Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Toward the breast screening balance sheet: cumulative risk of false positives for annual versus biennial mammograms commencing at age 40 or 50

  • Epidemiology
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study aimed to: (1) Estimate cumulative risk of recall from breast screening where no cancer is detected (a harm) in Australia; (2) Compare women screened annually versus biennially, commencing age 40 versus 50; and (3) Compare with international findings. At the no-cost metropolitan program studied, women attended biennial screening, but were offered annual screening if regarded at elevated risk for breast cancer. The cumulative risk of at least one recall was estimated using discrete-time survival analysis. Cancer detection statistics were computed. In total, 801,636 mammograms were undertaken in 231,824 women. Over 10 years, cumulative risk of recall was 13.3 % (95 % CI 12.7–13.8) for those screened biennially, and 19.9 % (CI 16.6–23.2) for those screened annually from age 50–51. Cumulative risk of complex false positive involving a biopsy was 3.1 % (CI 2.9–3.4) and 5.0 % (CI 3.4–6.6), respectively. From age 40–41, the risk of recall was 15.1 % (CI 14.3–16.0) and 22.5 % (CI 17.9–27.1) for biennial and annual screening, respectively. Corresponding rates of complex false positive were 3.3 % (CI 2.9–3.8) and 6.3 % (CI 3.4–9.1). Over 10 mammograms, invasive cancer was detected in 3.4 % (CI 3.3–3.5) and ductal carcinoma in situ in 0.7 % (CI 0.6–0.7) of women, with a non-significant trend toward a larger proportion of Tis and T1N0 cancers in women screened annually (74.5 %) versus biennially (70.1 %), χ 2 = 2.77, p = 0.10. Cancer detection was comparable to international findings. Recall risk was equal to European estimates for women screening from 50 and lower for screening from 40. Recall risk was half of United States’ rates across start age and rescreening interval categories. Future benefit/harm balance sheets may be useful for communicating these findings to women.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening (2012) The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet 380(9855):1778–1786. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(12)61611-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Breast Screen Australia Quality Improvement Program (2008) National accreditation standards. Department of Health and Ageing, Canberra

  3. Austoker J (1999) Gaining informed consent for screening. Is difficult—but many misconceptions need to be undone. BMJ 319(7212):722–723

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Paci E (2012) Summary of the evidence of breast cancer service screening outcomes in Europe and first estimate of the benefit and harm balance sheet. J Med Screen 19(1):5–13. doi:10.1258/jms.2012.012077

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Welch H, Passow HJ (2013) Quantifying the benefits and harms of screening mammography. JAMA Intern Med. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.13635

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Román R, Sala M, Salas D, Ascunce N, Zubizarreta R, Castells X (2012) Effect of protocol-related variables and women’s characteristics on the cumulative false-positive risk in breast cancer screening. Ann Oncol 23(1):104–111. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdr032

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Salas D, Ibáñez J, Román R, Cuevas D, Sala M, Ascunce N, Zubizarreta R, Castells X (2011) Effect of start age of breast cancer screening mammography on the risk of false-positive results. Prev Med 53(1–2):76–81. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.04.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Johns LE, Moss SM (2010) False-positive results in the randomized controlled trial of mammographic screening from age 40 (“Age” trial). Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 19(11):2758–2764. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.epi-10-0623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Molins E, Comas M, Román R, Rodríguez-Blanco T, Sala M, Macià F, Murta-Nascimento C, Castells X (2009) Effect of participation on the cumulative risk of false-positive recall in a breast cancer screening programme. Public Health 123(9):635–637. doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2009.07.007

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Njor SH, Olsen AH, Schwartz W, Vejborg I, Lynge E (2007) Predicting the risk of a false-positive test for women following a mammography screening programme. J Med Screen 14(2):94–97. doi:10.1258/096914107781261891

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Castells X, Molins E, Macia F (2006) Cumulative false positive recall rate and association with participant related factors in a population based breast cancer screening programme. J Epidemiol Community Health 60(4):316–321

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hofvind S, Thoresen S, Tretli S (2004) The cumulative risk of a false-positive recall in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. Cancer 101(7):1501–1507. doi:10.1002/cncr.20528

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Braithwaite D, Zhu W, Hubbard RA, O’Meara ES, Miglioretti DL, Geller B, Dittus K, Moore D, Wernli KJ, Mandelblatt J, Kerlikowske K, for the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (2013) Screening outcomes in older US women undergoing multiple mammograms in community practice: does interval, age, or comorbidity score affect tumor characteristics or false positive rates? J Natl Cancer Inst 105(5):334–341. doi:10.1093/jnci/djs645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hubbard RA, Miglioretti DL (2013) A semiparametric censoring bias model for estimating the cumulative risk of a false-positive screening test under dependent censoring. Biometrics. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0420.2012.01831.x

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hubbard RA, Kerlikowske K, Flowers CI, Yankaskas BC, Weiwei Z, Miglioretti DL (2011) Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 155(8):481-W-147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hubbard RA, Miglioretti DL, Smith RA (2010) Modelling the cumulative risk of a false-positive screening test. Stat Methods Med Res 19(5):429–449

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Blanchard K, Colbert JA, Kopans DB, Moore R, Halpern EF, Hughes KS, Smith BL, Tanabe KK, Michaelson JS (2006) Long-term risk of false-positive screening results and subsequent biopsy as a function of mammography use 1. Radiology 240(2):335–342

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Xu J-L, Fagerstrom RM, Prorok PC, Kramer BS (2004) Estimating the cumulative risk of a false-positive test in a repeated screening program. Biometrics 60(3):651–660. doi:10.1111/j.0006-341X.2004.00214.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Baker SG, Erwin D, Kramer BS (2003) Estimating the cumulative risk of false positive cancer screenings. BMC Med Res Methodol 3:11. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-3-11

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Gelfand AE, Wang F (2000) Modelling the cumulative risk for a false-positive under repeated screening events. Stat Med 19(14):1865–1879. doi:10.1002/1097-0258(20000730)19:14<1865:aid-sim512>3.0.co;2-m

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Christiansen CL, Wang F, Barton MB, Kreuter W, Elmore JG, Gelfand AE, Fletcher SW (2000) Predicting the cumulative risk of false-positive mammograms. J Natl Cancer Inst 92(20):1657–1666. doi:10.1093/jnci/92.20.1657

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Elmore JG, Barton MB, Moceri VM, Polk S, Arena PJ, Fletcher SW (1998) Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. N Engl J Med 338(16):1089–1096. doi:10.1056/NEJM199804163381601

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Cockburn J, Pit S, Redman S (1999) Perceptions of screening mammography among women aged 40–49. Aust N Z J Public Health 23(3):318–321

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Sox HC, Fischhoff B, Welch HG (2000) US women’s attitudes to false-positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: cross-sectional survey. West J Med 173(5):307–312

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ganott MA, Sumkin JH, King JL, Klym AH, Catullo VJ, Cohen CS, Gur D (2006) Screening mammography: do women prefer a higher recall rate given the possibility of earlier detection of cancer? Radiology 238(3):793–800. doi:10.1148/radiol.2383050852

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sherman KA, Winch CJ, Borecky N, Boyages J (2013) Psychological distress and streamlined BreastScreen follow-up assessment versus standard assessment. Med J Aust 199(9):599–603

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Tyndel S, Austoker J, Henderson BJ, Brain K, Bankhead C, Clements A, Watson EK (2007) What is the psychological impact of mammographic screening on younger women with a family history of breast cancer? Findings from a prospective cohort study by the PIMMS management group. J Clin Oncol 25(25):3823–3830. doi:10.1200/jco.2007.11.0437

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Brewer NT, Salz T, Lillie SE (2007) Systematic review: the long-term effects of false-positive mammograms. Ann Intern Med 146(7):502–510

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Brett J, Bankhead C, Henderson B, Watson E, Austoker J (2005) The psychological impact of mammographic screening: a systematic review. Psycho-Oncology 14(11):917–938

