Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Re-attendance at biennial screening mammography following a repeated false positive recall

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

Abstract

We determined the re-attendance rate at screening mammography after a single or a repeated false positive recall and we assessed the effects of transition from screen-film mammography (SFM) to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) on screening outcome in women recalled twice for the same mammographic abnormality. The study population consisted of a consecutive series of 302,912 SFM and 90,288 FFDM screens. During a 2 years follow-up period (until the next biennial screen), we collected the breast imaging reports and biopsy results of all recalled women. Re-attendance at biennial screening mammography was 93.2 % (95 % CI 93.1–93.3 %) for women with a negative screen (i.e., no recall at screening mammography), 65.4 % (95 % CI 64.0–66.8 %) for women recalled once, 56.7 % (95 % CI 47.1–66.4 %) for women recalled twice but for different lesions and 44.3 % (95 % CI 31.4–57.1 %) for women recalled twice for the same lesion. FFDM recalls comprised a significantly larger proportion of women who had been recalled twice for the same lesion (1.9 % of recalls (52 women) at FFDM vs. 0.9 % of recalls (37 women) at SFM, P < 0.001) and the positive predictive value of these recalls (PPV) was significantly lower at FFDM (15.4 vs. 35.1 %, P = 0.03). At review, 20 of 52 women (39.5 %, all with benign outcome) would not have been recalled for a second time at FFDM if the previous hard copy SFM screen had been available for comparison. We conclude that a repeated false positive recall for the same lesion significantly lowered the probability of screening re-attendance. The first round of FFDM significantly increased the proportion of women recalled twice for the same lesion, with a significantly lower PPV of these lesions. Almost 40 % of repeatedly recalled women would not have been recalled the second time if the previous hard copy SFM screen had been available for comparison at the time of FFDM.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dowling EC, Klabunde C, Patnick J, Ballard-Barbash R (2010) Breast and cervical cancer screening programme implementation in 16 countries. J Med Screen 17(3):139–146. doi:10.1258/jms.2010.010033

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Duijm LE, Groenewoud JH, Fracheboud J, Plaisier ML, Roumen RM, van Ineveld BM, van Beek M, de Koning HJ (2008) Utilization and cost of diagnostic imaging and biopsies following positive screening mammography in the southern breast cancer screening region of the Netherlands, 2000–2005. Eur Radiol 18(11):2390–2397. doi:10.1007/s00330-008-1043-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. van der Steeg AF, Keyzer-Dekker CM, De Vries J, Roukema JA (2011) Effect of abnormal screening mammogram on quality of life. Br J Surg 98(4):537–542. doi:10.1002/bjs.7371

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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 

  5. 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 

  6. Roman R, Sala M, De La Vega M, Natal C, Galceran J, Gonzalez-Roman I, Baroja A, Zubizarreta R, Ascunce N, Salas D, Castells X (2011) Effect of false-positives and women’s characteristics on long-term adherence to breast cancer screening. Breast Cancer Res Treat 130(2):543–552. doi:10.1007/s10549-011-1581-4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Seigneurin A, Exbrayat C, Labarere J, Delafosse P, Poncet F, Colonna M (2011) Association of diagnostic work-up with subsequent attendance in a breast cancer screening program for false-positive cases. Breast Cancer Res Treat 127(1):221–228. doi:10.1007/s10549-010-1118-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Setz-Pels W, Duijm LE, Coebergh JW, Rutten M, Nederend J, Voogd AC (2013) Re-attendance after false-positive screening mammography: a population-based study in the Netherlands. Br J Cancer. doi:10.1038/bjc.2013.573

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Alamo-Junquera D, Murta-Nascimento C, Macia F, Bare M, Galceran J, Ascunce N, Zubizarreta R, Salas D, Roman R, Castells X, Sala M (2012) Effect of false-positive results on reattendance at breast cancer screening programmes in Spain. Eur J Public Health 22(3):404–408. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckr057

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Andersen SB, Vejborg I, von Euler-Chelpin M (2008) Participation behaviour following a false positive test in the Copenhagen mammography screening programme. Acta Oncol 47(4):550–555. doi:10.1080/02841860801935483

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Nederend J, Duijm LE, Louwman MW, Groenewoud JH, Donkers-van Rossum AB, Voogd AC (2012) Impact of transition from analog screening mammography to digital screening mammography on screening outcome in The Netherlands: a population-based study. Ann Oncol 23(12):3098–3103. doi:10.1093/annonc/mds146

