The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Cumulative Probability of False-Positive Recall or Biopsy Recommendation After 10 Years of Screening Mammography: A Cohort Study
Abstract
Background: False-positive mammography results are common. Biennial screening may decrease the cumulative probability of false-positive results across many years of repeated screening but could also delay cancer diagnosis. Objective: To compare the cumulative probability of false-positive results and the stage distribution of incident breast cancer after 10 years of annual or biennial screening mammography. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: 7 mammography registries in the National Cancer Institute–funded Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Participants: 169 456 women who underwent first screening mammography at age 40 to 59 years between 1994 and 2006 and 4492 women with incident invasive breast cancer diagnosed between 1996 and 2006. Measurements: False-positive recalls and biopsy recommendations stage distribution of incident breast cancer. Results: False-positive recall probability was 16.3% at first and 9.6% at subsequent mammography. Probability of false-positive biopsy recommendation was 2.5% at first and 1.0% at subsequent examinations. Availability of comparison mammograms halved the odds of a false-positive recall (adjusted odds ratio, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.45 to 0.56]). When screening began at age 40 years, the cumulative probability of a woman receiving at least 1 false-positive recall after 10 years was 61.3% (CI, 59.4% to 63.1%) with annual and 41.6% (CI, 40.6% to 42.5%) with biennial screening. Cumulative probability of false-positive biopsy recommendation was 7.0% (CI, 6.1% to 7.8%) with annual and 4.8% (CI, 4.4% to 5.2%) with biennial screening. Estimates were similar when screening began at age 50 years. A non–statistically significant increase in the proportion of late-stage cancers was observed with biennial compared with annual screening (absolute increases, 3.3 percentage points [CI, −1.1 to 7.8 percentage points] for women age 40 to 49 years and 2.3 percentage points [CI, −1.0 to 5.7 percentage points] for women age 50 to 59 years) among women with incident breast cancer. Limitations: Few women underwent screening over the entire 10-year period. Radiologist characteristics influence recall rates and were unavailable. Most mammograms were film rather than digital. Incident cancer was analyzed in a small sample of women who developed cancer. Conclusion: After 10 years of annual screening, more than half of women will receive at least 1 false-positive recall, and 7% to 9% will receive a false-positive biopsy recommendation. Biennial screening appears to reduce the cumulative probability of false-positive results after 10 years but may be associated with a small absolute increase in the probability of late-stage cancer diagnosis. Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement
Siu, A. L., & on behalf of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2016) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m15-2886 · Cited by 2,094
Becker, A. S., Marcon, M., Ghafoor, S., Wurnig, M. C., Frauenfelder, T., & Boss, A. (2017) · Investigative Radiology · doi:10.1097/rli.0000000000000358 · Cited by 352
Consequences of false-positive screening mammograms
Tosteson, A. N. A., Fryback, D. G., Hammond, C. S., Hanna, L. G., Grove, M. R., Brown, M., Wang, Q., Lindfors, K., & Pisano, E. D. (2014) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.981 · Cited by 217
Consequences Validity Evidence: Evaluating the Impact of Educational Assessments
Cook, D. A., & Lineberry, M. (2016) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000001114 · Cited by 129
Knijnenburg, T. A., Klau, G. W., Iorio, F., Garnett, M. J., McDermott, U., Shmulevich, I., & Wessels, L. F. A. (2016) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep36812 · Cited by 74
A Review of Applications of Machine Learning in Mammography and Future Challenges
Batchu, S., Liu, F., Amireh, A., Waller, J., & Umair, M. (2021) · Oncology · doi:10.1159/000515698 · Cited by 41
Metadata
- Authors
- Hubbard, R. A., Kerlikowske, K., Flowers, C. I., Yankaskas, B. C., Zhu, W., & Miglioretti, D. L.
- Venue
- Annals of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American College of Physicians
- Published
- 2011-10-18
- Volume
- 155
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 481-492
- ISSN
- 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-3704
- OpenAlex
- W2074020279
- Cited by
- 414
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.