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Salz T, Richman AR, Brewer NT (2010) Meta-analyses of the effect of false-positive mammograms on generic and specific psychosocial outcomes. Psychooncology 19(10):1026–1034. doi:10.1002/pon.1676

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Brett J, Austoker J (2001) Women who are recalled for further investigation for breast screening: psychological consequences 3 years after recall and factors affecting re-attendance. J Public Health Med 23(4):292–300

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Sim MJH, Prema Siva S, Ramli IS, Fritschi L, Tresham J, Wylie EJ (2012) Effect of false-positive screening mammograms on rescreening in Western Australia. Med J Aust 196(11):693

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Salz T, DeFrank JT, Brewer NT (2011) False positive mammograms in Europe: do they affect reattendance? Breast Cancer Res Treat 127(1):229–231. doi:10.1007/s10549-010-1245-9

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. O’Sullivan I, Sutton S, Dixon S, Perry N (2001) False positive results do not have a negative effect on reattendance for subsequent breast screening. J Med Screen 8(3):145–148

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Tosteson AN, Fryback DG, Hammond CS, Hanna LG, Grove MR, Brown M, Wang Q, Lindfors K, Pisano ED (2014) Consequences of false-positive screening mammograms. JAMA Intern Med 174(6):954–961. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.981

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Biller-Andorno N, Jüni P (2014) Abolishing mammography screening programs? A view from the swiss medical board. N Engl J Med 370(21):1965–1967. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1401875

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Quanstrum KH, Hayward RA (2010) Lessons from the mammography wars. N Engl J Med 363(11):1076–1079. doi:10.1056/NEJMsb1002538

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, Bougatsos C, Chan BK, Humphrey L (2009) Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med 151(10):727–737. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-10-200911170-00009

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Moyer VA (2012) Screening for cervical cancer: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 156(12):880–891. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-156-12-201206190-00424

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Insinga RP, Glass AG, Rush BB (2004) Diagnoses and outcomes in cervical cancer screening: a population-based study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191(1):105–113. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2004.01.043

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Hofvind S, Ponti A, Patnick J, Ascunce N, Njor S, Broeders M, Giordano L, Frigerio A, Törnberg S (2012) False-positive results in mammographic screening for breast cancer in Europe: a literature review and survey of service screening programmes. J Med Screen 19(suppl 1):57–66. doi:10.1258/jms.2012.012083

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2012) BreastScreen Australia monitoring report 2009–2010. Cancer series no. 72. Cat. no. CAN 68. AIHW, Canberra

  43. BreastScreen Australia Evaluation Advisory Committee (2009) Evaluation of the BreastScreen Australia program—evaluation final report. AGPS, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  44. AJCC (2010) Breast. In: Edge S, Byrd D, Compton C, Fritz A, Greene F, Trotti A (eds) AJCC cancer staging manual, 7th edn. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  45. Singer JD, Willett JB (2003) Applied longitudinal data analysis. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  46. Winch CJ, Sherman KA, Boyages J (2012) Comparison of a metropolitan Australian breast screening program to international contexts: false negatives, false positives, assessment procedures, and cancer detection. In: Proceedings of the international cancer screening network, Sydney, Australia, 23–25 October 2012

  47. Blanch J, Sala M, Roman M, Ederra M, Salas D, Zubizarreta R, Sanchez M, Rue M, Castells X (2013) Cumulative risk of cancer detection in breast cancer screening by protocol strategy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 138(3):869–877. doi:10.1007/s10549-013-2458-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin D, Forman D, Bray F (2013) GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11 [Internet]. In: International Agency for Research on Cancer. http://globocan.iarc.fr. Accessed 30 Sept 2014

  49. Welch HG, Frankel BA (2011) Likelihood that a woman with screen-detected breast cancer has had her “life saved” by that screening. Arch Intern Med 171(22):2043–2046

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Giordano L, von Karsa L, Tomatis M, Majek O, de Wolf C, Lancucki L, Hofvind S, Nyström L, Segnan N, Ponti A (2012) Mammographic screening programmes in Europe: organization, coverage and participation. J Med Screen 19(1):72–82. doi:10.1258/jms.2012.012085

