Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24052045/ below:

Re-attendance after false-positive screening mammography: a population-based study in the Netherlands

Affiliations

• ¹ Department of Radiology, Catharina Hospital, PO Box 1350, 5602 ZA, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

• PMID: 24052045
• PMCID: PMC3798969
• DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2013.573

Item in Clipboard

W Setz-Pels et al. Br J Cancer. 2013.

• ¹ Department of Radiology, Catharina Hospital, PO Box 1350, 5602 ZA, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

• PMID: 24052045
• PMCID: PMC3798969
• DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2013.573

Item in Clipboard

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Mammography screening outcome, 1995–2009. *4-year…

Mammography screening outcome, 1995–2009. *4-year follow-up complete for women screened until March 2008.

Mammography screening outcome, 1995–2009. *4-year follow-up complete for women screened until March 2008.

• Predictors of re-attendance at biennial screening mammography following a false positive referral: A study among women in the south of the Netherlands.

  Voogd AC, Molnar Z, Nederend J, Schipper RJ, Strobbe LJA, Duijm LEM. Voogd AC, et al. Breast. 2024 Apr;74:103702. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2024.103702. Epub 2024 Feb 27. Breast. 2024. PMID: 38447293 Free PMC article.

• Effect of false-positives and women's characteristics on long-term adherence to breast cancer screening.

  Román R, Sala M, De La Vega M, Natal C, Galceran J, González-Román I, Baroja A, Zubizarreta R, Ascunce N, Salas D, Castells X. Román R, et al. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011 Nov;130(2):543-52. doi: 10.1007/s10549-011-1581-4. Epub 2011 May 27. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011. PMID: 21617920

• Participation behaviour following a false positive test in the Copenhagen mammography screening programme.

  Andersen SB, Vejborg I, von Euler-Chelpin M. Andersen SB, et al. Acta Oncol. 2008;47(4):550-5. doi: 10.1080/02841860801935483. Acta Oncol. 2008. PMID: 18465321

• Systematic review of the psychological consequences of false-positive screening mammograms.

  Bond M, Pavey T, Welch K, Cooper C, Garside R, Dean S, Hyde C. Bond M, et al. Health Technol Assess. 2013 Mar;17(13):1-170, v-vi. doi: 10.3310/hta17130. Health Technol Assess. 2013. PMID: 23540978 Free PMC article. Review.

• Benefits and Harms of Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.

  Myers ER, Moorman P, Gierisch JM, Havrilesky LJ, Grimm LJ, Ghate S, Davidson B, Mongtomery RC, Crowley MJ, McCrory DC, Kendrick A, Sanders GD. Myers ER, et al. JAMA. 2015 Oct 20;314(15):1615-34. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.13183. JAMA. 2015. PMID: 26501537 Review.

• The dilemma of recalling well-circumscribed masses in a screening population: A narrative literature review and exploration of Dutch screening practice.

  Geertse TD, van der Waal D, Vreuls W, Tetteroo E, Duijm LEM, Pijnappel RM, Broeders MJM. Geertse TD, et al. Breast. 2023 Jun;69:431-440. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2023.05.001. Epub 2023 May 3. Breast. 2023. PMID: 37169601 Free PMC article. Review.

• Association Between False-Positive Results and Return to Screening Mammography in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Cohort.

  Miglioretti DL, Abraham L, Sprague BL, Lee CI, Bissell MCS, Ho TH, Bowles EJA, Henderson LM, Hubbard RA, Tosteson ANA, Kerlikowske K. Miglioretti DL, et al. Ann Intern Med. 2024 Oct;177(10):1297-1307. doi: 10.7326/M24-0123. Epub 2024 Sep 3. Ann Intern Med. 2024. PMID: 39222505 Free PMC article.

• Re-attendance in supplemental breast MRI screening rounds of the DENSE trial for women with extremely dense breasts.

  Veenhuizen SGA, van Grinsven SEL, Laseur IL, Bakker MF, Monninkhof EM, de Lange SV, Pijnappel RM, Mann RM, Lobbes MBI, Duvivier KM, de Jong MDF, Loo CE, Karssemeijer N, van Diest PJ, Veldhuis WB, van Gils CH; DENSE Trial Study Group. Veenhuizen SGA, et al. Eur Radiol. 2024 Oct;34(10):6334-6347. doi: 10.1007/s00330-024-10685-9. Epub 2024 Apr 19. Eur Radiol. 2024. PMID: 38639912 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.

• Factors associated with false-positive mammography at first screen in an Asian population.

  Ho PJ, Bok CM, Ishak HMM, Lim LY, Liu J, Wong FY, Chia KS, Tan MH, Chay WY, Hartman M, Li J. Ho PJ, et al. PLoS One. 2019 Mar 11;14(3):e0213615. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213615. eCollection 2019. PLoS One. 2019. PMID: 30856210 Free PMC article.

• Screening outcome in women repeatedly recalled for the same mammographic abnormality before, during and after the transition from screen-film to full-field digital screening mammography.

  van Bommel R, Voogd AC, Louwman MW, Strobbe LJ, Venderink D, Duijm LE. van Bommel R, et al. Eur Radiol. 2017 Feb;27(2):553-561. doi: 10.1007/s00330-016-4399-y. Epub 2016 May 14. Eur Radiol. 2017. PMID: 27180183

1. 1. Annual report BOZ (bevolkings Onderzoek Zuid) 2009 ) www.bevolkingsonderzoekzuid.nl/page3344/Jaarverslag .
2. 1. American College of Radiology 2003Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS)4th edn.American College of Radiology: Reston, VA
3. 1. Aro AR, Pilvikki Absetz S, van Elderen TM, van der Ploeg E, van der Kamp LJ. False-positive findings in mammography screening induces short-term distress-breast cancer-specific concern prevails longer. Eur J Cancer. 2000;36:1089–1097. - PubMed
4. 1. Bond M, Pavey T, Welch K, Cooper C, Garside R, Dean S, Hyde CJ. Psychological consequences of false-positive screening mammograms in the UK. Evid Based Med. 2013;18:54–61. - PubMed
5. 1. Brett J, Bankhead C, Henderson B, Watson E, Austoker J. The psychological impact of mammographic screening. A systematic review. Psychooncology. 2005;14:917–938. - PubMed

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.3