Increased patient concern after false-positive mammograms: clinician documentation and subsequent ambulatory visits

A Semiautonomous Deep Learning System to Reduce False Positives in Screening Mammography

Purpose To evaluate the ability of a semiautonomous artificial intelligence (AI) model to identify screening mammograms not suspicious for breast cancer and reduce the number of false-positive examinations. Materials and Methods The deep learning algorithm was trained using 123 248 two-dimensional digital mammograms (6161 cancers) and a retrospective study was performed on three nonoverlapping datasets of 14 831 screening mammography examinations (1026 cancers) from two U.S. institutions and one U.K. institution (2008-2017). The stand-alone performance of humans and AI was compared. Human plus AI performance was simulated to examine reductions in the cancer detection rate, number of examinations, false-positive callbacks, and benign biopsies. Metrics were adjusted to mimic the natural distribution of a screening population, and bootstrapped CIs and P values were calculated. Results Retrospective evaluation on all datasets showed minimal changes to the cancer detection rate with use of the AI device (noninferiority margin of 0.25 cancers per 1000 examinations: U.S. dataset 1, P = .02; U.S. dataset 2, P < .001; U.K. dataset, P < .001). On U.S. dataset 1 (11 592 mammograms; 101 cancers; 3810 female patients; mean age, 57.3 years ± 10.0 [SD]), the device reduced screening examinations requiring radiologist interpretation by 41.6% (95% CI: 40.6%, 42.4%; P < .001), diagnostic examinations callbacks by 31.1% (95% CI: 28.7%, 33.4%; P < .001), and benign needle biopsies by 7.4% (95% CI: 4.1%, 12.4%; P < .001). U.S. dataset 2 (1362 mammograms; 330 cancers; 1293 female patients; mean age, 55.4 years ± 10.5) was reduced by 19.5% (95% CI: 16.9%, 22.1%; P < .001), 11.9% (95% CI: 8.6%, 15.7%; P < .001), and 6.5% (95% CI: 0.0%, 19.0%; P = .08), respectively. The U.K. dataset (1877 mammograms; 595 cancers; 1491 female patients; mean age, 63.5 years ± 7.1) was reduced by 36.8% (95% CI: 34.4%, 39.7%; P < .001), 17.1% (95% CI: 5.9%, 30.1%: P < .001), and 5.9% (95% CI: 2.9%, 11.5%; P < .001), respectively. Conclusion This work demonstrates the potential of a semiautonomous breast cancer screening system to reduce false positives, unnecessary procedures, patient anxiety, and medical expenses. Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, Semiautonomous Deep Learning, Breast Cancer, Screening Mammography Supplemental material is available for this article. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license.

Women's experiences of age-related discontinuation from mammography screening: A qualitative interview study

INTRODUCTION

In Denmark, women are discontinued from mammography screening at age 69 due to decreased likelihood of benefits and increased likelihood of harm. The risk of harm increases with age and includes false positives, overdiagnosis and overtreatment. In a questionnaire survey, 24 women expressed unsolicited concerns about being discontinued from mammography screening due to age. This calls for further investigation of experiences related to discontinuation from screening.

METHODS

We invited the women, who had left comments on the questionnaire, to participate in in-depth interviews with the purpose to explore their reactions, preferences, and conceptions about mammography screening and discontinuation. The interviews lasted 1-4 h and were followed up with a telephone interview 2 weeks after the initial interview.

RESULTS

The women had high expectations of the benefits of mammography screening and felt that participation was a moral obligation. Following that, they perceived the screening discontinuation as a result of societal age discrimination and consequently felt devalued. Further, the women perceived the discontinuation as a health threat, felt more susceptible to late diagnosis and death, and therefore sought out new ways to control their risk of breast cancer.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that the age-related discontinuation from mammography screening might be of more importance than previously assumed. This study raises important questions about screening ethics, and we encourage research to explore this in other settings.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This study was conducted as a result of the women's unsolicited concerns about being discontinued from screening. This particular group contributed to the study with their own statements, interpretations and perspectives on the discontinuation of screening, and the initial analysis of data was discussed with the women during follow-up interviews.

Breast effects of oral, combined 17β-estradiol, and progesterone capsules in menopausal women: a randomized controlled trial

Objective:

To evaluate the effect of a single-capsule, bioidentical 17β-estradiol (E2) and progesterone (P4) hormone therapy on mammograms and breasts in postmenopausal women after 1 year of use.

Methods:

In the 12-month, phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter REPLENISH trial, postmenopausal women (40-65 y) with moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms and a uterus were randomized to four active daily dose groups of E2/P4 (TX-001HR) or a placebo group. Mammograms were performed and read locally at screening (or ≤6 months before first dose) and at study end using BI-RADS classification. Incidence of abnormal mammograms and breast adverse events was evaluated.

Results:

All but 8 (0.4%) mammograms at screening were normal (BI-RADS 1 or 2). At 1 year, 39 (2.9%) of the 1,340 study-end mammograms were abnormal (BI-RADS 3 or 4); incidence was 1.7% to3.7% with active doses and 3.1% with placebo. Breast cancer incidence was 0.36% with active doses and 0% with placebo. Breast tenderness was reported at frequencies of 2.4% to 10.8% with active doses versus 0.7% with placebo, and led to eight study discontinuations (1.6% of discontinuations in active groups).

Conclusions:

In this phase 3 trial of a combined E2/P4, results of secondary outcomes suggest that E2/P4 may not be associated with increased risk of abnormal mammograms versus placebo, and the incidence of breast tenderness was low relative to most of the rates reported in other studies using hormone therapy.

Psychosocial consequences of false positives in the Danish Lung Cancer CT Screening Trial: a nested matched cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Lung cancer CT screening can reduce lung cancer mortality, but high false-positive rates may cause adverse psychosocial consequences. The aim was to analyse the psychosocial consequences of false-positive lung cancer CT screening using the lung cancer screening-specific questionnaire, Consequences of Screening in Lung Cancer (COS-LC).

DESIGN AND SETTING

This study was a matched cohort study, nested in the randomised Danish Lung Cancer Screening Trial (DLCST).

PARTICIPANTS

Our study included all 130 participants in the DLCST with positive CT results in screening rounds 2-5, who had completed the COS-LC questionnaire. Participants were split into a true-positive and a false-positive group and were then matched 1:2 with a control group (n=248) on sex, age (±3 years) and the time of screening for the positive CT groups or clinic visit for the control group. The true positives and false positives were also matched 1:2 with participants with negative CT screening results (n=252).

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

Primary outcomes were psychosocial consequences measured at five time points.

RESULTS

False positives experienced significantly more negative psychosocial consequences in seven outcomes at 1 week and in three outcomes at 1 month compared with the control group and the true-negative group (mean ∆ score >0 and p<0.001). True positives experienced significantly more negative psychosocial consequences in one outcome at 1 week (mean ∆ score 2.86 (95% CI 1.01 to 4.70), p=0.0024) and in five outcomes at 1 month (mean ∆ score >0 and p<0.004) compared with the true-negative group and the control group. No long-term psychosocial consequences were identified either in false positives or true positives.

