ArticleAnnals of internal medicine2011
Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: a cohort study.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
181 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- ESR Essentials: screening for breast cancer - general recommendations by EUSOBI.European radiology · 2024Guideline
- Integrated imaging and molecular analysis to decipher tumor microenvironment in the era of immunotherapy.Seminars in cancer biology · 2022Pooled it
- Benefits and harms of annual, biennial, or triennial breast cancer mammography screening for women at average risk of breast cancer: a systematic review for the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC).British journal of cancer · 2022Pooled it
- Breast malignancy in female-to-male transsexuals: systematic review, case report, and recommendations for screening.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2020Pooled it
- Benefits and Harms of Screening Mammography by Comorbidity and Age: A Qualitative Synthesis of Observational Studies and Decision Analyses.Journal of general internal medicine · 2016Pooled it
- Guideline
- Screening for breast cancer with mammography.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Trial
- Mammographic quantitative image analysis and biologic image composition for breast lesion characterization and classification.Medical physics · 2014Trial
- Optimising screening intervals and BI-RADS management pathways in ultrasound-based breast cancer screening: real-world evidence from Shenzhen (2018-2023).Breast cancer research and treatment · 2026Article
- Use of population-based cancer registry data to evaluate organized breast cancer screening programmes in Europe by mode of detection: a scoping review.European journal of public health · 2026Article
- An interpretable ultrasound-based deep learning system for early breast cancer in a Chinese population.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- High reliability Ag/Ni/NiO nanowire-based SERS for cancer detection: a study on breast cancer.Nanoscale advances · 2026Article
- Over-detection and over-surveillance in breast screening: current status and the potential for artificial intelligence optimisation.Insights into imaging · 2025Review
- A Protein-Based Blood Test for Multi-Cancer Diagnostics.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Machine learning can reliably predict malignancy of breast lesions based on clinical and ultrasonographic features.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2025Article
- miRNA panel from HER2+ and CD24+ plasma extracellular vesicle subpopulations as biomarkers of early-stage breast cancer.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2025Article
- Mammography-based artificial intelligence for breast cancer detection, diagnosis, and BI-RADS categorization using multi-view and multi-level convolutional neural networks.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- Radiomic analysis of cohort-specific diagnostic errors in reading dense mammograms using artificial intelligence.The British journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Article
121 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
- SummaryForPatientsIn
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.