Observational studyCancer2018
Implications of false-positive results for future cancer screenings.
Observational study in Cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surveillance mammography in older women-should we press on?Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Article
- Performance of the Oncuria-Detect bladder cancer test for evaluating patients presenting with haematuria: results from a real-world clinical setting.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Article
- Misdiagnosis in breast imaging: a statement paper from European Society Breast Imaging (EUSOBI)-Part 1: The role of common errors in radiology in missed breast cancer and implications of misdiagnosis.European radiology · 2025Review
- Utility of Whole-Body Magnetic Resonance Imaging Surveillance in Children and Adults With Cancer Predisposition Syndromes: A Retrospective Study.JCO precision oncology · 2025Article
- Perceptions of Multicancer Detection Tests Among Primary Care Physicians and Laypersons: A Qualitative Study.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- An artificial intelligence based app for skin cancer detection evaluated in a population based setting.NPJ digital medicine · 2023Article
- Review
- Sociodemographic correlates of colorectal cancer screening completion among women adherent to mammography screening guidelines by place of birth.BMC women's health · 2022Article
- Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on breast cancer screening volumes and patient screening behaviors.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2021Article
- Subsequent attendance in a breast cancer screening program after a false-positive result in the Local Health Authority of Bologna (Italy).Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Changes in the uptake of screening for prostate cancer with prostate-specific antigen in Ontario between 2003 to 2012.Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2020Article
- Changements dans les pratiques de dépistage de l'antigène prostatique spécifique en Ontario entre 2003 et 2012.Canadian oncology nursing journal = Revue canadienne de nursing oncologique · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFalse-positive cancer screening results may affect a patient's willingness to obtain future screening.
methodsThe authors conducted logistic regression analysis of 450,484 person-years of electronic medical records (2006-2015) in 92,405 individuals aged 50 to 75 years. Exposures were false-positive breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer screening test results (repeat breast imaging or negative breast biopsy ≤3 months after screening mammography, repeat prostate-specific antigen [PSA] test ≤3 months after PSA test result ≥4.0 ng/mL or negative prostate biopsy ≤3 months after any PSA result, or negative colonoscopy [without biopsy/polypectomy] ≤6 months after a positive fecal occult blood test). Outcomes were up-to-date status with breast or colorectal cancer screening. Covariates included prior screening history, clinical information (eg, family history, obesity, and smoking status), comorbidity, and demographics.
resultsWomen were more likely to be up to date with breast cancer screening if they previously had false-positive mammography findings (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.43 [95% confidence interval, 1.34-1.51] without breast biopsy and AOR, 2.02 [95% confidence interval, 1.56-2.62] with breast biopsy; both P<.001). The same women were more likely to be up to date with colorectal cancer screening (AOR range, 1.25-1.47 depending on breast biopsy; both P<.001). Men who previously had false-positive PSA testing were more likely to be up to date with colorectal cancer screening (AOR, 1.22 [P = .039] without prostate imaging/biopsy and AOR, 1.60 [P = .028] with imaging/biopsy). Results were stronger for individuals with more false-positive results (all P≤.005). However, women with previous false-positive colorectal cancer fecal occult blood test screening results were found to be less likely to be up to date with breast cancer screening (AOR, 0.73; P<.001).
conclusionsPatients who previously had a false-positive breast or prostate cancer screening test were more likely to engage in future screening. Cancer 2018;124:2390-8. © 2018 American Cancer Society.
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.