Long-term risk of screen-detected and interval breast cancer after false-positive results at mammography screening: joint analysis of three national cohorts.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Roman M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6342908 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) has replaced screen-film mammography (SFM) in most breast cancer screening programs due to technological advantages such as possibilities to adjust contrast, better image quality and transfer capabilities. This study describes the performance indicators during the transition from SFM to FFDM and the characteristics of screen-detected and interval cancers.Data of the Dutch breast cancer screening program, region North from 2004 to 2010 were linked to The Netherlands Cancer Registry (N=902 868). Performance indicators and tumour characteristics of screen-detected and interval cancers were compared between FFDM and SFM.After initial screens, recall rates were 2.1% (SFM) and 3.0% (FFDM; P<0.001). The positive predictive values (PPV) were 25.6% (SFM) and 19.9% (FFDM; P=0.002). Detection rates were similar, as were all performance indicators after subsequent screens. Similar percentages of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) were found for SFM and FFDM. Invasive cancers diagnosed after subsequent screens with FFDM were more often of high-grade (P=0.024) and ductal type (P=0.030). The incidence rates of interval cancers were similar for SFM and FFDM after initial (2.69/1000 vs 2.51/1000; P=0.787) and subsequent screens (2.30 vs 2.41; P=0.652), with similar tumour characteristics.FFDM resulted in similar rates of screen-detected and interval cancers, indicating that FFDM performs as well as SFM in a breast cancer screening program. No signs of an increase in low-grade DCIS (which might connote possible overdiagnosis) were seen. Nonetheless, after initial screening, which accounts for 12% of all screens, FFDM resulted in higher recall rate and lower PPV that requires attention.
| S-EPMC4997549 | biostudies-other
Project description:ImportanceFalse-positive mammography results are common. However, long-term outcomes after a false-positive result remain unclear.ObjectivesTo examine long-term outcomes after a false-positive mammography result and to investigate whether the association of a false-positive mammography result with cancer differs by baseline characteristics, tumor characteristics, and time since the false-positive result.Design, setting, and participantsThis population-based, matched cohort study was conducted in Sweden from January 1, 1991, to March 31, 2020. It included 45 213 women who received a first false-positive mammography result between 1991 and 2017 and 452 130 controls matched on age, calendar year of mammography, and screening history (no previous false-positive result). The study also included 1113 women with a false-positive result and 11 130 matched controls with information on mammographic breast density from the Karolinska Mammography Project for Risk Prediction of Breast Cancer study. Statistical analysis was performed from April 2022 to February 2023.ExposureA false-positive mammography result.Main outcomes and measuresBreast cancer incidence and mortality.ResultsThe study cohort included 497 343 women (median age, 52 years [IQR, 42-59 years]). The 20-year cumulative incidence of breast cancer was 11.3% (95% CI, 10.7%-11.9%) among women with a false-positive result vs 7.3% (95% CI, 7.2%-7.5%) among those without, with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 1.61 (95% CI, 1.54-1.68). The corresponding HRs were higher among women aged 60 to 75 years at the examination (HR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.80-2.26) and those with lower mammographic breast density (HR, 4.65; 95% CI, 2.61-8.29). In addition, breast cancer risk was higher for women who underwent a biopsy at the recall (HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.63-1.92) than for those without a biopsy (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.43-1.60). Cancers after a false-positive result were more likely to be detected on the ipsilateral side of the false-positive result (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.81-2.04) and were more common during the first 4 years of follow-up (HR, 2.57; 95% CI, 2.33-2.85 during the first 2 years; HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.76-2.12 at >2 to 4 years). No statistical difference was found for different tumor characteristics (except for larger tumor size). Furthermore, associated with the increased risk of breast cancer, women with a false-positive result had an 84% higher rate of breast cancer death than those without (HR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.57-2.15).Conclusions and relevanceThis study suggests that the risk of developing breast cancer after a false-positive mammography result differs by individual characteristics and follow-up. These findings can be used to develop individualized risk-based breast cancer screening after a false-positive result.
