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 χ2 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.

© RSNA, 2006

References

  • 1 Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, Woolf SH. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137: 347–360.
  • 2 Kopans DB. Updated results of the trials of screening mammography. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 1997;6:233–263.
  • 3 Smith RA. Screening fundamentals. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997;22:15–19.
  • 4 Elmore JG, Barton MB, Moceri VM, Polk S, Arena PJ, Fletcher SW. Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. N Engl J Med 1998;338:1089–1096.
  • 5 Christiansen CL, Wang F, Barton MB, et al. Predicting the cumulative risk of false-positive mammograms. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1657–1666.
  • 6 Fletcher SW, Elmore JG. Mammographic screening for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2003;348:1672–1680.
  • 7 Smith-Bindman R, Chu PW, Miglioretti DL, et al. Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United Kingdom. JAMA 2003;290:2129–2137.
  • 8 Brown ML, Hiun F, Sickles EA, Kessler LG. Screening mammography in community practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;165:1373–1377.
  • 9 Lidbrink E, Elfving J, Jonsson E. Neglected aspects of false positive findings of mammography in breast cancer screening: analysis of false positive cases from the Stockholm trial. BMJ 1996;312:273–275.
  • 10 Barton MB, Moore S, Polk S, Shtatland E, Elmore JG, Fletcher SW. Increased patient concern after false-positive mammograms: clinician documentation and subsequent ambulatory visits. J Gen Intern Med 2001;16:150–156.
  • 11 Lampic C, Thurfjell E, Bergh J, Sjoden PO. Short- and long-term anxiety and depression in women recalled after breast cancer screening. Eur J Cancer 2001;37:463–469.
  • 12 Gilbert FJ, Cordiner CM, Zeck RA, Hood DB, Mathieson D, Walker LG. Breast screening: the psychological sequelae of false-positive recall in women with and without a family history of breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 1998;34:2010–2014.
  • 13 Callaway MP, Boggis CR, Astley SA, Hutt I. The influence of previous films on screening mammographic interpretation and detection of breast carcinoma. Clin Radiol 1997;52:527–529.
  • 14 Sickles EA. Successful methods to reduce false-positive mammography interpretations. Radiol Clin North Am 2000;38:693–700.
  • 15 Burnside ES, Sickles EA, Sohlich RE, Dee KE. Differential value of comparison with previous examinations versus screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:1173–1177.
  • 16 Esserman L, Cowley H, Eberle C, et al. Improving the accuracy of mammography: volume and outcome relationships. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:369–375.
  • 17 Elmore JG, Miglioretti DL, Reisch LM, et al. Screening mammograms by community radiologists: variability in false positive rates. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1373–1380.
  • 18 Ulcickas Yood M, McCarthy BD, Lee NC, Jacobsen G, Johnson CC. Patterns and characteristics of repeat mammography among women 50 years and older. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1999;8:595–599.
  • 19 Sabogal F, Merrill SS, Packel L. Mammography rescreening among older California women. Health Care Financ Rev 2001;22:63–75.
  • 20 Michaelson J, Satija S, Moore R, et al. The pattern of breast cancer screening utilization and its consequences. Cancer 2002;94:37–43.
  • 21 Blanchard K, Colbert JA, Puri D, et al. Mammographic screening: patterns of use and estimated impact on breast carcinoma survival. Cancer 2004;101(3):495–507.
  • 22 Michaelson JS, Satija S, Moore R, Weber G, Garland G, Kopans DB. Properties of the invasive breast cancers and features of screening utilization seen over the last decade at the Massachusetts General Hospital Breast Imaging Division. J Womens Imaging 2001;3:99–104.
  • 23 Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Fowler FJ, Welch HG. Enthusiasm for cancer screening in the United States. JAMA 2004;291:71–78.
  • 24 Michaelson JS, Kopans DB, Cady B. The breast cancer screening interval is important. Cancer 2000;88:1282–1284.
  • 25 Michaelson JS, Halpern E, Kopans D. A computer simulation method for estimating the optimal intervals for breast cancer screening. Radiology 1999;212:551–560.
  • 26 Michaelson JS. Using information on breast cancer growth, spread, and detectability to find the best ways to use screening to reduce breast cancer death. J Womens Imaging 2001;3:54–57.
  • 27 Michaelson JS, Satija S, Moore R, et al. Estimates of the sizes at which breast cancers become detectable on mammographic and on clinical grounds. J Womens Imaging 2003;5:3–10.
  • 28 Michaelson JS, Satija S, Moore R, Weber G, Garland G, Kopans DB. Estimates of the breast cancer growth rate and sojourn time from screening database information. J Womens Imaging 2003;5:11–19.
  • 29 Michaelson JS, Silverstein M, Wyatt J, et al. The prediction of breast cancer survival from tumor size. Cancer 2002;95:713–723.
  • 30 Tabar L, Duffy SW, Vitak B, Chen HH, Prevost TC. The natural history of breast carcinoma: what have we learned from screening? Cancer 1999;86:449–462.
  • 31 Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1081–1087.

Article History

Published in print: Aug 2006