Advertisement

Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 103, Issue 6, pp e420–e424 | Cite as

False-positive Screening Mammograms and Biopsies Among Women Participating in a Canadian Provincial Breast Screening Program

  • Andrew J. ColdmanEmail author
  • Norman Phillips
Quantitative Research

Abstract

Background: Mammography screening results in false positives that cause anxiety and utilize scarce medical resources for their resolution. Determination of screening recommendations requires knowledge of the population risk of false positives.

Methods: Data were extracted from the Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia and analyzed to determine the influence of personal factors including age, ethnic group and screening history, and the centre where screening was performed, on the likelihood a new screen would result in a false positive and whether a biopsy was required. The resulting probabilities were combined to provide values for lifetime screening algorithms.

Results: Age, screen sequence number, history of previous abnormal screens and centre where screening was performed were significantly related to the likelihood a new screen would be a false positive. British Columbia women screened biennially between the ages of 50 and 69 have a projected 41% chance of a false-positive screen and a 5.6% risk of a related biopsy, with the best performing centres having rates of 26% and 3%, respectively.

Interpretation: Model projections for BC overall are comparable to other North American estimates. Estimates varied depending upon screening centre attended.

Résumé

Contexte: Le dépistage mammographique donne des faux positifs qui causent de l’anxiété et dont la résolution exige le recours à des ressources médicales limitées. La décision de recommander ou non un dépistage nécessite une connaissance du risque de faux positifs dans la population.

Méthode: Nous avons extrait nos données du programme de mammographie de dépistage de la Colombie-Britannique et nous les avons analysées pour déterminer l’influence des facteurs individuels, dont l’âge, le groupe ethnique et les antécédents de dépistage, ainsi que du centre où le dépistage a lieu, sur la probabilité qu’un nouveau dépistage donne un résultat faussement positif et sur la nécessité d’une biopsie. Les probabilités résultantes ont été combinées pour produire les valeurs d’algorithmes de dépistage au cours de la vie.

Résultats: L’âge, le numéro de séquence du dépistage, les antécédents de dépistages anormaux et le centre où se fait le dépistage étaient significativement liés à la probabilité qu’un nouveau dépistage donne un faux positif. Selon nos projections, les femmes de la Colombie-Britannique dépistées tous les deux ans entre l’âge de 50 et de 69 ans ont une probabilité de 41 % d’avoir un dépistage faux positif et un risque de 5,6 % de subir une biopsie connexe; ces taux sont de 26 % et de 3 %, respectivement, dans les centres les plus performants.

Interprétation: Les extrapolations du modèle à l’ensemble de la Colombie-Britannique sont comparables à d’autres estimations nord-américaines. Les estimations varient selon le centre de dépistage fréquenté.

Key words

Mass screening mammography sensitivity and specificity breast neoplasms 

Mots clés

dépistage de masse mammographie sensibilité et spécificité tumeurs du sein 

References

  1. 1.
    Vainio H, Bianchini F (Eds.). IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention - Breast Cancer Screening. Lyon, France: IARC Press, 2002.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, Bougatsos C, Chan BK, Humphrey L, et al. Screening for breast cancer: An update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2009;151(10):727–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Recommendations on screening for breast cancer in average-risk women aged 50–74 years. CMAJ 2011;183(17):1991–2001.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.[Erratum appears in Ann Intern Med 2010;152(3):199–200..[Erratum appears in Ann Intern Med 2010;152(10):688]. Ann Intern Med 2009;151(10):716–26.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mandelblatt JS, Cronin KA, Bailey S, Berry DA, de Koning HJ, Draisma G, et al. Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: Model estimates of potential benefits and harms. Ann Intern Med 2009;151(10):738–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Elmore JG, Nakano CY, Koepsell TD, Desnick LM, D’Orsi CJ, Ransohoff DF. International variation in screening mammography interpretations in community-based programs. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95(18):1384–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Elmore JG, Miglioretti DL, Reisch LM, Barton MB, Kreuter W, Christiansen CL, et al. Screening mammograms by community radiologists: Variability in false-positive rates. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94(18):1373–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Coldman AJ, Major D, Doyle GP, D’yachkova Y, Phillips N, Onysko J, et al. Organized breast screening programs in Canada: Effect of radiologist reading volumes on outcomes. Radiology 2006;238(3):809–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Theberge I, Hebert-Croteau N, Langlois A, Major D, Brisson J. Volume of screening mammography and performance in the Quebec population-based Breast Cancer Screening Program. CMAJ 2005;172(2):195–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brewer NT, Salz T, Lillie SE. Systematic review: The long-term effects of false-positive mammograms. Ann Intern Med 2007;146(7):502–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    SMPBC 2010 Annual Report. Vancouver, BC: Screening Mammography Program, 2010.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes, R package version 0.999375-42, 2011. Available at: http://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=lme4 (Accessed November 23, 2011).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hadfield D. MCMC Methods for Multi-Response Generalized Linear Mixed Models: The MCMCglmm R Package. J Statistical Software 2010;33(2):19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Organized Breast Screening Programs in Canada: Report on Program Performance in 2005 and 2006. Ottawa, ON: Public Health Agency of Canada, 2011.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hubbard RA, Miglioretti DL. Modelling the cumulative risk of a false-positive screening test. Statistical Methods Med Res 2010;19(5):429–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Burman ML, Taplin SH, Herta DF, Elmore JG. Effect of false-positive mam-mograms on interval breast cancer screening in a health maintenance organization. Ann Intern Med 1999;131(1):1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Christiansen CL, Wang F, Barton MB, Kreuter W, Elmore JG, Gelfand AE, et al. Predicting the cumulative risk of false-positive mammograms. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92(20):1657–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Otten JD, Karssemeijer N, Hendriks JH, Groenewoud JH, Fracheboud J, Verbeek AL, et al. Effect of recall rate on earlier screen detection of breast cancers based on the Dutch performance indicators. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97(10):748–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cancer Surveillance and Outcomes, Population OncologyBC Cancer AgencyVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations