Comparison of cumulative false-positive risk of screening mammography in the United States and Denmark.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kemp Jacobsen K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4871241 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Mammography has been found effective as the primary screening test for breast cancer. We estimated the cumulative probability of false positive screening test results with respect to symptom history reported at screen. A historical prospective cohort study was done using individual screening data from 413,611 women aged 50-69 years with 2,627,256 invitations for mammography screening between 1992 and 2012 in Finland. Symptoms (lump, retraction, and secretion) were reported at 56,805 visits, and 48,873 visits resulted in a false positive mammography result. Generalized linear models were used to estimate the probability of at least one false positive test and true positive at screening visits. The estimates were compared among women with and without symptoms history. The estimated cumulative probabilities were 18 and 6 % for false positive and true positive results, respectively. In women with a history of a lump, the cumulative probabilities of false positive test and true positive were 45 and 16 %, respectively, compared to 17 and 5 % with no reported lump. In women with a history of any given symptom, the cumulative probabilities of false positive test and true positive were 38 and 13 %, respectively. Likewise, women with a history of a 'lump and retraction' had the cumulative false positive probability of 56 %. The study showed higher cumulative risk of false positive tests and more cancers detected in women who reported symptoms compared to women who did not report symptoms at screen. The risk varies substantially, depending on symptom types and characteristics. Information on breast symptoms influences the balance of absolute benefits and harms of screening.
| S-EPMC5012157 | biostudies-literature
Project description:False-positive mammography results are common. Biennial screening may decrease the cumulative probability of false-positive results across many years of repeated screening but could also delay cancer diagnosis.To compare the cumulative probability of false-positive results and the stage distribution of incident breast cancer after 10 years of annual or biennial screening mammography.Prospective cohort study.7 mammography registries in the National Cancer Institute-funded Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.169,456 women who underwent first screening mammography at age 40 to 59 years between 1994 and 2006 and 4492 women with incident invasive breast cancer diagnosed between 1996 and 2006.False-positive recalls and biopsy recommendations stage distribution of incident breast cancer.False-positive recall probability was 16.3% at first and 9.6% at subsequent mammography. Probability of false-positive biopsy recommendation was 2.5% at first and 1.0% at subsequent examinations. Availability of comparison mammograms halved the odds of a false-positive recall (adjusted odds ratio, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.45 to 0.56]). When screening began at age 40 years, the cumulative probability of a woman receiving at least 1 false-positive recall after 10 years was 61.3% (CI, 59.4% to 63.1%) with annual and 41.6% (CI, 40.6% to 42.5%) with biennial screening. Cumulative probability of false-positive biopsy recommendation was 7.0% (CI, 6.1% to 7.8%) with annual and 4.8% (CI, 4.4% to 5.2%) with biennial screening. Estimates were similar when screening began at age 50 years. A non-statistically significant increase in the proportion of late-stage cancers was observed with biennial compared with annual screening (absolute increases, 3.3 percentage points [CI, -1.1 to 7.8 percentage points] for women age 40 to 49 years and 2.3 percentage points [CI, -1.0 to 5.7 percentage points] for women age 50 to 59 years) among women with incident breast cancer.Few women underwent screening over the entire 10-year period. Radiologist characteristics influence recall rates and were unavailable. Most mammograms were film rather than digital. Incident cancer was analyzed in a small sample of women who developed cancer.After 10 years of annual screening, more than half of women will receive at least 1 false-positive recall, and 7% to 9% will receive a false-positive biopsy recommendation. Biennial screening appears to reduce the cumulative probability of false-positive results after 10 years but may be associated with a small absolute increase in the probability of late-stage cancer diagnosis.National Cancer Institute.
| S-EPMC3209800 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8956976 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Screening tests are widely recommended for the early detection of disease among asymptomatic individuals. While detecting disease at an earlier stage has the potential to improve outcomes, screening also has negative consequences, including false positive results which may lead to anxiety, unnecessary diagnostic procedures, and increased healthcare costs. In addition, multiple false positive results could discourage participating in subsequent screening rounds. Screening guidelines typically recommend repeated screening over a period of many years, but little prior research has investigated how often individuals receive multiple false positive test results. Estimating the cumulative risk of multiple false positive results over the course of multiple rounds of screening is challenging due to the presence of censoring and competing risks, which may depend on the false positive risk, screening round, and number of prior false positive results. To address the general challenge of estimating the cumulative risk of multiple false positive test results, we propose a nonhomogeneous multistate model to describe the screening process including competing events. We developed alternative approaches for estimating the cumulative risk of multiple false positive results using this multistate model based on existing estimators for the cumulative risk of a single false positive. We compared the performance of the newly proposed models through simulation studies and illustrate model performance using data on screening mammography from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Across most simulation scenarios, the multistate extension of a censoring bias model demonstrated lower bias compared to other approaches. In the context of screening mammography, we found that the cumulative risk of multiple false positive results is high. For instance, based on the censoring bias model, for a high-risk individual, the cumulative probability of at least two false positive mammography results after 10 rounds of annual screening is 40.4.
