Advanced search
1 file | 266.86 KB

Breast cancer risk is increased in the years following false-positive breast cancer screening

Author
Organization
Abstract
A small number of studies have investigated breast cancer (BC) risk among women with a history of false-positive recall (FPR) in BC screening, but none of them has used time-to-event analysis while at the same time quantifying the effect of false-negative diagnostic assessment (FNDA). FNDA occurs when screening detects BC, but this BC is missed on diagnostic assessment (DA). As a result of FNDA, screenings that detected cancer are incorrectly classified as FPR. Our study linked data recorded in the Flemish BC screening program (women aged 50-69 years) to data from the national cancer registry. We used Cox proportional hazards models on a retrospective cohort of 298 738 women to assess the association between FPR and subsequent BC, while adjusting for potential confounders. The mean follow-up was 6.9 years. Compared with women without recall, women with a history of FPR were at an increased risk of developing BC [hazard ratio = 2.10 (95% confidence interval: 1.92-2.31)]. However, 22% of BC after FPR was due to FNDA. The hazard ratio dropped to 1.69 (95% confidence interval: 1.52-1.87) when FNDA was excluded. Women with FPR have a subsequently increased BC risk compared with women without recall. The risk is higher for women who have a FPR BI-RADS 4 or 5 compared with FPR BI- RADS 3. There is room for improvement of diagnostic assessment: 41% of the excess risk is explained by FNDA after baseline screening.
Keywords
breast neoplasms, false-positive recall, mammographic screening, risk, MAMMOGRAPHY, WOMEN, BELGIUM, PROGRAM

Downloads

  • 2017 EurJCancerPrev Goossens 00008469-201709000-00006.pdf
    • full text
    • |
    • open access
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 266.86 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

Chicago
Goossens, Mathijs C, Isabel De Brabander, Jacques De Greve, Evelien Vaes, Chantal Van Ongeval, Koen Van Herck, and Eliane Kellen. 2017. “Breast Cancer Risk Is Increased in the Years Following False-positive Breast Cancer Screening.” European Journal of Cancer Prevention 26 (5): 396–403.
APA
Goossens, M. C., De Brabander, I., De Greve, J., Vaes, E., Van Ongeval, C., Van Herck, K., & Kellen, E. (2017). Breast cancer risk is increased in the years following false-positive breast cancer screening. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER PREVENTION, 26(5), 396–403.
Vancouver
1.
Goossens MC, De Brabander I, De Greve J, Vaes E, Van Ongeval C, Van Herck K, et al. Breast cancer risk is increased in the years following false-positive breast cancer screening. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER PREVENTION. 2017;26(5):396–403.
MLA
Goossens, Mathijs C, Isabel De Brabander, Jacques De Greve, et al. “Breast Cancer Risk Is Increased in the Years Following False-positive Breast Cancer Screening.” EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER PREVENTION 26.5 (2017): 396–403. Print.
@article{8547604,
  abstract     = {A small number of studies have investigated breast cancer (BC) risk among women with a history of false-positive recall (FPR) in BC screening, but none of them has used time-to-event analysis while at the same time quantifying the effect of false-negative diagnostic assessment (FNDA). FNDA occurs when screening detects BC, but this BC is missed on diagnostic assessment (DA). As a result of FNDA, screenings that detected cancer are incorrectly classified as FPR. Our study linked data recorded in the Flemish BC screening program (women aged 50-69 years) to data from the national cancer registry. We used Cox proportional hazards models on a retrospective cohort of 298 738 women to assess the association between FPR and subsequent BC, while adjusting for potential confounders. The mean follow-up was 6.9 years. Compared with women without recall, women with a history of FPR were at an increased risk of developing BC [hazard ratio = 2.10 (95\% confidence interval: 1.92-2.31)]. However, 22\% of BC after FPR was due to FNDA. The hazard ratio dropped to 1.69 (95\% confidence interval: 1.52-1.87) when FNDA was excluded. Women with FPR have a subsequently increased BC risk compared with women without recall. The risk is higher for women who have a FPR BI-RADS 4 or 5 compared with FPR BI- RADS 3. There is room for improvement of diagnostic assessment: 41\% of the excess risk is explained by FNDA after baseline screening.},
  author       = {Goossens, Mathijs C and De Brabander, Isabel and De Greve, Jacques and Vaes, Evelien and Van Ongeval, Chantal and Van Herck, Koen and Kellen, Eliane},
  issn         = {0959-8278},
  journal      = {EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER PREVENTION},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {5},
  pages        = {396--403},
  title        = {Breast cancer risk is increased in the years following false-positive breast cancer screening},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/cej.0000000000000313},
  volume       = {26},
  year         = {2017},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: