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

Showing content from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29682740/ below:

Implications of false-positive results for future cancer screenings

Observational Study

Affiliations

• ¹ Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
• ² Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
• ³ Division of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

• PMID: 29682740
• PMCID: PMC5992010
• DOI: 10.1002/cncr.31271

Item in Clipboard

Observational Study

Glen B Taksler et al. Cancer. 2018.

• ¹ Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
• ² Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
• ³ Division of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

• PMID: 29682740
• PMCID: PMC5992010
• DOI: 10.1002/cncr.31271

Item in Clipboard

Background: False-positive cancer screening results may affect a patient's willingness to obtain future screening.

Methods: The authors conducted logistic regression analysis of 450,484 person-years of electronic medical records (2006-2015) in 92,405 individuals aged 50 to 75 years. Exposures were false-positive breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer screening test results (repeat breast imaging or negative breast biopsy ≤3 months after screening mammography, repeat prostate-specific antigen [PSA] test ≤3 months after PSA test result ≥4.0 ng/mL or negative prostate biopsy ≤3 months after any PSA result, or negative colonoscopy [without biopsy/polypectomy] ≤6 months after a positive fecal occult blood test). Outcomes were up-to-date status with breast or colorectal cancer screening. Covariates included prior screening history, clinical information (eg, family history, obesity, and smoking status), comorbidity, and demographics.

Results: Women were more likely to be up to date with breast cancer screening if they previously had false-positive mammography findings (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.43 [95% confidence interval, 1.34-1.51] without breast biopsy and AOR, 2.02 [95% confidence interval, 1.56-2.62] with breast biopsy; both P<.001). The same women were more likely to be up to date with colorectal cancer screening (AOR range, 1.25-1.47 depending on breast biopsy; both P<.001). Men who previously had false-positive PSA testing were more likely to be up to date with colorectal cancer screening (AOR, 1.22 [P = .039] without prostate imaging/biopsy and AOR, 1.60 [P = .028] with imaging/biopsy). Results were stronger for individuals with more false-positive results (all P≤.005). However, women with previous false-positive colorectal cancer fecal occult blood test screening results were found to be less likely to be up to date with breast cancer screening (AOR, 0.73; P<.001).

Conclusions: Patients who previously had a false-positive breast or prostate cancer screening test were more likely to engage in future screening. Cancer 2018;124:2390-8. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Keywords: cancer screening; cancer screening tests; diagnostic errors; early detection of cancer; false-positive reactions; mass screening.

© 2018 American Cancer Society.

PubMed Disclaimer

Financial conflicts: None

• Screening men for prostate and colorectal cancer in the United States: does practice reflect the evidence?

  Sirovich BE, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Sirovich BE, et al. JAMA. 2003 Mar 19;289(11):1414-20. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.11.1414. JAMA. 2003. PMID: 12636464

• Colorectal cancer screening participation: comparisons with mammography and prostate-specific antigen screening.

  Lemon S, Zapka J, Puleo E, Luckmann R, Chasan-Taber L. Lemon S, et al. Am J Public Health. 2001 Aug;91(8):1264-72. doi: 10.2105/ajph.91.8.1264. Am J Public Health. 2001. PMID: 11499116 Free PMC article.

• Cancer Screening Patterns Among Current, Former, and Never Smokers in the United States, 2010-2015.

  Sanford NN, Sher DJ, Butler S, Xu X, Ahn C, D'Amico AV, Rebbeck T, Aizer AA, Mahal BA. Sanford NN, et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2019 May 3;2(5):e193759. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.3759. JAMA Netw Open. 2019. PMID: 31099863 Free PMC article.

• Accuracy of self-reported cancer-screening histories: a meta-analysis.

  Rauscher GH, Johnson TP, Cho YI, Walk JA. Rauscher GH, et al. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008 Apr;17(4):748-57. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-2629. Epub 2008 Apr 1. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008. PMID: 18381468 Review.

• Predictors of screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostatic cancer among community-based primary care practices.

  Ruffin MT, Gorenflo DW, Woodman B. Ruffin MT, et al. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2000 Jan-Feb;13(1):1-10. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.13.1.1. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2000. PMID: 10682879 Review.

• Circulating Exosome Cargoes Contain Functionally Diverse Cancer Biomarkers: From Biogenesis and Function to Purification and Potential Translational Utility.

  Mitchell MI, Ma J, Carter CL, Loudig O. Mitchell MI, et al. Cancers (Basel). 2022 Jul 10;14(14):3350. doi: 10.3390/cancers14143350. Cancers (Basel). 2022. PMID: 35884411 Free PMC article. Review.

• Misdiagnosis in breast imaging: a statement paper from European Society Breast Imaging (EUSOBI)-Part 1: The role of common errors in radiology in missed breast cancer and implications of misdiagnosis.

  Thomassin-Naggara I, Kilburn-Toppin F, Athanasiou A, Forrai G, Ispas M, Lesaru M, Giannotti E, Pinker-Domenig K, Van Ongeval C, Gilbert F, Mann RM, Pediconi F; EUSOBI Board. Thomassin-Naggara I, et al. Eur Radiol. 2025 May;35(5):2387-2396. doi: 10.1007/s00330-024-11128-1. Epub 2024 Nov 15. Eur Radiol. 2025. PMID: 39545978 Review.

• Perceptions of Multicancer Detection Tests Among Primary Care Physicians and Laypersons: A Qualitative Study.

  Samimi G, Temkin SM, Weil CJ, Han PKJ, LeeVan E, Rubinstein WS, Swigart TM, Caban S, Dent K, Minasian LM. Samimi G, et al. Cancer Med. 2024 Nov;13(21):e70281. doi: 10.1002/cam4.70281. Cancer Med. 2024. PMID: 39475101 Free PMC article.

• Subsequent attendance in a breast cancer screening program after a false-positive result in the Local Health Authority of Bologna (Italy).

  Squillace L, Pizzi L, Rallo F, Bazzani C, Saguatti G, Mezzetti F. Squillace L, et al. Sci Rep. 2021 Apr 20;11(1):8530. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-87864-x. Sci Rep. 2021. PMID: 33879804 Free PMC article.

• An artificial intelligence based app for skin cancer detection evaluated in a population based setting.

  Smak Gregoor AM, Sangers TE, Bakker LJ, Hollestein L, Uyl-de Groot CA, Nijsten T, Wakkee M. Smak Gregoor AM, et al. NPJ Digit Med. 2023 May 20;6(1):90. doi: 10.1038/s41746-023-00831-w. NPJ Digit Med. 2023. PMID: 37210466 Free PMC article.

1. 1. Hubbard RA, Kerlikowske K, Flowers CI, Yankaskas BC, Zhu W, Miglioretti DL. Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:481–492. - PMC - PubMed
2. 1. 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. - PubMed
3. 1. Pace LE, Keating NL. A systematic assessment of benefits and risks to guide breast cancer screening decisions. JAMA. 2014;311:1327–1335. - PubMed
4. 1. Moyer VA, Force USPST. Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:120–134. - PubMed
5. 1. Hubbard RA, Johnson E, Hsia R, Rutter CM. The cumulative risk of false-positive fecal occult blood test after 10 years of colorectal cancer screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2013;22:1612–1619. - PMC - 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