ArticleCancer medicine2016
Risk of breast cancer after false-positive results in mammographic screening.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Radiologists can detect the 'gist' of breast cancer before any overt signs of cancer appear.Scientific reports · 2018Trial
- Global Radiomic Features from Mammography for Predicting Difficult-To-Interpret Normal Cases.Journal of digital imaging · 2023Article
- False-positive incidental lesions detected on contrast-enhanced breast MRI: clinical and imaging features.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2023Article
- Choice of Assessment and Subsequent Risk of Breast Cancer among Women with False-Positive Mammography Screening.Cancers · 2023Article
- Breast Cancer in Asia: Incidence, Mortality, Early Detection, Mammography Programs, and Risk-Based Screening Initiatives.Cancers · 2022Review
- Association of Microcalcification Clusters with Short-term Invasive Breast Cancer Risk and Breast Cancer Risk Factors.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Long-term risk of screen-detected and interval breast cancer after false-positive results at mammography screening: joint analysis of three national cohorts.British journal of cancer · 2019Article
- Not all false positive diagnoses are equal: On the prognostic implications of false-positive diagnoses made in breast MRI versus in mammography / digital tomosynthesis screening.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2018Article
- Risk of breast cancer after false-positive results in mammographic screening.Cancer medicine · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Women with false-positive results are commonly referred back to routine screening. Questions remain regarding their long-term outcome of breast cancer. We assessed the risk of screen-detected breast cancer in women with false-positive results. We conducted a joint analysis using individual level data from the population-based screening programs in Copenhagen and Funen in Denmark, Norway, and Spain. Overall, 150,383 screened women from Denmark (1991-2008), 612,138 from Norway (1996-2010), and 1,172,572 from Spain (1990-2006) were included. Poisson regression was used to estimate the relative risk (RR) of screen-detected cancer for women with false-positive versus negative results. We analyzed information from 1,935,093 women 50-69 years who underwent 6,094,515 screening exams. During an average 5.8 years of follow-up, 230,609 (11.9%) women received a false-positive result and 27,849 (1.4%) were diagnosed with screen-detected cancer. The adjusted RR of screen-detected cancer after a false-positive result was 2.01 (95% CI: 1.93-2.09). Women who tested false-positive at first screen had a RR of 1.86 (95% CI: 1.77-1.96), whereas those who tested false-positive at third screening had a RR of 2.42 (95% CI: 2.21-2.64). The RR of breast cancer at the screening test after the false-positive result was 3.95 (95% CI: 3.71-4.21), whereas it decreased to 1.25 (95% CI: 1.17-1.34) three or more screens after the false-positive result. Women with false-positive results had a twofold risk of screen-detected breast cancer compared to women with negative tests. The risk remained significantly higher three or more screens after the false-positive result. The increased risk should be considered when discussing stratified screening strategies.
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.