053279130. View

12.

Salz T, DeFrank J, Brewer N . False positive mammograms in Europe: do they affect reattendance?. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010; 127(1):229-31. PMC: 3160730. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-010-1245-9. View

13.

Hofvind S, Sagstad S, Sebuodegard S, Chen Y, Roman M, Lee C . Interval Breast Cancer Rates and Histopathologic Tumor Characteristics after False-Positive Findings at Mammography in a Population-based Screening Program. Radiology. 2017; 287(1):58-67. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017162159. View

14.

Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Tornberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L . European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition--summary document. Ann Oncol. 2007; 19(4):614-22. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdm481. View

15.

Castells X, Roman M, Romero A, Blanch J, Zubizarreta R, Ascunce N . Breast cancer detection risk in screening mammography after a false-positive result. Cancer Epidemiol. 2012; 37(1):85-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.canep.2012.10.004. View

16.

Brett J, Bankhead C, Henderson B, Watson E, Austoker J . The psychological impact of mammographic screening. A systematic review. Psychooncology. 2005; 14(11):917-38. DOI: 10.1002/pon.904. View

17.

Ascunce N, Salas D, Zubizarreta R, Almazan R, Ibanez J, Ederra M . Cancer screening in Spain. Ann Oncol. 2010; 21 Suppl 3:iii43-51. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdq085. View

18.

Hofvind S, Geller B, Vacek P, Thoresen S, Skaane P . Using the European guidelines to evaluate the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. Eur J Epidemiol. 2007; 22(7):447-55. DOI: 10.1007/s10654-007-9137-y. View

19.

McCormack V, Dos Santos Silva I . Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006; 15(6):1159-69. DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0034. View

20.

Hartmann L, Sellers T, Frost M, Lingle W, Degnim A, Ghosh K . Benign breast disease and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005; 353(3):229-37. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa044383. View