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Burrell HC, Sibbering DM, Wilson A, Pinder SE, Evans AJ, Yeoman LJ, Elston CW, Ellis IO, Blamey RW, Robertson J (1996) Screening interval breast cancers: mammographic features and prognosis factors. Radiology 199(3):811–817

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. BreastScreen Australia Evaluation Advisory Committee (2009) Chapter 6: health outcomes. In: Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing (ed) Evaluation of the BreastScreen Australia program—evaluation final report. AGPS, Canberra, pp 32–59

    Google Scholar 

  53. Adcock KA (2004) Initiative to improve mammogram interpretation. Perm J 8(2):12–18

    Google Scholar 

  54. Esserman L, Cowley H, Eberle C, Kirkpatrick A, Chang S, Berbaum K, Gale A (2002) Improving the accuracy of mammography: volume and outcome relationships. J Natl Cancer Inst 94(5):369–375. doi:10.1093/jnci/94.5.369

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Bowles EJA, Geller BM (2009) Best ways to provide feedback to radiologists on mammography performance. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193(1):157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Morrell S, Barratt A, Irwig L, Howard K, Biesheuvel C, Armstrong B (2010) Estimates of overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer associated with screening mammography. Cancer Causes Control 21(2):275–282

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Taylor R, Morrell S, Estoesta J, Brassil A (2004) Mammography screening and breast cancer mortality in New South Wales, Australia. Cancer Causes Control 15(6):543–550

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Broeders M, Moss S, Nyström L, Njor S, Jonsson H, Paap E, Massat N, Duffy S, Lynge E, Paci E (2012) The impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality in Europe: a review of observational studies. J Med Screen 19(1):14–25. doi:10.1258/jms.2012.012078

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Moss SM, Nyström L, Jonsson H, Paci E, Lynge E, Njor S, Broeders M (2012) The impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality in Europe: a review of trend studies. J Med Screen 19(suppl 1):26–32. doi:10.1258/jms.2012.012079

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Njor S, Nyström L, Moss S, Paci E, Broeders M, Segnan N, Lynge E (2012) Breast cancer mortality in mammographic screening in Europe: a review of incidence-based mortality studies. J Med Screen 19(1):33–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Puliti D, Duffy SW, Miccinesi G, de Koning H, Lynge E, Zappa M, Paci E (2012) Overdiagnosis in mammographic screening for breast cancer in Europe: a literature review. J Med Screen 19(1):42–56. doi:10.1258/jms.2012.012082

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 2002 World Health Organization (WHO) (2002) IARC Handbooks on cancer prevention. Breast cancer screening, vol 7. IARC Press, Lyon

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the NSW Cancer Institute who fund NSW breast screening and from whom the Westmead Breast Cancer Institute receives funding. Caleb Winch was funded by the Westmead Breast Cancer Institute for part of the project. We are grateful for the assistance of Dr. Alan Taylor in conducting the statistical analysis, Mr. Patrick Blown in programming aspects of computation, and Dr. Kathy Cronin (NIH/NCI) for providing suggestions on an earlier version of this manuscript.

Ethical standards

This research complies with Australian law.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Macquarie University Cancer Institute, Australian School of Advanced Medicine, Macquarie University, 2 Technology Place, North Ryde, NSW, 2109, Australia

    Caleb J. Winch & John Boyages

  2. Centre for Emotional Health, Department of Psychology, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

    Caleb J. Winch & Kerry A. Sherman

  3. Westmead Breast Cancer Institute, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, Australia

    Kerry A. Sherman

Authors
  1. Caleb J. Winch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kerry A. Sherman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John Boyages
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Boyages.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 118 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Winch, C.J., Sherman, K.A. & Boyages, J. Toward the breast screening balance sheet: cumulative risk of false positives for annual versus biennial mammograms commencing at age 40 or 50. Breast Cancer Res Treat 149, 211–221 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-014-3226-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-014-3226-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation