Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22007042›Full record

ArticleAnnals of internal medicine2011

Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: a cohort study.

Rebecca A Hubbard, Karla Kerlikowske, Chris I Flowers, Bonnie C Yankaskas, Weiwei Zhu, Diana L Miglioretti

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of internal medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 181 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
181citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

181 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Guideline
  7. Screening for breast cancer with mammography.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

121 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Rebecca A HubbardGroup Health Cooperative and School of Public Health of the University of Washington, Seattle, USA. hubbard.r@ghc.org
Karla Kerlikowske
Chris I Flowers
Bonnie C Yankaskas
Weiwei Zhu
Diana L Miglioretti

Funding

Statistical Coordinating Center for the Breast Cancer Surveillance ConsortiumU01CA086076 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF WASHINGTON · PI MIGLIORETTI, DIANA L · 2000 to 2011
$8.5M
IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF MAMMOGRAPHIC INTERPRETATIONU01CA063731 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF WASHINGTON · PI BUIST, DIANA SM · 1994 to 2011
$6.7M
VERMONT BREAST CANCER SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMU01CA070013 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT &ST AGRIC COLLEGE · PI GELLER, BERTA M · 1995 to 2011
$6.7M
UTILITY AND OUTCOMES FROM MAMMOGRAPHY IN NORTH CAROLINAU01CA070040 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI YANKASKAS, BONNIE C · 1995 to 2011
$6.4M
San Francisco Mammography Registry-A Research SourceU01CA063740 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI KERLIKOWSKE, KARLA M · 1994 to 2011
$6.2M
STRATEGIC STUDIES IN BREAST CANCER SURVEILLANCEU01CA086082 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI ONEGA, TRACY · 2000 to 2011
$4.9M
REFERRAL PATTERNS AND COST ANALYSIS OF SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY--FOLLOW-UP/BIOPSYU01CA063736 · NCI · COOPER INSTITUTE · PI CUTTER, GARY · 1994 to 2004
$2.7M
NEW MEXICO MAMMOGRAPHY PROJECTU01CA069976 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO · PI ROSENBERG, ROBERT D · 1995 to 2005
$2.7M
Comparative effectiveness of breast imaging strategies in community practiceRC2CA148577 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF WASHINGTON · PI BUIST, DIANA SM, GELLER, BERTA M · 2009 to 2009
$2.0M
Estimating the cumulative risk of a false-positive screening mammogram.R03CA150007 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF WASHINGTON · PI HUBBARD, REBECCA · 2010 to 2011
$158k
NCI NIH HHS R03 CA150007NCI NIH HHS R03CA150007NCI NIH HHS RC2 CA148577NCI NIH HHS RC2CA148577NCI NIH HHS U01 CA063731NCI NIH HHS U01 CA063736NCI NIH HHS U01 CA063740NCI NIH HHS U01 CA069976NCI NIH HHS U01 CA070013NCI NIH HHS U01 CA070040NCI NIH HHS U01 CA086076NCI NIH HHS U01 CA086082NCI NIH HHS U01CA63731NCI NIH HHS U01CA63736NCI NIH HHS U01CA63740NCI NIH HHS U01CA69976NCI NIH HHS U01CA70013NCI NIH HHS U01CA70040NCI NIH HHS U01CA86076NCI NIH HHS U01CA86082
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFalse-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.

objectiveTo 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.

designProspective cohort study.

setting7 mammography registries in the National Cancer Institute-funded Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

participants169,456 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.

resultsFalse-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.

conclusionAfter 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.

Indexed as

BiopsyAdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleHumansMammographyMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingProbabilityProspective StudiesTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID22007042
PMCPMC3209800

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.