Psychological side effects of breast cancer screening

Radiologist uncertainty and the interpretation of screening

OBJECTIVE

To determine radiologists' reactions to uncertainty when interpreting mammography and the extent to which radiologist uncertainty explains variability in interpretive performance.

METHODS

The authors used a mailed survey to assess demographic and clinical characteristics of radiologists and reactions to uncertainty associated with practice. Responses were linked to radiologists' actual interpretive performance data obtained from 3 regionally located mammography registries.

RESULTS

More than 180 radiologists were eligible to participate, and 139 consented for a response rate of 76.8%. Radiologist gender, more years interpreting, and higher volume were associated with lower uncertainty scores. Positive predictive value, recall rates, and specificity were more affected by reactions to uncertainty than sensitivity or negative predictive value; however, none of these relationships was statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Certain practice factors, such as gender and years of interpretive experience, affect uncertainty scores. Radiologists' reactions to uncertainty do not appear to affect interpretive performance.

A randomised controlled trial of a psychoeducational intervention for women at increased risk of breast cancer

This study aimed to compare the impact of two versions of a psychoeducational written intervention on cancer worry and objective knowledge of breast cancer risk-related topics in women who had been living with an increased risk of familial breast cancer for several years. Participants were randomised to three conditions: scientific and psychosocial information pack (Group 1), scientific information pack only (Group 2) or standard care control (Group 3). They completed postal questionnaires at baseline (n=163) and 4 weeks (n=151). As predicted, there was a significant decrease in cancer worry for Group 1, but not Group 2. Objective knowledge significantly improved for both Group 1 and Group 2 as expected, but not Group 3. However, there was an unpredicted decline in cancer worry for Group 3. This study supports the value of a scientific and psychosocial information pack in providing up-to-date information related to familial risk of breast cancer for long-term attendees of a familial breast cancer clinic. Further research is warranted to determine how the information pack could be incorporated into the existing clinical service, thus providing these women with the type of ongoing psychosocial support that many familial breast cancer clinics are currently lacking.

What motivates interest in attending a familial cancer genetics clinic?

The motivation of people who seek advice about a family history of cancer was explored in a cross sectional study of new cancer referrals to five regional cancer genetics centres in England: the PACT (patient and clinical team) psychosocial study. One hundred sixty-two people took part. Measures were source of referral, estimated and perceived cancer risk, level of cancer worry, and personal and family-centred reasons for wanting to be seen in clinic. General practitioners referred more people than hospital doctors, and referred a larger proportion of people at low genetic risk of developing cancer. More than half of the participants had been the first to raise the issue of their family history of cancer. Personal motivation for referral is clearly different for those who have had a diagnosis of cancer and for those with children, compared to unaffected and childless people, and is characterised by altruistic concern for other family members rather than a perception of increased personal risk. Men and people from ethnic minorities are very significantly under-represented. Understanding people's motivation may be useful in targeting genetic counselling for people with a family history of cancer.

Psychological predictors of attendance at annual breast screening examinations

This retrospective analysis of psychological predictors of attendance studied the women from the annual screening arm of the United Kingdom Coordinating Committee on Cancer Research (UKCCCR) trial of annual screening mammography for the early detection of breast cancer. Some women attended screening at the first invitation in year 1 (attenders), others did not attend for screening at any time (non-attenders), whereas a third group delayed attending until year 2 (ambivalent attenders). A total of 147 women were recruited to the study: 80 attenders, 28 non-attenders and 39 ambivalent attenders. It proved extremely difficult to contact non-attenders to take part in the study. Non-attenders were significantly more depressed on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; had experienced more miscarriages, stillbirths or terminations of pregnancy; were less knowledgeable about mammography; and were displeased to have received an invitation to screening. Whereas non-attenders are unlikely ever to attend breast screening because of their long-standing attitudes and preferred coping styles, ambivalent attenders may become more amenable to screening with the passage of time. In this study such women were persuaded to attend in year 2 with a simple, cost-effective intervention: an additional invitation letter after a year.