| S-EPMC10623302 | 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:Lung cancer screening identifies cancers with heterogeneous behaviors. Some lung cancers will be identified among patients who had prior negative CT screens and upon follow-up scans develop a de novo nodule that was determined to be cancerous. Other lung cancers will be identified among patients who had one or more prior stable positive scans that were not determined to be lung cancer (indeterminate pulmonary nodules), but in follow-up scans was diagnosed with an incidence lung cancer. Using data from the CT arm of the National Lung Screening Trial, this analysis investigated differences in patient characteristics and survival endpoints between prevalence-, interval-, and screen-detected lung cancers, characterized based on sequence of screening results. Lung cancers immediately following a positive baseline (T0), and prior to the T1 screen, formed the prevalence cohort. Interval cancers were diagnosed following a negative screen at any time point prior to the next screening round. Two cohorts of screen-detected lung cancers (SDLC) were identified that had a baseline positive screen that was that was not determined to be lung cancer (i.e., an indeterminate pulmonary nodule), but in follow-up scans was diagnosed with an incidence lung cancer 12 (SDLC1) or 24 (SDLC2) months later. Two other incidence cohorts had screen-detected lung cancers that had baseline negative screen and upon follow-up scans developed a de novo nodule determined to be cancerous at 12 (SDLC3) or 24 (SDLC4) months later. Differences in patient characteristics, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were assessed. The lung cancer-specific death rate was higher for SDLC3/SDLC4 compared to SDLC1/SDLC2 lung cancers (136.6/1,000 person-years vs. 71.3/1,000 person-years, P < 0.001). Moreover, PFS and OS were significantly lower for SDLC3/SDLC4 compared to SDLC1/SDLC2 (P < 0.004; P < 0.002, respectively). The findings were consistent when stratified by stage and histology. Multivariable Cox proportional models revealed that the SDLC3/SDLC4 case groups were associated with significantly poorer PFS (HR = 1.89; 95% CI 1.31-2.74) and OS (HR = 1.80; 95% CI 1.21-2.67) compared to SDLC1/SDLC2 lung cancers (HR = 1.00). Lung cancer patients who develop a de novo nodule that determined to be cancerous (i.e., at least one negative CT screen prior to cancer diagnosis) had poorer survival outcomes compared to patients who had at least one positive screen prior to cancer diagnosis. As such, the observation that de novo screen-detected are associated with poorer survival could be attributed to faster growing, more aggressive cancers that arose from a lung environment previously lacking focal abnormalities.
| S-EPMC4980050 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionIn the United States (US), about one-half of women screened with annual mammography have at least one false-positive test after ten screens. The estimate for European women screened ten times biennially is much lower. We evaluate to what extent screening interval, mammogram type, and statistical methods, can explain the reported differences.MethodsWe included all screens from women first screened at age 50-69 years in the US Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) (n=99,455) between 1996-2010, and from two population-based mammography screening programs in Denmark (n=230,452 and n=400,204), between 1991-2012 and 1993-2013, respectively. Model-based cumulative false-positive risks were computed for the entire sample, using two statistical methods (Hubbard Njor) previously used to estimate false-positive risks in the US and Europe.ResultsEmpirical cumulative risk of at least one false-positive test after eight (annual or biennial) screens was 41.9% in BCSC, 16.1% in Copenhagen, and 7.4% in Funen. Variation in screening interval and mammogram type did not explain the differences by country. Using the Hubbard method, the model-based cumulative risks after eight screens was 45.1% in BCSC, 9.6% in Copenhagen, and 8.8% in Funen. Using the Njor method, these risks were estimated to be 43.6, 10.9 and 8.0%.ConclusionChoice of statistical method, screening interval and mammogram type does not explain the substantial differences in cumulative false-positive risk between the US and Europe.
| S-EPMC4871241 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) offers biennial faecal occult blood testing (FOBt) followed by colonoscopy after positive results. Colorectal cancers (CRCs) registered with the Northern Colorectal Cancer Audit Group database were cross-referenced with the BCSP database to analyse their screening history. METHODS: The CRCs in the screening population between April 2007 and March 2010 were identified and classified into four groups: control (diagnosed before first screening invite), screen-detected, interval (diagnosed between screening rounds after a negative FOBt), and non-uptake (declined screening). Patient demographics, tumour characteristics and survival were compared between groups. RESULTS: In all, 511 out of 1336 (38.2%) CRCs were controls; 825 (61.8%) were in individuals invited for screening of which 322 (39.0%) were screen detected, 311 (37.7%) were in the non-uptake group, and 192 (23.3%) were interval cancers. Compared with the control and interval cancer group, the screen-detected group had a higher proportion of men (P=0.002, P=0.003 respectively), left colon tumours (P=0.007, P=0.003), and superior survival (both P<0.001). There was no difference in demographics, tumour location/stage, or survival between control and interval groups. CONCLUSION: The FOBt is better at detecting cancers in the left colon and in men. The significant numbers of interval cancers weren't found to have an improved outcome compared with the non-screened population.
| S-EPMC3405230 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background: Potential harms of screening mammography include false positive results, such as recall breast imaging or biopsies.Methods: We recruited women undergoing screening mammography at Columbia University Medical Center in New York, New York. They completed a questionnaire on breast cancer risk factors and permitted access to their medical records. Breast cancer risk status was determined using the Gail model and a family history screener. High risk was defined as a 5-year invasive breast cancer risk of ?1.67% or eligible for BRCA genetic testing. False positive results were defined as recall breast imaging (BIRADS score of 0, 3, 4, or 5) and/or biopsies that did not yield breast cancer.Results: From November 2014 to October 2015, 2,361 women were enrolled and 2,019 were evaluable, of whom 76% were Hispanic and 10% non-Hispanic white. Fewer Hispanic women met high-risk criteria for breast cancer than non-Hispanic whites (18.0% vs. 68.1%), but Hispanics more frequently engaged in annual screening (71.9% vs. 60.8%). Higher breast density (heterogeneously/extremely dense vs. mostly fat/scattered fibroglandular densities) and more frequent screening (annual vs. biennial) were significantly associated with false positive results [odds ratio (OR), 1.64; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.32-2.04 and OR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.70-2.80, respectively].Conclusions: We observed that women who screened more frequently or had higher breast density were at greater risk for false positive results. In addition, Hispanic women were screening more frequently despite having a lower risk of breast cancer compared with whites.Impact: Our results highlight the need for risk-stratified screening to potentially minimize the harms of screening mammography. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 27(4); 446-53. ©2018 AACR.
| S-EPMC5884721 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Abstract Stem cell transplantation is being tested as a potential therapy for a number of diseases. Stem cells isolated directly from tissue specimens or generated via reprogramming of differentiated cells require rigorous testing for both safety and efficacy in preclinical models. The availability of mice with immune-deficient background that carry additional mutations in specific genes facilitates testing the efficacy of cell transplantation in disease models. The muscular dystrophies are a heterogeneous group of disorders, of which Duchenne muscular dystrophy is the most severe and common type. Cell-based therapy for muscular dystrophy has been under investigation for several decades, with a wide selection of cell types being studied, including tissue-specific stem cells and reprogrammed stem cells. Several immune-deficient mouse models of muscular dystrophy have been generated, in which human cells obtained from various sources are injected to assess their preclinical potential. After transplantation, the presence of engrafted human cells is detected via immunofluorescence staining, using antibodies that recognize human, but not mouse, proteins. Here we show that one antibody specific to human spectrin, which is commonly used to evaluate the efficacy of transplanted human cells in mouse muscle, detects myofibers in muscles of NOD/Rag1(null)mdx(5cv), NOD/LtSz-scid IL2Rγ(null) mice, or mdx nude mice, irrespective of whether they were injected with human cells. These "reactive" clusters are regenerating myofibers, which are normally present in dystrophic tissue and the spectrin antibody is likely recognizing utrophin, which contains spectrin-like repeats. Therefore, caution should be used in interpreting data based on detection of single human-specific proteins, and evaluation of human stem cell engraftment should be performed using multiple human-specific labeling strategies.
| S-EPMC3900004 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Between 2003 and 2010 digital mammography (DM) gradually replaced screen-film mammography (SFM) in the Dutch breast cancer screening programme (BCSP). Previous studies showed increases in detection rate (DR) after the transition to DM. However, national interval cancer rates (ICR) have not yet been reported.We assessed programme sensitivity and specificity during the transition period to DM, analysing nationwide data on screen-detected and interval cancers. Data of 7.3 million screens in women aged 49-74, between 2004 and 2011, were linked to the Netherlands Cancer Registry to obtain data on interval cancers. Age-adjusted DRs, ICRs and recall rates (RR) per 1000 screens and programme sensitivity and specificity were calculated by year, age and screening modality.41,662 screen-detected and 16,160 interval cancers were analysed. The DR significantly increased from 5.13 (95% confidence interval (CI):5.00-5.30) in 2004 to 6.34 (95% CI:6.15-6.47) in 2011, for both in situ (2004:0.73;2011:1.24) and invasive cancers (2004:4.42;2011:5.07), whereas the ICR remained stable (2004: 2.16 (95% CI2.06-2.25);2011: 2.13 (95% CI:2.04-2.22)). The RR changed significantly from 14.0 to 21.4. Programme sensitivity significantly increased, mainly between ages 49-59, from 70.0% (95% CI:68.9-71.2) to 74.4% (95% CI:73.5-75.4) whereas specificity slightly declined (2004:99.1% (95% CI:99.09-99.13);2011:98.5% (95% CI:98.45-98.50)). The overall DR was significantly higher for DM than for SFM (6.24;5.36) as was programme sensitivity (73.6%;70.1%), the ICR was similar (2.19;2.20) and specificity was significantly lower for DM (98.5%;98.9%).During the transition from SFM to DM, there was a significant rise in DR and a stable ICR, leading to increased programme sensitivity. Although the recall rate increased, programme specificity remained high compared to other countries. These findings indicate that the performance of DM in a nationwide screening programme is not inferior to, and may be even better, than that of SFM.
| S-EPMC5839006 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe risk factors responsible for breast cancer have been well documented, but the roles of risk factors as initiators, causing the occurrence of screen-detected breast cancer, or promoters, responsible for the progression of the screen-detected to the clinically-detected breast cancer, have been scarcely evaluated.MethodsWe used data from women in a cohort in Kopparberg (Dalarna), Sweden between 1977 and 2010. Conventional risk factors, breast density, and tumor-specific biomarkers are superimposed to the temporal course of the natural history of the disease.ResultsThe results show that older age at first full-term pregnancy, dense breast, and a family history of breast cancer increased the risk of entering the preclinical screen-detectable phase of breast cancer by 23%, 41%, and 89%, respectively. Overweight/obesity (body mass index ≥25 kg/m2) was a significant initiator (adjusted relative risk [aRR] 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99-1.33), but was inversely associated with the role of promoter (aRR 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.82). Dense breast (aRR 1.46; 95% CI, 1.12-1.91), triple-negative (aRR 2.07; 95% CI, 1.37-3.15), and Ki-67 positivity (aRR 1.66; 95% CI, 1.19-2.30) were statistically significant promoters. When the molecular biomarkers were considered collectively as one classification, the basal-like subtype was the most influential subtype on promoters (aRR 4.24; 95% CI, 2.56-7.02) compared with the Luminal A subtype.DiscussionWe ascertained state-dependent covariates of initiators and promoters to classify the risk of the two-step progression of breast cancer. The results of the current study are useful for individually-tailored screening and personalized clinical surveillance of patients with breast cancer that was detected at an early stage.
| S-EPMC5363784 | biostudies-literature