CONCLUSIONS

Receiving a false-positive result in lung cancer screening was associated with negative short-term psychosocial consequences. These findings contribute to the evidence on harms of screening and should be taken into account when considering implementation of lung cancer screening programmes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00496977.

Subjective Versus Quantitative Methods of Assessing Breast Density

In order to find a consistent, simple and time-efficient method of assessing mammographic breast density (MBD), different methods of assessing density comparing subjective, quantitative, semi-subjective and semi-quantitative methods were investigated. Subjective MBD of anonymized mammographic cases (n = 250) from a national breast-screening programme was rated by 49 radiologists from two countries (UK and USA) who were voluntarily recruited. Quantitatively, three measurement methods, namely VOLPARA, Hand Delineation (HD) and ImageJ (IJ) were used to calculate breast density using the same set of cases, however, for VOLPARA only mammographic cases (n = 122) with full raw digital data were included. The agreement level between methods was analysed using weighted kappa test. Agreement between UK and USA radiologists and VOLPARA varied from moderate (κw = 0.589) to substantial (κw = 0.639), respectively. The levels of agreement between USA, UK radiologists, VOLPARA with IJ were substantial (κw = 0.752, 0.768, 0.603), and with HD the levels of agreement varied from moderate to substantial (κw = 0.632, 0.680, 0.597), respectively. This study found that there is variability between subjective and objective MBD assessment methods, internationally. These results will add to the evidence base, emphasising the need for consistent, simple and time-efficient MBD assessment methods. Additionally, the quickest method to assess density is the subjective assessment, followed by VOLPARA, which is compatible with a busy clinical setting. Moreover, the use of a more limited two-scale system improves agreement levels and could help minimise any potential country bias.

Psychosocial consequences of receiving false-positive colorectal cancer screening results: a qualitative study

Objective: The objective of this study was to investigate the psychosocial consequences of receiving false-positive colorectal cancer (CRC) screening results, following a positive immunochemical faecal occult blood test. Design, setting, and subjects: We conducted a qualitative study with four semi-structured focus group interviews with 16 participants aged 50-74, all of whom had received a false-positive result in the national Danish CRC screening programme. We selected, recruited, and grouped participants to ensure maximum variation, and to enable a level of confidence to speak openly about experiences of screening. We subjected interview data, audio-recordings, and transcripts to a strategy of qualitative analysis called systematic text condensation. Results: We identified four main themes which described the psychosocial consequences of false-positive CRC screening results: anxiety; discomfort; changed self-perception and behaviour; and considerations on participation in screening. Each of these themes covered a wide range of experiences which were relevant to the informants and broadly shared by them in many aspects. Conclusions: Receiving false-positive results from CRC screening can lead to negative psychosocial consequences such as changes in self-perception and anxiety: some participants may experience subsequent relief, others not. These negative psychosocial consequences might persist over time. Implications: Negative psychosocial consequences from false-positive CRC screening results may result in a greater use of general practitioner services by healthy people who need reassurance or further tests. More research using condition-specific measures is required to further understand the degree and potential persistence of psychosocial consequences of false-positive results from CRC screening. Key Points Participants who receive false-positive colorectal cancer (CRC) screening results may experience negative psychosocial consequences e.g. anxiety and subsequent relief. Participants who receive false-positive CRC screening results may experience discomfort during the screening process. Participants who receive false-positive CRC screening results may experience longer term changes of self-perception. Participants who receive false-positive CRC screening results may experience ambivalence about the offered diagnostic down-stream procedures including colonoscopy.

Genetic Testing to Guide Risk-Stratified Screens for Breast Cancer

Breast cancer screening modalities and guidelines continue to evolve and are increasingly based on risk factors, including genetic risk and a personal or family history of cancer. Here, we review genetic testing of high-penetrance hereditary breast and ovarian cancer genes, including BRCA1 and BRCA2, for the purpose of identifying high-risk individuals who would benefit from earlier screening and more sensitive methods such as magnetic resonance imaging. We also consider risk-based screening in the general population, including whether every woman should be genetically tested for high-risk genes and the potential use of polygenic risk scores. In addition to enabling early detection, the results of genetic screens of breast cancer susceptibility genes can be utilized to guide decision-making about when to elect prophylactic surgeries that reduce cancer risk and the choice of therapeutic options. Variants of uncertain significance, especially missense variants, are being identified during panel testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. A finding of a variant of uncertain significance does not provide a basis for increased cancer surveillance or prophylactic procedures. Given that variant classification is often challenging, we also consider the role of multifactorial statistical analyses by large consortia and functional tests for this purpose.

Primary care visit use after positive fecal immunochemical test for colorectal cancer screening

BACKGROUND

For some patients, positive cancer screening test results can be a stressful experience that can affect future screening compliance and increase the use of health care services unrelated to medically indicated follow-up.

METHODS

Among 483,216 individuals aged 50 to 75 years who completed a fecal immunochemical test to screen for colorectal cancer at a large integrated health care setting between 2007 and 2011, the authors evaluated whether a positive test was associated with a net change in outpatient primary care visit use within the year after screening. Multivariable regression models were used to evaluate the relationship between test result group and net changes in primary care visits after fecal immunochemical testing.

RESULTS

In the year after the fecal immunochemical test, use increased by 0.60 clinic visits for patients with true-positive results. The absolute change in visits was largest (3.00) among individuals with positive test results who were diagnosed with colorectal cancer, but significant small increases also were found for patients treated with polypectomy and who had no neoplasia (0.36) and those with a normal examination and no polypectomy performed (0.17). Groups of patients who demonstrated an increase in net visit use compared with the true-negative group included patients with true-positive results (odds ratio [OR], 1.60; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.54-1.66), and positive groups with a colorectal cancer diagnosis (OR, 7.19; 95% CI, 6.12-8.44), polypectomy/no neoplasia (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.27-1.48), and normal examination/no polypectomy (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.18-1.30).

CONCLUSIONS

Given the large size of outreach programs, these small changes can cumulatively generate thousands of excess visits and have a substantial impact on total health care use. Therefore, these changes should be included in colorectal cancer screening cost models and their causes investigated further. Cancer 2017;123:3744-3753. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Outcomes of unconventional utilization of BI-RADS category 3 assessment at opportunistic screening

Background An important difficulty regarding the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 3 assessment is the need for extensive diagnostic workup and an additional 6-month follow-up study. Purpose To evaluate the feasibility of the BI-RADS category 3 assessments at opportunistic screening. Material and Methods Mammography charts of 9062 screening patients in a major teaching hospital situated in an urban setting of a developing country were evaluated retrospectively (1997-2010). BI-RADS category 3 patients, called for a 6-month follow-up, which comprised a single-view spot or magnification mammogram. The length of follow-up period, compliance to periodic mammographic surveillance, cancer detection rate, and negative predictive values of category 3 assessments were calculated. Results Of the screened population, 9.2% were assigned BI-RADS category 3, and 31.2% of these cases were lost to follow-up. The mean follow-up period for 606 patients was 36.9 months. The negative predictive values for 6-month, 12-month, and final control studies were 90.9%, 87.5%, and 100%, respectively. Patient compliance for 6 months, 12 months, and any control evaluations beyond 12 months was low (50.0%, 29.8%, and 47.5%, respectively). Cancer detection rate was 0.8%. Conclusion Results of the study supports the feasibility of the BI-RADS category 3 assessments at opportunistic screening without any additional diagnostic workup. The practice of category 3 assessment following screening mammograms may be a more cost-effective method for developing countries with high recall rates and low resources in eliminating the maximum risk with minimum cost within the limits of available resources.