Factors affecting participation in a mammography screening program among members of an urban Detroit health maintenance organization

Breast cancer mortality rates remain disproportionately high among black women despite recent improvements in mammography screening utilization. We conducted a telephone survey among a sample of women (N = 202) participating in a randomized controlled trial investigating the effectiveness of a mammography reminder letter that was one component of a breast cancer control intervention strategy. The objectives of the survey were to ascertain the extent to which the letter reminder was received and acted upon, and to determine attitudes and breast cancer control practices in the target population. The study was conducted among members of a large health maintenance organization serving predominantly black women in Detroit, Michigan. Forty-eight percent of the participants completed a mammogram during the year after the letter was sent. While 72% of the women remembered receiving the letter reminder, only 5% responded to the recommendations in the letter. Important predictors of mammography completion included past mammogram utilization (OR: 2.49; 95% CI: 1.05-5.93), a prior physician recommendation for a mammogram (OR: 1.99; 95% CI: 1.00-3.95) and subject's knowledge of her primary physician's name (OR: 2.05; 95% CI: 0.91-4.60). Letter reminders promoting primary care visits were relatively ineffective since few women reported being prompted by the letter recommendation. Strategies which target physician mammography referral behavior may have an important impact on mammography utilization among inner-city women.

Distressed or relieved? Psychological side effects of breast cancer screening in The Netherlands

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To assess the psychological impact of mammographic screening on women with non-malignant outcomes after attending the Netherlands' National Breast Cancer Screening Programme.

DESIGN

During one year all women with false positive test results (95) in a screening area were invited for the study. Each false positive was matched with two women with normal mammograms with respect to age and municipality. A random reference group of 400 was drawn from the female population in an area not yet included in the screening programme. Experiences with screening and psychological status of subjects were assessed 8-10 weeks after screening (T1) and again after six months (T2), by interviews as well as questionnaires. References completed two questionnaires with a six months' interval.

PARTICIPANTS

74 (78%) women with false positive outcomes and 113 (59%) women with negative outcomes participated at T1, of these 65 (88%) and 105 (93%) at T2, respectively; 238 references returned questionnaires at T1 (59%), of these 143 (60%) at T2.

MAIN RESULTS

At 8-10 weeks after the screening, the women who received false positive test results scored higher on most of the variables indicating psychological disfunctioning than women with normal mammograms, but did not notably differ on the same variables from the non-screened reference group. Women with normal mammograms had the lowest scores on all the variables in the study at both assessments. The same situation was observed six months later. Although 61% of the women who received false positive mammograms reported that they had experienced the "false alarm" as a stressful event, this experience had apparently no adverse effects on their psychological functioning, as assessed 8-10 weeks after screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, breast screening is not likely to generate adverse psychological effects in "healthy" women, even if the outcome is false positive. Differences in psychological functioning between false positives and negatives are more likely ascribable to feelings of relief in the negative group than to raised anxiety and distress in the false positive group.

Does routine screening for breast cancer raise anxiety? Results from a three wave prospective study in England

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether mammography raises anxiety in routinely screened women who receive a negative result.

DESIGN

Prospective design in which women completed questionnaires at three key points in the breast screening process: at baseline (before being sent their invitation for breast screening), at the screening clinic immediately before or after screening, and at follow up, about nine months after baseline. Information was obtained from non-attenders as well as from attenders.

SETTING

Bromley District Health Authority, served by the South East London Breast Screening Service.

PARTICIPANTS

Two overlapping samples were used. Sample A comprised 1500 women aged 50-64 who were due to be called for first round screening at a mobile screening unit. Altogether 1021 (68%) returned a usable questionnaire and 795 of these (78%) also provided adequate information at nine month follow up: there were 695 attenders (including 24 women who received false positive results) and 100 non-attenders. Sample B consisted of 868 women who attended the screening unit in a three month period, 732 (84%) of whom provided adequate data. A total of 306 attenders (including 10 who received false positive results) occurred in both samples and provided adequate information on all occasions. The main analyses were based on these 306 women plus the 100 non-attenders. The analysis of retrospective anxiety took advantage of the larger sample size of 695 attenders.

MAIN RESULTS

On average, the women were not unduly anxious at any of the three points in the screening process. Among attenders, there was no difference between anxiety levels immediately before and immediately after screening. Anxiety was lowest at the clinic and highest at baseline but the changes were very small in absolute terms. Anxiety did not predict attendance: there were no differences in anxiety levels between attenders and non-attenders at baseline. As expected, women who received false positive results recalled feeling extremely anxious after they had received the referral letter but their retrospective anxiety was also higher than in the negative screenees at earlier stages in the breast screening process. They also reported having experienced more pain and discomfort during the x ray.

CONCLUSIONS

Anxiety does not seem to be an important problem in routinely screened women who receive a negative result. This finding is very reassuring in relation to a major criticism of breast screening programmes. Thus, apart from maintaining current procedures such as keeping waiting times to a minimum, there seems to be no need to introduce special anxiety reducing interventions into the national programme. On the other hand, the findings for women who received false positive results suggest that there are aspects of the experience of being recalled for assessment after an abnormal mammogram that warrant further attention. The relationship between contemporaneous and retrospective anxiety should also be studied.