Cumulative risk of false positive test in relation to breast symptoms in mammography screening: a historical prospective cohort study

Breast Cancer Incidence After a False-Positive Mammography Result

Importance

False-positive mammography results are common. However, long-term outcomes after a false-positive result remain unclear.

Objectives

To examine long-term outcomes after a false-positive mammography result and to investigate whether the association of a false-positive mammography result with cancer differs by baseline characteristics, tumor characteristics, and time since the false-positive result.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This population-based, matched cohort study was conducted in Sweden from January 1, 1991, to March 31, 2020. It included 45 213 women who received a first false-positive mammography result between 1991 and 2017 and 452 130 controls matched on age, calendar year of mammography, and screening history (no previous false-positive result). The study also included 1113 women with a false-positive result and 11 130 matched controls with information on mammographic breast density from the Karolinska Mammography Project for Risk Prediction of Breast Cancer study. Statistical analysis was performed from April 2022 to February 2023.

Exposure

A false-positive mammography result.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Breast cancer incidence and mortality.

Results

The study cohort included 497 343 women (median age, 52 years [IQR, 42-59 years]). The 20-year cumulative incidence of breast cancer was 11.3% (95% CI, 10.7%-11.9%) among women with a false-positive result vs 7.3% (95% CI, 7.2%-7.5%) among those without, with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 1.61 (95% CI, 1.54-1.68). The corresponding HRs were higher among women aged 60 to 75 years at the examination (HR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.80-2.26) and those with lower mammographic breast density (HR, 4.65; 95% CI, 2.61-8.29). In addition, breast cancer risk was higher for women who underwent a biopsy at the recall (HR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.63-1.92) than for those without a biopsy (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.43-1.60). Cancers after a false-positive result were more likely to be detected on the ipsilateral side of the false-positive result (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.81-2.04) and were more common during the first 4 years of follow-up (HR, 2.57; 95% CI, 2.33-2.85 during the first 2 years; HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.76-2.12 at >2 to 4 years). No statistical difference was found for different tumor characteristics (except for larger tumor size). Furthermore, associated with the increased risk of breast cancer, women with a false-positive result had an 84% higher rate of breast cancer death than those without (HR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.57-2.15).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study suggests that the risk of developing breast cancer after a false-positive mammography result differs by individual characteristics and follow-up. These findings can be used to develop individualized risk-based breast cancer screening after a false-positive result.

Racial and Ethnic Variation in Diagnostic Mammography Performance among Women Reporting a Breast Lump

BACKGROUND

We evaluated diagnostic mammography among women with a breast lump to determine whether performance varied across racial and ethnic groups.

METHODS

This study included 51,014 diagnostic mammograms performed between 2005 and 2018 in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium among Asian/Pacific Islander (12%), Black (7%), Hispanic/Latina (6%), and White (75%) women reporting a lump. Breast cancers occurring within 1 year were ascertained from cancer registry linkages. Multivariable regression was used to adjust performance statistic comparisons for breast cancer risk factors, mammogram modality, demographics, additional imaging, and imaging facility.

RESULTS

Cancer detection rates were highest among Asian/Pacific Islander [per 1,000 exams, 84.2 (95% confidence interval (CI): 72.0-98.2)] and Black women [81.4 (95% CI: 69.4-95.2)] and lowest among Hispanic/Latina women [42.9 (95% CI: 34.2-53.6)]. Positive predictive values (PPV) were higher among Black [37.0% (95% CI: 31.2-43.3)] and White [37.0% (95% CI: 30.0-44.6)] women and lowest among Hispanic/Latina women [22.0% (95% CI: 17.2-27.7)]. False-positive results were most common among Asian/Pacific Islander women [per 1,000 exams, 183.9 (95% CI: 126.7-259.2)] and lowest among White women [112.4 (95% CI: 86.1-145.5)]. After adjustment, false-positive and cancer detection rates remained higher for Asian/Pacific Islander and Black women (vs. Hispanic/Latina and White). Adjusted PPV was highest among Asian/Pacific Islander women.

CONCLUSIONS

Among women with a lump, Asian/Pacific Islander and Black women were more likely to have cancer detected and more likely to receive a false-positive result compared with White and Hispanic/Latina women.