Consequences of a false-positive mammography result: drug consumption before and after screening

Background Previous research showed women experiencing false-positive mammograms to have greater anxiety about breast cancer than women with normal mammograms. To elucidate psychological effects of false-positive mammograms, we studied impact on drug intake. Methods We calculated the ratio of drug use for women with false-positive versus women with normal mammograms, before and after the event, using population-based registers, 1997-2006. The ratio of the ratios (RRR) assessed the impact. Results Before the test, 40.3% of women from the false-positive group versus 36.2% from the normal group used anxiolytic and antidepressant drugs. There was no difference in use of beta blockers. Hormone therapy was used more frequently by the false-positive, 36.6% versus 28.7%. The proportion of women using anxiolytic and antidepressant drugs increased with 19% from the before to the after period in the false-positive group, and with 16% in the normal group, resulting in an RRR of 1.02 (95% CI 0.92-1.14). RRR was 1.03 for beta blockers, 0.97 for hormone therapy. Conclusion(s) Drugs used to mitigate mood disorders were used more frequently by women with false-positive than by women with normal mammograms already before the screening event, while the changes from before to after screening were similar for both groups. The results point to the importance of control for potential selection in studies of screening effects.

Benefits and harms of mammography screening

Mammography screening for breast cancer is widely available in many countries. Initially praised as a universal achievement to improve women's health and to reduce the burden of breast cancer, the benefits and harms of mammography screening have been debated heatedly in the past years. This review discusses the benefits and harms of mammography screening in light of findings from randomized trials and from more recent observational studies performed in the era of modern diagnostics and treatment. The main benefit of mammography screening is reduction of breast-cancer related death. Relative reductions vary from about 15 to 25% in randomized trials to more recent estimates of 13 to 17% in meta-analyses of observational studies. Using UK population data of 2007, for 1,000 women invited to biennial mammography screening for 20 years from age 50, 2 to 3 women are prevented from dying of breast cancer. All-cause mortality is unchanged. Overdiagnosis of breast cancer is the main harm of mammography screening. Based on recent estimates from the United States, the relative amount of overdiagnosis (including ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive cancer) is 31%. This results in 15 women overdiagnosed for every 1,000 women invited to biennial mammography screening for 20 years from age 50. Women should be unpassionately informed about the benefits and harms of mammography screening using absolute effect sizes in a comprehensible fashion. In an era of limited health care resources, screening services need to be scrutinized and compared with each other with regard to effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and harms.

Diagnostic invasiveness and psychosocial consequences of false-positive mammography

PURPOSE

We undertook a study to assess whether women with false-positive mammography have worse psychosocial consequences if managed with a workup that involves a biopsy (invasive group) than if managed with only additional imaging (noninvasive group).

METHODS

We performed subgroup analysis of a cohort study of 454 women with abnormal screening mammography and 908 matched control women with normal results. Using a condition-specific questionnaire (Consequences of Screening in Breast Cancer), we assessed 12 psychosocial consequences at 5 time points (0, 1, 6, 18, and 36 months after final diagnosis) and compared the 2 groups of women with false-positives (invasive and noninvasive management groups).

RESULTS

Among the 252 women with false-positive mammography eligible for this study, psychosocial consequences were similar for those managed invasively and those managed noninvasively during the 36 months of follow-up. In 60 comparisons (12 scales and 5 time points), differences between the groups were never statistically significant (P <.01) and the point estimates for the differences were always close to zero. The psychosocial consequences of women with false-positive results, regardless of management, fell between those of women with normal mammography and those of women determined to have breast cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence that use of more invasive diagnostics was associated with worse psychosocial consequences. It is therefore reasonable to pool subgroups of women with false-positives in a single analysis. The invasiveness of subsequent diagnostic procedures does not help to identify women at higher risk for adverse psychosocial consequences of false-positive mammography.

Perspectives on mammography after receipt of secondary screening owing to a false positive

BACKGROUND

The utility of mammography screening as an efficacious tool for early detection is being contested owing to the risk of potential harms, including psychological distress and exposure to unnecessary procedures associated with false-positive (FPs) results and overdiagnosis. However, there is little research regarding women's experiences, values, or preferences for participating in mammography programs. Our aim was to explore women's actual experiences of a FP mammography screen and their perceptions of the value, risks and benefits given their recent experience.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured interviews with 40 women who experienced a recent FP mammogram. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. A directed content analysis was used to identify and explore primary themes. Knowledge of breast cancer risk was also assessed.

FINDINGS

Receiving a FP mammography screen generated significant worry among 60% (n=24) of women. Yet 70% maintained that mammography screening was necessary despite the worry incurred. Women also described the experience as stimulating greater interest in additional cancer prevention activities (32.5%; n=13) and one-third discussed needing more information about the risks and benefits of mammography screening. Less than one-quarter of women (22.5%; n=9) correctly identified a women's lifetime risk of developing breast cancer; 20% (n=8) overestimated, and 57.5% (n=23) underestimated this risk.

CONCLUSION

Women reported needing more information about the risks and benefits of mammography screening, but also considered FP results an acceptable risk. Further, our results suggest that breast cancer screening programs may provide a unique opportunity to deliver additional breast cancer prevention interventions.

Older women's experience with a benign breast biopsy—a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Little is known about older women's experience with a benign breast biopsy.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the psychological impact and experience of women ≥ 65 years of age with a benign breast biopsy.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study using quantitative and qualitative methods.

SETTING

Three Boston-based breast imaging centers.

PARTICIPANTS

Ninety-four English-speaking women ≥ 65 years without dementia referred for breast biopsy as a result of an abnormal mammogram, not aware of their biopsy results at baseline, and with a subsequent negative biopsy.

MEASUREMENTS

We interviewed women at the time of breast biopsy (before women knew their results) and 6 months post-biopsy. At both interviews, participants completed the validated negative psychological consequences of screening mammography questionnaire (PCQ, scores range from 0 to 36 [high distress], PCQ ≥ 1 suggests a psychological consequence, PCQs <1 are reported at time of screening) and women responded to open-ended questions about their experience. At follow-up, participants described the quality of information received after their benign breast biopsy. We used a linear mixed effects model to examine if PCQs declined over time. We also reviewed participants' open-ended comments for themes.

RESULTS

Overall, 88% (83/94) of participants were non-Hispanic white and 33% (31/94) had a high-school degree or less. At biopsy, 76% (71/94) reported negative psychological consequences from their biopsy compared to 39% (37/94) at follow-up (p < 0.01). In open-ended comments, participants noted the anxiety (29%, 27/94) and discomfort (28%, 26/94) experienced at biopsy (especially from positioning on the biopsy table). Participants requested more information to prepare for a biopsy and to interpret their negative results. Forty-four percent (39/89) reported at least a little anxiety about future mammograms.

CONCLUSIONS

The high psychological burden of a benign breast biopsy among older women significantly diminishes with time but does not completely resolve. To reduce this burden, older women need more information about undergoing a breast biopsy.