| S-EPMC8793126 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhen evaluating cancer screening it is important to estimate the cumulative risk of false positives from periodic screening. Because the data typically come from studies in which the number of screenings varies by subject, estimation must take into account dropouts. A previous approach to estimate the probability of at least one false positive in n screenings unrealistically assumed that the probability of dropout does not depend on prior false positives.MethodBy redefining the random variables, we obviate the unrealistic dropout assumption. We also propose a relatively simple logistic regression and extend estimation to the expected number of false positives in n screenings.ResultsWe illustrate our methodology using data from women ages 40 to 64 who received up to four annual breast cancer screenings in the Health Insurance Program of Greater New York study, which began in 1963. Covariates were age, time since previous screening, screening number, and whether or not a previous false positive occurred. Defining a false positive as an unnecessary biopsy, the only statistically significant covariate was whether or not a previous false positive occurred. Because the effect of screening number was not statistically significant, extrapolation beyond 4 screenings was reasonable. The estimated mean number of unnecessary biopsies in 10 years per woman screened is.11 with 95% confidence interval of (.10,.12). Defining a false positive as an unnecessary work-up, all the covariates were statistically significant and the estimated mean number of unnecessary work-ups in 4 years per woman screened is.34 with 95% confidence interval (.32,.36).ConclusionUsing data from multiple cancer screenings with dropouts, and allowing dropout to depend on previous history of false positives, we propose a logistic regression model to estimate both the probability of at least one false positive and the expected number of false positives associated with n cancer screenings. The methodology can be used for both informed decision making at the individual level, as well as planning of health services.
| S-EPMC166156 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Controversy exists over how often and at what age mammography screening should be implemented. Given that evidence supports less frequent screening, the cost differences among advocated screening policies should be better understood.To estimate the aggregate cost of mammography screening in the United States in 2010 and compare the costs of policy recommendations by professional organizations.A model was developed to estimate the cost of mammography screening in 2010 and 3 screening strategies: annual (ages 40 to 84 years), biennial (ages 50 to 69 years), and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines (biennial for those aged 50 to 74 years and personalized based on risk for those younger than 50 years and based on comorbid conditions for those 75 years and older).United States.Women aged 40 to 85 years.Mammography annually, biennially, or following USPSTF guidelines.Cost of screening per year, using Medicare reimbursements.The estimated cost of mammography screening in the United States in 2010 was $7.8 billion, with approximately 70% of women screened. The simulated cost of screening 85% of women was $10.1 billion, $2.6 billion, and $3.5 billion for annual, biennial, and USPSTF guidelines, respectively. The largest drivers of cost (in order) were screening frequency, percentage of women screened, cost of mammography, percentage of women screened with digital mammography, and percentage of mammography recalls.Cost estimates and assumptions used in the model were conservative.The cost of mammography varies by at least $8 billion per year on the basis of screening strategy. The USPSTF guidelines are based on the scientific evidence to date to maximize patient benefit and minimize harm but also result in far more effective use of resources.University of California and the Safeway Foundation.
| S-EPMC4142190 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis study illustrates alternative statistical methods for estimating cumulative risk of screening mammography outcomes in longitudinal studies.MethodsData from the US Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) and the Nijmegen Breast Cancer Screening Program in the Netherlands were used to compare four statistical approaches to estimating cumulative risk. We estimated cumulative risk of false-positive recall and screen-detected cancer after 10 screening rounds using data from 242,835 women ages 40 to 74 years screened at the BCSC facilities in 1993-2012 and from 17,297 women ages 50 to 74 years screened in Nijmegen in 1990-2012.ResultsIn the BCSC cohort, a censoring bias model estimated bounds of 53.8% to 59.3% for false-positive recall and 2.4% to 7.6% for screen-detected cancer, assuming 10% increased or decreased risk among women screened for one additional round. In the Nijmegen cohort, false-positive recall appeared to be associated with subsequent discontinuation of screening leading to overestimation of risk of a false-positive recall based on adjusted discrete-time survival models. Bounds estimated by the censoring bias model were 11.0% to 19.9% for false-positive recall and 4.2% to 9.7% for screen-detected cancer.ConclusionChoice of statistical methodology can substantially affect cumulative risk estimates. The censoring bias model is appropriate under a variety of censoring mechanisms and provides bounds for cumulative risk estimates under varying degrees of dependent censoring.ImpactThis article illustrates statistical methods for estimating cumulative risks of cancer screening outcomes, which will be increasingly important as screening test recommendations proliferate.