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bluekens AM, Karssemeijer N, Beijerinck D, Deurenberg JJ, van Engen RE, Broeders MJ, den Heeten GJ (2010) Consequences of digital mammography in population-based breast cancer screening: initial changes and long-term impact on referral rates. Eur Radiol 20(9):2067–2073. doi:10.1007/s00330-010-1786-7

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. van Luijt PA, Fracheboud J, Heijnsdijk EA, den Heeten GJ, de Koning HJ (2013) Nation-wide data on screening performance during the transition to digital mammography: observations in 6 million screens. Eur J Cancer. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2013.06.020

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fracheboud J, de Koning HJ, Boer R, Groenewoud JH, Verbeek AL, Broeders MJ, van Ineveld BM, Hendriks JH, de Bruyn AE, Holland R, van der Maas PJ (2001) Nationwide breast cancer screening programme fully implemented in The Netherlands. Breast 10(1):6–11. doi:10.1054/brst.2000.0212

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Duijm LE, Groenewoud JH, Hendriks JH, de Koning HJ (2004) Independent double reading of screening mammograms in The Netherlands: effect of arbitration following reader disagreements. Radiology 231(2):564–570. doi:10.1148/radiol.2312030665

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Maes RM, Dronkers DJ, Hendriks JH, Thijssen MA, Nab HW (1997) Do non-specific minimal signs in a biennial mammographic breast cancer screening programme need further diagnostic assessment? Br J Radiol 70:34–38

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Liberman L, Menell JH (2002) Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). Radiol Clin N Am 40(3):409–420. doi:10.1016/S0033-8389(01)00017-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sobin LH, Wittekind C (2002) TNM classification of malignant tumours. Wiley-Liss, New York

    Google Scholar 

  20. Edge S, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A (eds) (2010) AJCC cancer staging manual, 7th edn. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  21. Duijm LE, Groenewoud JH, Jansen FH, Fracheboud J, van Beek M, de Koning HJ (2004) Mammography screening in the Netherlands: delay in the diagnosis of breast cancer after breast cancer screening. Br J Cancer 91(10):1795–1799. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6602158

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Setz-Pels W, Duijm LE, Louwman MW, Roumen RM, Jansen FH, Voogd AC (2012) Characteristics and screening outcome of women referred twice at screening mammography. Eur Radiol 22(12):2624–2632. doi:10.1007/s00330-012-2523-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Feeley L, Kiernan D, Mooney T, Flanagan F, Hargaden G, Kell M, Stokes M, Kennedy M (2011) Digital mammography in a screening programme and its implications for pathology: a comparative study. J Clin Pathol 64(3):215–219. doi:10.1136/jcp.2010.085860

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Glynn CG, Farria DM, Monsees BS, Salcman JT, Wiele KN, Hildebolt CF (2011) Effect of transition to digital mammography on clinical outcomes. Radiology 260(3):664–670. doi:10.1148/radiol.11110159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Del Turco MR, Mantellini P, Ciatto S, Bonardi R, Martinelli F, Lazzari B, Houssami N (2007) Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189(4):860–866. doi:10.2214/AJR.07.2303

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hambly NM, McNicholas MM, Phelan N, Hargaden GC, O’Doherty A, Flanagan FL (2009) Comparison of digital mammography and screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening: a review in the Irish breast screening program. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193(4):1010–1018. doi:10.2214/AJR.08.2157

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Karssemeijer N, Bluekens AM, Beijerinck D, Deurenberg JJ, Beekman M, Visser R, van Engen R, Bartels-Kortland A, Broeders MJ (2009) Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a population-based screening program. Radiology 253(2):353–358. doi:10.1148/radiol.2532090225

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Visser R, Veldkamp WJ, Beijerinck D, Bun PA, Deurenberg JJ, Imhof-Tas MW, Schuur KH, Snoeren MM, den Heeten GJ, Karssemeijer N, Broeders MJ (2012) Increase in perceived case suspiciousness due to local contrast optimisation in digital screening mammography. Eur Radiol 22(4):908–914. doi:10.1007/s00330-011-2320-2

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all screening radiologists, screening technologists, and associates of the BOZ and participating hospitals for their contributions to the study.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elisabeth G. Klompenhouwer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Klompenhouwer, E.G., Duijm, L.E.M., Voogd, A.C. et al. Re-attendance at biennial screening mammography following a repeated false positive recall. Breast Cancer Res Treat 145, 429–437 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-014-2959-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-014-2959-x

Keywords

Navigation