Scientific second-order 'nudging' or lobbying by interest groups: the battle over abdominal aortic aneurysm screening programmes

The idea that it is acceptable to 'nudge' people to opt for the 'healthy choice' is gaining currency in health care policy circles. This article investigates whether researchers evaluating Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening Programmes (AAASP) attempt to influence decision makers in ways that are similar to popular 'nudging' techniques. Comparing two papers on the health economics of AAASP both published in the BMJ within the last 3 years, it is shown that the values chosen for the health economics modelling are not representative of the literature and consistently favour the conclusions of the articles. It is argued (1) that this and other features of these articles may be justified within a Libertarian Paternalist framework as 'nudging' like ways of influencing decision makers, but also (2) that these ways of influencing decision makers raise significant ethical issues in the context of democratic decision making.

Consequences of false-positive screening mammograms

IMPORTANCE

False-positive mammograms, a common occurrence in breast cancer screening programs, represent a potential screening harm that is currently being evaluated by the US Preventive Services Task Force.

OBJECTIVE

To measure the effect of false-positive mammograms on quality of life by measuring personal anxiety, health utility, and attitudes toward future screening.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) quality-of-life substudy telephone survey was performed shortly after screening and 1 year later at 22 DMIST sites and included randomly selected DMIST participants with positive and negative mammograms.

EXPOSURE

Mammogram requiring follow-up testing or referral without a cancer diagnosis.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The 6-question short form of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory state scale (STAI-6) and the EuroQol EQ-5D instrument with US scoring. Attitudes toward future screening as measured by women's self-report of future intention to undergo mammographic screening and willingness to travel and stay overnight to undergo a hypothetical new type of mammography that would identify as many cancers with half the false-positive results.

RESULTS

Among 1450 eligible women invited to participate, 1226 (84.6%) were enrolled, with follow-up interviews obtained in 1028 (83.8%). Anxiety was significantly higher for women with false-positive mammograms (STAI-6, 35.2 vs 32.7), but health utility scores did not differ and there were no significant differences between groups at 1 year. Future screening intentions differed by group (25.7% vs 14.2% more likely in false-positive vs negative groups); willingness to travel and stay overnight did not (9.9% vs 10.5% in false-positive vs negative groups). Future screening intention was significantly increased among women with false-positive mammograms (odds ratio, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.54-2.93), younger age (2.78; 1.5-5.0), and poorer health (1.63; 1.09-2.43). Women's anticipated high-level anxiety regarding future false-positive mammograms was associated with willingness to travel overnight (odds ratio, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.28-2.95).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

False-positive mammograms were associated with increased short-term anxiety but not long-term anxiety, and there was no measurable health utility decrement. False-positive mammograms increased women's intention to undergo future breast cancer screening and did not increase their stated willingness to travel to avoid a false-positive result. Our finding of time-limited harm after false-positive screening mammograms is relevant for clinicians who counsel women on mammographic screening and for screening guideline development groups.

Is there excess mortality in women screened with mammography: a meta-analysis of non-breast cancer mortality

Background

The objective of our meta-analysis and systematic review was to analyze non-breast cancer mortality in women screened with mammography versus non-screened women to determine whether there is excess mortality caused by screening.

Methods

We searched PubMed and the Web of Science up to 30 November 2010. We included randomized controlled trials with non-breast cancer mortality as the main endpoint. Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

Results

There was no significant difference between groups at 13-year follow-up (odds ratio = 1.00 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.03) with average heterogeneity I² = 61%) regardless of the age and the methodological quality of the included studies. The meta-analysis did not reveal excess non-breast cancer mortality caused by screening. If screening does have an effect on excess mortality, it is possible to provide an estimate of its maximum value through the upper confidence interval in good-quality methodological studies: up to 3% in the screened women group (12 deaths per 100,000 women).

Conclusions

The all-cause death rate was not significantly reduced by screening when compared to the rate observed in unscreened women. However, mammography screening does not seem to induce excess mortality. These findings improve information given to patients. Finding more comprehensive data is now going to be difficult given the complexity of the studies. Individual modeling should be used because the studies fail to include all the aspects of a complex situation. The risk/benefit analysis of screening needs to be regularly and independently reassessed.

Screening for breast cancer with mammography

BACKGROUND

A variety of estimates of the benefits and harms of mammographic screening for breast cancer have been published and national policies vary.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of screening for breast cancer with mammography on mortality and morbidity.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched PubMed (22 November 2012) and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (22 November 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing mammographic screening with no mammographic screening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight eligible trials were identified. We excluded a trial because the randomisation had failed to produce comparable groups.The eligible trials included 600,000 women in the analyses in the age range 39 to 74 years. Three trials with adequate randomisation did not show a statistically significant reduction in breast cancer mortality at 13 years (relative risk (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.02); four trials with suboptimal randomisation showed a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality with an RR of 0.75 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.83). The RR for all seven trials combined was 0.81 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.87). We found that breast cancer mortality was an unreliable outcome that was biased in favour of screening, mainly because of differential misclassification of cause of death. The trials with adequate randomisation did not find an effect of screening on total cancer mortality, including breast cancer, after 10 years (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10) or on all-cause mortality after 13 years (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03).Total numbers of lumpectomies and mastectomies were significantly larger in the screened groups (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.42), as were number of mastectomies (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32). The use of radiotherapy was similarly increased whereas there was no difference in the use of chemotherapy (data available in only two trials).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

If we assume that screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 15% and that overdiagnosis and overtreatment is at 30%, it means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will avoid dying of breast cancer and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress including anxiety and uncertainty for years because of false positive findings. To help ensure that the women are fully informed before they decide whether or not to attend screening, we have written an evidence-based leaflet for lay people that is available in several languages on www.cochrane.dk. Because of substantial advances in treatment and greater breast cancer awareness since the trials were carried out, it is likely that the absolute effect of screening today is smaller than in the trials. Recent observational studies show more overdiagnosis than in the trials and very little or no reduction in the incidence of advanced cancers with screening.

Breast cancer risk prediction and mammography biopsy decisions: a model-based study

BACKGROUND

Controversy continues about screening mammography, in part because of the risk of false-negative and false-positive mammograms. Pre-test breast cancer risk factors may improve the positive and negative predictive value of screening.

PURPOSE

To create a model that estimates the potential impact of pre-test risk prediction using clinical and genomic information on the reclassification of women with abnormal mammograms (BI-RADS3 and BI-RADS4 [Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System]) above and below the threshold for breast biopsy.

METHODS

The current study modeled 1-year breast cancer risk in women with abnormal screening mammograms using existing data on breast cancer risk factors, 12 validated breast cancer single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), and probability of cancer given the BI-RADS category. Examination was made of reclassification of women above and below biopsy thresholds of 1%, 2%, and 3% risk. The Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium data were collected from 1996 to 2002. Data analysis was conducted in 2010 and 2011.

RESULTS

Using a biopsy risk threshold of 2% and the standard risk factor model, 5% of women with a BI-RADS3 mammogram had a risk above the threshold, and 3% of women with BI-RADS4A mammograms had a risk below the threshold. The addition of 12 SNPs in the model resulted in 8% of women with a BI-RADS3 mammogram above the threshold for biopsy and 7% of women with BI-RADS4A mammograms below the threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

The incorporation of pre-test breast cancer risk factors could change biopsy decisions for a small proportion of women with abnormal mammograms. The greatest impact comes from standard breast cancer risk factors.

Influence of false-positive mammography results on subsequent screening: do physician recommendations buffer negative effects?

OBJECTIVE

Cancer screening guidelines often include discussion about the unintended negative consequences of routine screening. This prospective study examined effects of false-positive mammography results on women's adherence to subsequent breast cancer screening and psychological well-being. We also assessed whether barriers to screening exacerbated the effects of false-positive results.

METHODS

We conducted secondary analyses of data from telephone interviews and medical claims records for 2406 insured women. The primary outcome was adherence to screening guidelines, defined as adherent (10-14 months), delayed (15-34 months), or no subsequent mammogram on record.

RESULTS

About 8% of women reported that their most recent screening mammograms produced false-positive results. In the absence of self-reported advice from their physicians to be screened, women were more likely to have no subsequent mammograms on record if they received false-positive results than if they received normal results (18% vs. 7%, OR = 3.17, 95% CI = 1.30, 7.70). Receipt of false-positive results was not associated with this outcome for women who said their physicians had advised regular screening in the past year (7% vs. 10%, OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.38, 1.45). False-positive results were associated with greater breast cancer worry (P < .01), thinking more about the benefits of screening (P < .001), and belief that abnormal test results do not mean women have cancer (P < .01), regardless of physicians' screening recommendations.

CONCLUSION

False-positive mammography results, coupled with reports that women's physicians did not advise regular screening, could lead to non-adherence to future screening. Abnormal mammograms that do not result in cancer diagnoses are opportunities for physicians to stress the importance of regular screening.

Breast cancer screening: a 35-year perspective

Screening for breast cancer has been evaluated by 9 randomized trials over 5 decades and recommended by major guideline groups for more than 3 decades. Successes and lessons for cancer screening from this history include development of scientific methods to evaluate screening, by the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force; the importance of randomized trials in the past, and the increasing need to develop new methods to evaluate cancer screening in the future; the challenge of assessing new technologies that are replacing originally evaluated screening tests; the need to measure false-positive screening test results and the difficulty in reducing their frequency; the unexpected emergence of overdiagnosis due to cancer screening; the difficulty in stratifying individuals according to breast cancer risk; women's fear of breast cancer and the public outrage over changing guidelines for breast cancer screening; the need for population scientists to better communicate with the public if evidence-based recommendations are to be heeded by clinicians, patients, and insurers; new developments in the primary prevention of cancers; and the interaction between improved treatment and screening, which, over time, and together with primary prevention, may decrease the need for cancer screening.

Screening for breast cancer with mammography

BACKGROUND

A variety of estimates of the benefits and harms of mammographic screening for breast cancer have been published and national policies vary.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of screening for breast cancer with mammography on mortality and morbidity.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched PubMed (November 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing mammographic screening with no mammographic screening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both authors independently extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight eligible trials were identified. We excluded a biased trial and included 600,000 women in the analyses. Three trials with adequate randomisation did not show a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality at 13 years (relative risk (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.02); four trials with suboptimal randomisation showed a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality with an RR of 0.75 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.83). The RR for all seven trials combined was 0.81 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.87). We found that breast cancer mortality was an unreliable outcome that was biased in favour of screening, mainly because of differential misclassification of cause of death. The trials with adequate randomisation did not find an effect of screening on cancer mortality, including breast cancer, after 10 years (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10) or on all-cause mortality after 13 years (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03).Numbers of lumpectomies and mastectomies were significantly larger in the screened groups (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.42) for the two adequately randomised trials that measured this outcome; the use of radiotherapy was similarly increased.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Screening is likely to reduce breast cancer mortality. As the effect was lowest in the adequately randomised trials, a reasonable estimate is a 15% reduction corresponding to an absolute risk reduction of 0.05%. Screening led to 30% overdiagnosis and overtreatment, or an absolute risk increase of 0.5%. This means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress for many months because of false positive findings. It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm. To help ensure that the women are fully informed of both benefits and harms before they decide whether or not to attend screening, we have written an evidence-based leaflet for lay people that is available in several languages on www.cochrane.dk.

Effect of abnormal screening mammogram on quality of life

Background

Screening for breast cancer reduces breast cancer-related mortality. Advantages of screening are explained clearly, but its disadvantages are underrepresented in consent folders.

Methods

In September 2002 a prospective, longitudinal study started concerning quality of life (QoL) in women with breast disease. Between September 2002 and January 2007, 385 women with an abnormal screening mammogram were included. Of these, 152 women were diagnosed with breast cancer (BC group) and 233 had a false-positive result (FP group). Questionnaires concerning anxiety (State and Trait Anxiety Inventory) and QoL (World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment instrument 100) were completed before diagnosis, and 1, 3, 6 and 12 months later.

Results

The BC group was significantly older (60·2 versus 57·3 years; P &lt; 0·001); significantly more histological biopsies were needed in the FP group (P &lt; 0·001). Almost 60 per cent of the FP group revisited the outpatient clinic in the first year. Trait anxiety had a profound influence on QoL. Women in the FP group with a high score on trait anxiety had lowest QoL on all measurements (P &lt; 0·001). They also reported more feelings of anxiety compared with women in the FP group with a lower trait anxiety score, and women in the BC group with a low trait anxiety score (P &lt; 0·001).

Conclusion

Women with a false-positive diagnosis of screen-detected breast cancer had a low QoL and feelings of anxiety, especially when they scored high on trait anxiety. This effect lasted for at least 1 year.

Healthcare use after screening for lung cancer

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the benefits of lung cancer screening, all effects of screening need to be considered. The aim of this study was to determine whether screening had an effect on healthcare use, specifically whether use increased for those with a false-positive or indeterminate screening result.

METHODS

Recruited were 400 individuals participating in a lung cancer screening study at the University of Pittsburgh. Self-reported outpatient healthcare use information was collected for the 6 months before, 0 to 6 months after, and 6 to 12 months after screening. The screening outcomes were negative, indeterminate, and suspicious. Repeated-measures Poisson regression models were used to examine changes in use over time and how changes over time varied among the screening outcome groups.

RESULTS

Approximately 58% of participants had a negative screening result, 36% had an indeterminate result, and approximately 6% had a suspicious result. The percentage of individuals who had any incidence of each type of outpatient use increased after screening, with the greatest increase noted for those with a suspicious screening result. Adjusted mean use significantly increased for nearly all types of use and for all 3 screening results categories in the 6 months after screening, but mostly declined to prescreening levels in the next 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Outpatient healthcare use was found to increase after screening for all individuals who were screened for lung cancer, regardless of the screening finding. The cost of the lung-related visits alone was substantial. Therefore, if lung cancer screening prevalence is increased, attendant follow-up healthcare costs are also likely to increase.