| S-EPMC4779749 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Annual colorectal cancer screening with fecal occult blood test (FOBT) is a noninvasive alternative to screening colonoscopy once every 10 years. If false-positive FOBT results are common, then many patients selecting an FOBT regimen will be exposed to the same invasive testing as those selecting a colonoscopy regimen. The objective of this study was to estimate the probability of experiencing a false-positive after receiving annual FOBT screening for 10 years.Medical records for patients aged 50 to 79 years receiving FOBT screening with Hemoccult Sensa between 1997 and 2009 at Group Health of Washington State captured the date and results of each FOBT, along with subsequent colorectal cancer diagnoses. We used logistic regression to analyze associations between patient characteristics and odds of a positive FOBT with no invasive cancer diagnosis within 1 year (FOBT+, CRC-). We estimated the probability of receiving at least one FOBT+, CRC- result after 10 years of screening.We observed 181,950 FOBTs from 94,637 individuals. Older patients, males, and non-White patients were significantly more likely to receive FOBT+, CRC- results (P < 0.001 for all risk factors). After 10 years of annual FOBT, 23.0% [95% confidence interval (CI), 18.2-27.0] will receive at least one FOBT+, CRC- result.Most patients participating in annual FOBT screening for 10 years will not have a positive result, reinforcing the potential value of this regimen as a noninvasive alternative to colonoscopy.Annual stool-based screening is a screening alternative resulting in substantially fewer colonoscopies than once per decade colonoscopy.
| S-EPMC3770276 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: In the current study, mammography adherence of women who had experienced a false-positive referral is evaluated, with emphasis on the probability of receiving surveillance mammography outside the national screening programme. METHODS: We included 424,703 consecutive screens and collected imaging, biopsy and surgery reports of 3463 women who experienced a false-positive referral. Adherence to screening, both in and outside the screening programme, was evaluated. RESULTS: Two years after the false-positive referral, overall screening adherence was 94.6%, with 64.7% of women returning to the national screening programme, compared with 94.9% of women re-attending the screening programme after a negative screen (P<0.0001). Four years after the false-positive screen, the overall adherence had decreased to 85.2% (P<0.0001) with a similar proportion of the women re-attending the screening programme (64.4%) and a lower proportion (20.8%) having clinical surveillance mammography. Women who had experienced a false-positive screen at their first screening round were less likely to adhere to mammography than women with an abnormal finding at one of the following screening rounds (92.4% vs 95.5%, P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Overall screening adherence after previous false-positive referral was comparable to the re-attendance rate of women with a negative screen at 2-year follow-up. Overall adherence decreased 4 years after previous false-positive referral from 94.6% to 85.2%, with a relatively high estimate of women who continue with clinical surveillance mammography (20.8%). Women with false-positive screens should be made aware of the importance to re-attend future screening rounds, as a way to improve the effectiveness of the screening programme.
| S-EPMC3798969 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundAlthough healthy women aged 65 years have a life expectancy of 20 years, there is a paucity of data on the performance of digital screening mammography among these women. The authors examined the performance and outcomes of digital screening mammography among a national group of women aged ≥65 years.MethodsFrom Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium data for the years 2005 to 2011, the authors included 296,496 full-field digital screening mammograms among 133,042 women ages ≥65 years without a history of breast cancer. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV1 ), recall rates, and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated across the spectrum of age and breast density. Multivariate logistic regression was used to compare mammography accuracy, cancer-detection rates (CDRs), and tumor characteristics by age and breast density.ResultsMultivariate analyses revealed a significant decrease in the recall rate with age (P for linear trend [Ptrend ] < .001) and significant increases in specificity, PPV1 , and CDR with age (Ptrend < .001, Ptrend < .001, and Ptrend = .01, respectively). Sensitivity did not vary significantly with age. Among women with cancer, the proportion with invasive disease increased with age from 76% at ages 65 to 74 years to 81% at ages ≥80 years. There was a higher proportion of late stage cancers and positive lymph nodes among women ages 65 to 74 years compared with women in the older age groups.ConclusionsThe specificity, PPV1 , recall rate, and CDR of digital screening mammography improved with increased age. In addition, as age increased, the proportion of women with invasive versus ductal carcinoma in situ rose, whereas the proportion of women with positive lymph nodes decreased.
| S-EPMC4409463 | biostudies-literature