IMPACT

Strategies for optimizing diagnostic mammography among women with a lump may vary by racial/ethnic group, but additional factors that influence performance differences need to be identified. See related In the Spotlight, p. 1479.

Cumulative risks of false positive recall and screen-detected breast cancer after multiple screening examinations

Women tend to make a decision about participation in breast cancer screening and adhere to this for future invitations. Therefore, our study aimed to provide high-quality information on cumulative risks of false-positive (FP) recall and screen-detected breast cancer over multiple screening examinations. Individual Dutch screening registry data (2005-2018) were gathered on subsequent screening examinations of 92 902 women age 49 to 51 years in 2005. Survival analyses were used to calculate cumulative risks of a FP and a true-positive (TP) result after seven examinations. Data from 66 472 women age 58 to 59 years were used to extrapolate to 11 examinations. Participation, detection and additional FP rates were calculated for women who previously received FP results compared to women with true negative (TN) results. After 7 examinations, the cumulative risk of a TP result was 3.7% and the cumulative risk of a FP result was 9.1%. After 11 examinations, this increased to 7.1% and 13.5%, respectively. Following a FP result, participation was lower (71%-81%) than following a TN result (>90%). In women with a FP result, more TP results (factor 1.59 [95% CI: 1.44-1.72]), more interval cancers (factor 1.66 [95% CI: 1.41-1.91]) and more FP results (factor 1.96 [95% CI: 1.87-2.05]) were found than in women with TN results. In conclusion, due to a low recall rate in the Netherlands, the cumulative risk of a FP recall is relatively low, while the cumulative risk of a TP result is comparable. Breast cancer diagnoses and FP results were more common in women with FP results than in women with TN results, while participation was lower.

Cumulative risk of a false-positive screening result: A retrospective cohort study using empirical data from 10 biennial screening rounds in BreastScreen Norway

BACKGROUND

False-positive screening results are an inevitable and commonly recognized disadvantage of mammographic screening. This study estimated the cumulative probability of experiencing a first false-positive screening result in women attending 10 biennial screening rounds in BreastScreen Norway, which targets women aged 50 to 69 years.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study analyzed screening outcomes from 421,545 women who underwent 1,894,523 screening examinations during 1995-2019. Empirical data were used to calculate the cumulative risk of experiencing a first false-positive screening result and a first false-positive screening result that involved an invasive procedure over 10 screening rounds. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the effect of adjusting for irregular attendance, age at screening, and number of screens attended.

RESULTS

The cumulative risk of experiencing a first false-positive screening result was 18.04% (95% confidence interval [CI], 18.00%-18.07%). It was 5.01% (95% CI, 5.01%-5.02%) for experiencing a false-positive screening result that involved an invasive procedure. Adjusting for irregular attendance or age at screening did not appreciably affect these estimates. After adjustments for the number of screens attended, the cumulative risk of a first false-positive screening result was 18.28% (95% CI, 18.24%-18.32%), and the risk of a false-positive screening result including an invasive procedure was 5.11% (95% CI, 5.11%-5.22%). This suggested that there was minimal bias from dependent censoring.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly 1 in 5 women will experience a false-positive screening result if they attend 10 biennial screening rounds in BreastScreen Norway. One in 20 will experience a false-positive screening result with an invasive procedure.

LAY SUMMARY

A false-positive screening result occurs when a woman attending mammographic screening is called back for further assessment because of suspicious findings, but the assessment does not detect breast cancer. Further assessment includes additional imaging. Usually, it involves ultrasound, and sometimes, it involves a biopsy. This study has evaluated the chance of experiencing a false-positive screening result among women attending 10 screening examinations over 20 years in BreastScreen Norway. Nearly 1 in 5 women will experience a false-positive screening result over 10 screening rounds. One in 20 women will experience a false-positive screening result involving a biopsy.

Personalized Screening for Breast Cancer: Rationale, Present Practices, and Future Directions

Ever since screening for early breast cancer (BC) diagnosis was shown to decrease mortality from the disease, screening programs have been widely implemented throughout the world. Targeted age groups and schedules vary between countries but the majority use a population-based approach, regardless of personal BC risk. The purpose of this review was to describe current population-based screening practices, point out some of the shortcomings of these practices, describe BC risk factors and risk assessment models, and present ongoing clinical trials of personalized risk-adapted BC screening. Three ongoing, large-scale, randomized controlled clinical trials (WISDOM in the US, MyPEBS in Europe, and TBST in Italy) were identified through a search of the MEDLINE and US National Library of Medicine (ClinicalTrials.gov) databases. In these trials, women either undergo standard or personalized screening. The trials vary in methods of risk stratification and screening modalities, but all aim to examine whether personalized risk-adapted screening can safely replace the current population-based approach and lead to rates of advanced-stage BC at diagnosis comparable with those of current screening regimens. The results of these trials may change current population-based screening practices.

Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in women with breast symptoms in the mammography screening programme: A matched cohort analysis

Efforts to reduce mortality through early detection and diagnosis has intensified in the recent decade. An important risk factor, 'breast symptoms' reported by women during screening visit, remains overlooked. In this population based matched cohort study using Finnish National Breast Cancer Screening Program (FNBCSP), we assessed the association between breast symptoms reported at screening visit and the risk of cancer incidence and breast cancer mortality and all-cause mortality followed-up over a period of 24 years. For each visit with symptoms, non-symptomatic controls were matched (1:1 for lump and retraction; 1:2 for nipple discharge) based on age at screening visit, year of invitation, number of invited visits, and municipality of invitation. Women who reported lump or retraction had about two-fold risk of breast cancer incidence, three-fold risk of breast cancer mortality and all-cause mortality respectively as compared to women without respective symptoms (p-value<0.05). We found a substantial difference (p-value<0.05) in mortality rates throughout the follow-up period between symptomatic and asymptomatic group. In absolute terms, after the follow-up period for women who reported lump, 180 died from breast cancer as compared to 70 deaths in those without lump, per 10,000 person-years of follow-up, and 315 versus 160 all-cause deaths per 10,000 person-years in women with and without lump respectively. our study provides comprehensive evidence that women with breast symptoms remain in a higher risk of dying over a very long period. The findings indicate needs to develop improvements in the guidelines for screening and clinical services for women presenting with symptoms.

Association of symptoms and interval breast cancers in the mammography-screening programme: population-based matched cohort study

Background

We assessed the association between symptoms reported at breast cancer screening visits and interval cancers (ICs) in a prospective manner.

Methods

This population-based matched cohort study uses data of the Finnish National Breast Cancer Screening Programme that invites women aged 50–69 years old during 1992–2012. Subjects who attended screening with symptoms were matched with asymptomatic reference cohorts based on age at screening visit, year of invitation, number of invited visits and municipality of invitation. The primary outcome was ICs.

Results

Women with a lump had a threefold (hazard ratio 3.7, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.0–4.6) risk of ICs and a higher risk (hazard ratio 1.7, 95% CI 1.4 to 2.0) at the subsequent visit compared with those without a lump. The fatal interval cancer risk increased by 0.39 per 1000 screens with a lump. The cumulative incidences of interval cancer increased within a month of a mammography-negative visit with a lump and after about 6 months of the visit with retraction or nipple discharge.

Conclusion

Women with breast symptoms have a clearly increased risk of interval breast cancer after the screening visit. Our findings indicate the need for different screening strategies in symptomatic women.

Optimization of Image Quality and Dose in Digital Mammography

Nowadays, the optimization in digital mammography is one of the most important challenges in diagnostic radiology. The new digital technology has introduced additional elements to be considered in this scenario. A major goal of mammography is related to the detection of structures on the order of micrometers (μm) and the need to distinguish the different types of tissues, with very close density values. The diagnosis in mammography faces the difficulty that the breast tissues and pathological findings have very close linear attenuation coefficients within the energy range used in mammography. The aim of this study was to develop a methodology for optimizing exposure parameters of digital mammography based on a new Figure of Merit: FOM ≡ (IQFinv)2/AGD, considering the image quality and dose. The study was conducted using the digital mammography Senographe DS/GE, and CDMAM and TORMAM phantoms. The characterization of clinical practice, carried out in the mammography system under study, was performed considering different breast thicknesses, the technical parameters of exposure, and processing options of images used by the equipment's automatic exposure system. The results showed a difference between the values of the optimized parameters and those ones chosen by the automatic system of the mammography unit, specifically for small breast. The optimized exposure parameters showed better results than those obtained by the automatic system of the mammography, for the image quality parameters and its impact on detection of breast structures when analyzed by radiologists.