Screening for breast cancer with mammography

BACKGROUND

A variety of estimates of the benefits and harms of mammographic screening for breast cancer have been published and national policies vary.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of screening for breast cancer with mammography on mortality and morbidity.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched PubMed (November 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing mammographic screening with no mammographic screening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Both authors independently extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight eligible trials were identified. We excluded a biased trial and included 600,000 women in the analyses. Three trials with adequate randomisation did not show a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality at 13 years (relative risk (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.02); four trials with suboptimal randomisation showed a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality with an RR of 0.75 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.83). The RR for all seven trials combined was 0.81 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.87). We found that breast cancer mortality was an unreliable outcome that was biased in favour of screening, mainly because of differential misclassification of cause of death. The trials with adequate randomisation did not find an effect of screening on cancer mortality, including breast cancer, after 10 years (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10) or on all-cause mortality after 13 years (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03).Numbers of lumpectomies and mastectomies were significantly larger in the screened groups (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.42) for the two adequately randomised trials that measured this outcome; the use of radiotherapy was similarly increased.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Screening is likely to reduce breast cancer mortality. As the effect was lowest in the adequately randomised trials, a reasonable estimate is a 15% reduction corresponding to an absolute risk reduction of 0.05%. Screening led to 30% overdiagnosis and overtreatment, or an absolute risk increase of 0.5%. This means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress for many months because of false positive findings. It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm. To help ensure that the women are fully informed of both benefits and harms before they decide whether or not to attend screening, we have written an evidence-based leaflet for lay people that is available in several languages on www.cochrane.dk.

Screening and prevention of breast cancer in primary care

Mammography remains the mainstay of breast cancer screening. There is little controversy that mammography reduces the risk of dying from breast cancer by about 23% among women between the ages of 50 and 69 years, although the harms associated with false-positive results and overdiagnosis limit the net benefit of mammography. Women in their 70s may have a small benefit from screening mammography, but overdiagnosis increases in this age group as do competing causes of death. While new data support a 16% reduction in breast cancer mortality for 40- to 49-year-old women after 10 years of screening, the net benefit is less compelling in part because of the lower incidence of breast cancer in this age group and because mammography is less sensitive and specific in women younger than 50 years. Digital mammography is more sensitive than film mammography in young women with similar specificity, but no improvements in breast cancer outcomes have been demonstrated. Magnetic resonance imaging may benefit the highest risk women. Randomized trials suggest that self-breast examination does more harm than good. Primary prevention with currently approved medications will have a negligible effect on breast cancer incidence. Public health efforts aimed at increasing mammography screening rates, promoting regular exercise in all women, maintaining a healthy weight, limiting alcohol intake, and limiting postmenopausal hormone therapy may help to continue the recent trend of lower breast cancer incidence and mortality among American women.

Short-term hormone therapy suspension and mammography recall: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Without population-based evidence, some clinicians recommend short-term suspension of hormone therapy to improve the performance of mammography. Hormone therapy increases breast density, and abnormal screening mammograms are more common among women with denser breasts and among women using hormone therapy.

OBJECTIVE

To test whether 1 to 2 months of hormone therapy suspension before screening mammography decreases additional mammographic imaging (recall) in women age 45 to 80 years.

DESIGN

3-group randomized, controlled trial.

SETTING

Integrated health plan in western Washington from 2004 to 2007.

PATIENTS

1704 women age 45 to 80 years who used hormone therapy at their most recent screening (index) mammography, were due for screening (study) mammography, and were still using hormone therapy.

INTERVENTION

Block random assignment (by breast density and hormone therapy type) to no hormone therapy suspension (n = 567) or suspension for 1 month (n = 570) or 2 months (n = 567) before study mammography. One blinded expert radiologist interpreted all mammograms.

MEASUREMENTS

Recall was the primary outcome, and change in mammographic breast density (percentage and dense area) between the index and study mammograms was the secondary outcome.

RESULTS

Mammography recall rates were 11.3% (61 of 542 women in the no-suspension group), 12.3% (50 of 478 women in the 1-month suspension group), and 9.8% (44 of 451 women in the 2-month suspension group). No subgroups were identified in which brief suspension of hormone therapy resulted in decreased mammography recall. With suspension, decreases in percentage of breast density were orderly and statistically significant: 0.1% (no-suspension group), -0.9% (1-month suspension group), and -1.5% (2-month suspension group). Similar ordered decreases were observed for dense area. Women in the suspension groups experienced increased menopause symptoms.

LIMITATIONS

Results can only be generalized to women age 45 to 80 years who have used hormone therapy for at least 1 year and will consider short-term suspension; most eligible women (61%) declined participation. Mammography recall was determined by 1 expert radiologist.

CONCLUSION

Brief hormone therapy suspension was associated with small changes in breast density and did not affect recall rates. No evidence supports short-term hormone therapy suspension before mammography.

New diagnostic techniques for breast cancer detection

Breast imaging has made huge advances in the last decade, and along with newer techniques to diagnose primary breast cancer, many novel methods are being used and look promising in detecting distant metastasis, recurrent disease and assessing response to treatment. Full-field digital mammography optimizes the lesion–background contrast and gives better sensitivity, and it is possible to see through the dense tissues by altering computer windows; this may be particularly useful in younger women with dense breasts. The need for repeat imaging is reduced, with the added advantage of reduced radiation dose to patients. Computer-aided detection systems may help the radiologist in interpretation of both conventional and digital mammograms. MRI has a role in screening women at high risk for breast cancer. It also aids in cancer management by assessing response to treatment and can help in deciding appropriate surgery by providing accurate information on the extent of the tumor. Newer diagnostic techniques such as sestamibi scans, optical imaging and molecular diagnostic techniques look promising, but need more investigation into their use. Their roles will appear clearer in coming years, and they may prove to be of help in further investigating lesions that are indeterminate on standard imaging. Other upcoming techniques are contrast-enhanced mammography and tomosynthesis. These may give additional information in indeterminate lesions, and when used in screening they aid in reducing recall rates, as shown in recent studies. PET/computed tomography has a role in detecting local disease recurrence and distant metastasis in breast cancer patients.

The impact of perceived hypertension status on anxiety and the white coat effect

BACKGROUND

The white coat effect can lead to overdiagnosis of hypertension and unnecessary pharmacologic treatment. Mechanisms underlying the white coat effect remain poorly understood but are critical to improving the accuracy of clinic blood pressure measurement.

PURPOSE

This study investigated whether perceived hypertension status was associated with state anxiety levels during a clinic visit and the magnitude of the white coat effect, independent of true blood pressure status.

METHODS

This observational study included 214 normotensive and mildly hypertensive participants who were 18 to 80 years old, had no cardiac history, and were willing to discontinue antihypertensive medications for 8 weeks. Participants underwent 36 hr ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and physician blood pressure measurement. Outcome measures were state anxiety reported during the clinic visit and the white coat effect.

RESULTS

An analysis of covariance indicated that participants who perceived themselves as hypertensive reported greater state anxiety (p<.001) and showed larger white coat effects (ps<.01) compared with those who perceived themselves as normotensive. True hypertension status based on ambulatory blood pressure was not related to either outcome. Anxiety accounted for approximately 19% of the association between perceived hypertension status and the white coat effect.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that the perception of being hypertensive is associated with greater anxiety during clinic blood pressure measurement and a larger white coat effect, independent of the true blood pressure level. Anxiety appears to be a mechanism by which perceived hypertension status contributes to the white coat effect.

The effect of immediate reading of screening mammograms on medical care utilization and costs after false-positive mammograms

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether decreased anxiety associated with immediate reading of screening mammograms resulted in lower downstream utilization and costs among women with false-positive mammograms.

DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING

We identified 1,140 women, > or =age 40, with false-positive mammograms and 12-month follow-up after participating in a trial of immediate versus batch mammographic reading between February 1999 and January 2001 in a multispecialty group managed care practice in Massachusetts.

STUDY DESIGN

We determined downstream utilization and costs for study participants by immediate and batch reading status.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

Demographic, comorbidity, and medical care utilization data were obtained from survey data and computerized medical record databases. Costs included direct medical costs, patient time, travel and copayments, and additional professional time costs associated with immediate reading.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Immediate reading cost an additional $4.40 per screening mammogram. Women with immediate readings had more follow-up mammograms (781 versus 750, p=.018) and fewer diagnostic ultrasounds (176 versus 219, p=.016) than women with batch readings. Costs to the health plan for breast care were approximately 10 percent higher for immediate readings in multivariable analyses (p=.046), but no significant difference was seen in total societal costs (p=.072).

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate mammogram reading was associated with increased costs to the health plan and changes in follow-up radiology procedures. These costs must be examined alongside beneficial effects of immediate reading.

Evidence-based target recall rates for screening mammography

PURPOSE

To retrospectively identify target recall rates for screening mammography on the basis of how sensitivity shifts with recall rate.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study group included 1 872 687 subsequent and 171 104 first screening mammograms from 1996 to 2001 from 172 and 139 facilities, respectively, in six sites of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Institutional review board (IRB) approval was obtained from each site. Informed consent requirements of the IRBs were followed. The study was HIPAA compliant. Recall rate was defined as the percentage of screening studies for which further work-up was recommended by the radiologist. Sensitivity was defined as the proportion of cancers that were detected at screening mammography. Piecewise linear regression was used to model sensitivity as a function of recall rate. This model allows detection of critical recall rates in which significant changes (shifts) occurred in the rates that sensitivity increased with increasing recall rate. Rates were interpreted as number of additional work-ups per additional cancer detected (AW/ACD) or, in other words, the estimated number of additional women needed to be recalled at a given rate to detect one additional cancer.

RESULTS

For first mammograms, a single shift in the estimated AW/ACD rate occurred at a recall rate of 10.0%, with the rate jumping dramatically from 35 to 172. For subsequent mammograms, four shifts were identified. At a recall rate of 6.7%, the estimated AW/ACD increased from 80 to 132, which rendered it the highest desirable target recall rate. At a recall rate of 12.3%, the estimated AW/ACD was 304, which suggests little benefit for any higher recall rate.

CONCLUSION

Recall rates of 10.0% for first and 6.7% for subsequent mammograms are recommended targets on the basis of their AW/ACD rates (less than 100).

Validation of a condition-specific measure for women having an abnormal screening mammography

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to assess the validity of a new condition-specific instrument measuring psychosocial consequences of abnormal screening mammography (PCQ-DK33).

METHODS

The draft version of the PCQ-DK33 was completed on two occasions by 184 women who had received an abnormal screening mammography and on one occasion by 240 women who had received a normal screening result. Item Response Theories and Classical Test Theories were used to analyze data. Construct validity, concurrent validity, known group validity, objectivity and reliability were established by item analysis examining the fit between item responses and Rasch models.

RESULTS

Six dimensions covering anxiety, behavioral impact, sense of dejection, impact on sleep, breast examination, and sexuality were identified. One item belonging to the dejection dimension had uniform differential item functioning. Two items not fitting the Rasch models were retained because of high face validity. A sick leave item added useful information when measuring side effects and socioeconomic consequences of breast cancer screening. Five "poor items" were identified and should be deleted from the final instrument.

CONCLUSIONS

Preliminary evidence for a valid and reliable condition-specific measure for women having an abnormal screening mammography was established. The measure includes 27 "good" items measuring different attributes of the same overall latent structure-the psychosocial consequences of abnormal screening mammography.

Use of Beryllium Lymphocyte Proliferation Testing for Screening of Asymptomatic Individuals: An Evidence-Based Assessment

OBJECTIVE

We reviewed published data describing use of beryllium lymphocyte proliferation testing (BeLPT) to determine the appropriateness of BeLPT for screening asymptomatic individuals.

METHODS

Published studies were identified by computerized literature searches and hand searches of relevant bibliographies and cited references. Critical assessment of evidence focused on five elements essential to judging effectiveness of preventive services: 1) burden of suffering, 2) accuracy and reliability of screening tests, 3) effectiveness of early detection, 4) harms of screening, and 5) benefits outweighing harms.

RESULTS

Important gaps and deficiencies in the evidence were found. The prevalence of beryllium sensitization and chronic beryllium disease in asymptomatic individuals are unknown. The accuracy and reliability of BeLPT are uncertain. Marked intra- and interlaboratory variability has been reported. The clinical benefits of early intervention have not been confirmed or quantified in asymptomatic individuals.

CONCLUSIONS

There is currently insufficient scientific evidence to support the use of BeLPT for routine screening of asymptomatic individuals.

Long-term risk of false-positive screening results and subsequent biopsy as a function of mammography use

PURPOSE

To retrospectively determine the long-term risk of false-positive mammographic assessments and to evaluate the effect of screening regularity on the risk of false-positive events.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Institutional review board approval was obtained, and informed consent was waived. Retrospective analysis was performed for the occurrence of false-positive assessments among 83,511 women who underwent 314,185 mammographic examinations from January 1, 1985, to February 19, 2002. Data were collected from a database that had been assembled prospectively. Two categories of false-positive events were examined: biopsies that did not reveal cancer and false-positive mammographic assessments. Rates of false-positive events were compared by using a chi2 analysis, and 95% confidence limits were calculated. Because comparisons of multiple pairs were considered, all P values that demonstrated statistical significance exceeded the requirement of the Bonferroni correction.

RESULTS

While the overall rates of biopsies that did not reveal cancer and of false-positive mammographic assessments were similar to those found in other studies, most of the burden of false-positive events was borne by women who underwent intermittent screening. Long-term rates of false-positive events were lower among women who underwent regular screening than among those who underwent intermittent screening. In the 5-year group, 2.9% of women who underwent five mammographic examinations over the next 5 years had biopsy results that did not reveal cancer, whereas 4.6% of women who underwent three mammographic examinations over the next 5 years had biopsy results that did not reveal cancer. For women who underwent regular screening, the risk of undergoing biopsies that did not reveal cancer declined over time to 0.25% per year after several years of screening, a value that is lower than the risk of these events among women who did not undergo screening. The rate of false-positive mammographic assessments was also lower for women who underwent regular screening than for those who underwent intermittent screening.

CONCLUSION

Prompt annual attendance for mammographic screening reduces the occurrence of false-positive mammographic results.

Variation in false-positive rates of mammography reading among 1067 radiologists: a population-based assessment

BACKGROUND

The accuracy of mammography reading varies among radiologists. We conducted a population-based assessment on radiologist variation in false- positive rates of screening mammography and its associated radiologist characteristics.

METHODS

About 27,394 screening mammograms interpreted by 1067 radiologists were identified from a 5% non-cancer sample of Medicare claims during 1998-1999. The data were linked to the American Medical Association Masterfile to obtain radiologist characteristics. Multilevel logistic regression models were used to examine the radiologist variation in false-positive rates of screening mammography and the associated radiologist characteristics.

RESULTS

Radiologists varied substantially in the false-positive rates of screening mammography (ranging from 1.5 to 24.1%, adjusting for patient characteristics). A longer time period since graduation is associated with lower false-positive rates (odds ratio [OR] for every 10 years increase: 0.87, 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 0.81-0.94) and female radiologists had higher false-positive rates than male radiologists (OR = 1.25, 95% CI, 1.05-1.49), adjusting for patient and other radiologist characteristics. The unmeasured factors contributed to about 90% of the between-radiologist variance.

CONCLUSIONS

Radiologists varied greatly in accuracy of mammography reading. Female and more recently trained radiologists had higher false-positive rates. The variation among radiologists was largely due to unmeasured factors, especially unmeasured radiologist factors. If our results are confirmed in further studies, they suggest that system-level interventions would be required to reduce variation in mammography interpretation.

Psychological Distress in U.S. Women Who Have Experienced False-Positive Mammograms

BACKGROUND

In the United States, approximately 10.7% of all screening mammograms lead to a false-positive result, but the overall impact of false-positives on psychological well-being is poorly understood.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were analyzed from the 2000 U.S. National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), the most recent national survey that included a cancer control module. Study subjects were 9,755 women who ever had a mammogram, of which 1,450 had experienced a false-positive result. Psychological distress was assessed using the validated K6 questionnaire and logistic regression was used to discern any association with previous false-positive mammograms.

RESULTS

In a multivariate analysis, women who had indicated a previous false-positive mammogram were more likely to report feeling sad (OR = 1.18, 95% CI, 1.03-1.35), restless (OR = 1.23, 95% CI, 1.08-1.40), worthless (OR = 1.27, 95% CI, 1.04-1.54), and finding that everything was an effort (OR = 1.27, 95% CI, 1.10-1.47). These women were also more likely to have seen a mental health professional in the 12 months preceding the survey (OR = 1.28, 95% CI, 1.03-1.58) and had a higher composite score on all items of the K6 scale (P < 0.0001), a reflection of increased psychological distress. Analyses by age and race revealed that, among women who had experienced false-positives, younger women were more likely to feel that everything was an effort, and blacks were more likely to feel restless.

CONCLUSION

In a random sampling of the U.S. population, women who had previously experienced false-positive mammograms were more likely to report symptoms of anxiety and depression.

The psychological impact of mammographic screening. A systematic review

Concerns have been raised regarding the possible negative psychological impact of the cancer screening programmes offered in the UK. This review aims to assess the extent of and factors associated with the adverse psychological consequences of mammographic screening. Fifty-four papers from 13 countries were identified, a majority of which were published after 1990, coinciding more or less with the onset of routine mammographic screening. The results report that mammographic screening does not appear to create anxiety in women who are given a clear result after a mammogram and are subsequently placed on routine recall. However, women who have further investigations following their routine mammogram experience significant anxiety in the short term, and possibly in the long term. The nature and extent of the further investigation that women are exposed to during mammographic screening determines the intensity of the psychological impact. Factors associated with the adverse psychological impact of mammographic screening included: social demographic factors of younger age, lower education, living in urban areas, manual occupation, and one or no children; cancer screening factors of dissatisfaction with information and communication during screening process, waiting time between recall letter and recall appointment, pain experienced during the mammographic screening procedures, and previous false positive result; and cancer worry factors including fear of cancer and greater perceived risk of breast cancer. Difficulties in measuring the psychological impact of screening are discussed, and methods of alleviating the negative psychological outcomes are suggested.

Screening for cancer: are resources being used wisely?

Cancer screening is commonly offered in order to detect tumors at an early, treatable stage. These efforts are highly advocated and widely accepted by the general public. However, there is conflicting evidence about the benefits of screening for breast cancer in pre-menopausal women, prostate cancer in older men, and colorectal cancer for both sexes. This paper examines cancer screening in relation to a disease reservoir hypothesis. There is a reservoir of undetected disease that can be found with more aggressive screening. However, much of the disease that is detected may be classified as pseudodisease because it will have no effect of life expectancy or health-related quality of life. Pseudodisease is defined as detectable disease that will never be clinically significant. A second concern about screening is that randomized clinical trials often show benefits of cancer screening for disease-specific endpoints but no benefit for total mortality. Further, screening for some cancers may significantly increase healthcare costs without enhancing population health status. Improvements in biomarkers and in screening methodologies will significantly increase the number of cancers detected. Future research is necessary in order to determine which population-based screening programs are the best use of public health resources.

Screening for colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer in the elderly: a review of the evidence

There is general consensus that screening can reduce mortality from colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer among persons in their 50s and 60s. However, few screening trials have included persons over age 70 years. Therefore, indirect evidence must be used to determine when results in younger persons should be extrapolated to older persons. In this review, we focus on cancer screening tests that are well accepted in younger persons (mammography, Papanicolaou smears, and colorectal cancer screening) and discuss the strength of inference concerning benefits and harms of screening older persons. Some aspects of aging favor screening (eg, increased absolute risk of dying of cancer) whereas other aspects do not (eg, decreased life expectancy). Age also affects the behavior of some cancers (eg, increases the proportion of slow-growing breast cancers) and affects the accuracy of some screening tests (eg, increases the accuracy of mammography; decreases the accuracy of sigmoidoscopy). These effects make the application of evidence in younger populations to older populations complex. However, given the heterogeneity of the elderly population, there is no evidence of one age at which potential benefits of screening suddenly cease or potential harms suddenly become substantial for everyone. Therefore, characteristics of individual patients that go beyond age should be the driving factors in screening decisions. For example, persons who have a life expectancy less than 5 years or persons who would decline treatment should generally not be screened. Decisions to either continue or discontinue screening in the elderly should be based on health status, the benefits and harms of the test, and preferences of the patient, rather than solely on the age of the patient.

Digital Mammography: Current Capabilities and Obstacles

Digital mammography represents an exciting new technology for breast imaging and possibly breast screening. The decoupling of functional components in digital mammography translates into potential operational efficiencies compared with screen-film mammography (SFM). Digital mammography is a platform for advanced applications not possible with traditional SFM. However, for digital mammography to replace SFM in daily clinical practice, operational and clinical hurdles will have to be overcome.

Assessing the Skill of Yes/No Predictions

Should healthy, middle-aged women receive precautionary mammograms? Should trauma surgeons use the popular TRISS score to predict the likelihood of patient survival? These are examples of questions confronting us when we decide whether to use a yes/no prediction. In order to trust a prediction we must show that it is more valuable than would be our best guess of the future in the absence of the prediction. Calculating value means identifying our loss should the prediction err and examining the past performance of the prediction with respect to that loss. A statistical test to do this is developed. Predictions that pass this test are said to have skill. Only skillful predictions should be used. Graphical and numerical methods to identify skill will be demonstrated. The usefulness of mammograms is explored.