© 2000 by Oxford University Press
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 92, No. 20, 1657-1666,
October 18, 2000
© 2000 Oxford University Press
Predicting the Cumulative Risk of False-Positive Mammograms
Affiliations of authors: C. L. Christiansen, Boston University School of Public Health, Health Services Department, and Center for Health Quality, Outcomes and Economic Research at Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development, Boston, MA; F. Wang, Center for Statistical Sciences, Brown University, Providence, RI; M. B. Barton, S. W. Fletcher, Department of Ambulatory Care and Prevention, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Harvard Medical School, Boston; W. Kreuter, J. G. Elmore, Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle; A. E. Gelfand, Department of Statistics, University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Correspondence to: Cindy L. Christiansen, Ph.D., Boston University SPH and VA CHQOER, Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital, 200 Springs Rd. (152), Bedford, MA 01730 (e-mail: cindylc{at}bu.edu).
Background: The cumulative risk of a false-positive mammogram can be substantial. We studied which variables affect the chance of a false-positive mammogram and estimated cumulative risks over nine sequential mammograms. Methods: We used medical records of 2227 randomly selected women who were 40–69 years of age on July 1, 1983, and had at least one screening mammogram. We used a Bayesian discrete hazard regression model developed for this study to test the effect of patient and radiologic variables on a first false-positive screening and to calculate cumulative risks of a false-positive mammogram. Results: Of 9747 screening mammograms, 6.5% were false-positive; 23.8% of women experienced at least one false-positive result. After nine mammograms, the risk of a false-positive mammogram was 43.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 36.6%–53.6%). Risk ratios decreased with increasing age and increased with number of breast biopsies, family history of breast cancer, estrogen use, time between screenings, no comparison with previous mammograms, and the radiologist's tendency to call mammograms abnormal. For a woman with highest-risk variables, the estimated risk for a false-positive mammogram at the first and by the ninth mammogram was 98.1% (95% CI = 69.3%–100%) and 100% (95% CI = 99.9%–100%), respectively. A woman with lowest-risk variables had estimated risks of 0.7% (95% CI = 0.2%–1.9%) and 4.6% (95% CI = 1.1%–12.5%), respectively. Conclusions: The cumulative risk of a false-positive mammogram over time varies substantially, depending on a woman's own risk profile and on several factors related to radiologic screening. By the ninth mammogram, the risk can be as low as 5% for women with low-risk variables and as high as 100% for women with multiple high-risk factors.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  K. Blanchard, J. A. Colbert, D. B. Kopans, R. Moore, E. F. Halpern, K. S. Hughes, B. L. Smith, K. K. Tanabe, and J. S. Michaelson Long-term Risk of False-Positive Screening Results and Subsequent Biopsy as a Function of Mammography Use. Radiology, August 1, 2006; 240(2): 335 - 342. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 X. Castells, E. Molins, and F. Macia Cumulative false positive recall rate and association with participant related factors in a population based breast cancer screening programme. J. Epidemiol. Community Health, April 1, 2006; 60(4): 316 - 321. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. J. Coldman, D. Major, G. P. Doyle, Y. D'yachkova, N. Phillips, J. Onysko, R. Shumak, N. E. Smith, and N. Wadden Organized Breast Screening Programs in Canada: Effect of Radiologist Reading Volumes on Outcomes Radiology, March 1, 2006; 238(3): 809 - 815. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. R. Aberle, C. Chiles, C. Gatsonis, B. J. Hillman, C. D. Johnson, B. L. McClennan, D. G. Mitchell, E. D. Pisano, M. D. Schnall, and A. G. Sorensen Imaging and Cancer: Research Strategy of the American College of Radiology Imaging Network Radiology, June 1, 2005; 235(3): 741 - 751. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Koomen, E. D. Pisano, C. Kuzmiak, D. Pavic, and R. McLelland Future Directions in Breast Imaging J. Clin. Oncol., March 10, 2005; 23(8): 1674 - 1677. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Kerlikowske, R. Smith-Bindman, L. A. Abraham, C. D. Lehman, B. C. Yankaskas, R. Ballard-Barbash, W. E. Barlow, J. H. Voeks, B. M. Geller, P. A. Carney, et al. Breast Cancer Yield for Screening Mammographic Examinations with Recommendation for Short-Interval Follow-up Radiology, March 1, 2005; 234(3): 684 - 692. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. E. Lafata, J. Simpkins, L. Lamerato, L. Poisson, G. Divine, and C. C. Johnson The Economic Impact of False-Positive Cancer Screens Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., December 1, 2004; 13(12): 2126 - 2132. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. F. Wagner, C. A. Beam, and S. V. Beiden Reader Variability in Mammography and Its Implications for Expected Utility over the Population of Readers and Cases Med Decis Making, November 1, 2004; 24(6): 561 - 572. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. Smith-Bindman, P. W. Chu, D. L. Miglioretti, E. A. Sickles, R. Blanks, R. Ballard-Barbash, J. K. Bobo, N. C. Lee, M. G. Wallis, J. Patnick, et al. Comparison of Screening Mammography in the United States and the United Kingdom JAMA, October 22, 2003; 290(16): 2129 - 2137. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. R. Yabroff, K. S. Washington, A. Leader, E. Neilson, and J. Mandelblatt Is the Promise of Cancer-Screening Programs Being Compromised? Quality of Follow-Up Care after Abnormal Screening Results Med Care Res Rev, September 1, 2003; 60(3): 294 - 331. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. W. Fletcher and J. G. Elmore Mammographic Screening for Breast Cancer N. Engl. J. Med., April 24, 2003; 348(17): 1672 - 1680. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. G. Baker The Central Role of Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curves in Evaluating Tests for the Early Detection of Cancer J Natl Cancer Inst, April 2, 2003; 95(7): 511 - 515. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Kerlikowske, R. Smith-Bindman, and E. A. Sickles Short-Interval Follow-Up Mammography: Are We Doing the Right Thing? J Natl Cancer Inst, March 19, 2003; 95(6): 418 - 419. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. R. Willett Annual screening with mammography and breast examination did not reduce breast cancer mortality in women 40-49 years of age Evid. Based Med., March 1, 2003; 8(2): 44 - 44. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. R. Willett Review: mammography reduces breast cancer mortality rates Evid. Based Med., March 1, 2003; 8(2): 45 - 45. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. G. Elmore, D. L. Miglioretti, and P. A. Carney Does Practice Make Perfect When Interpreting Mammography? Part II J Natl Cancer Inst, February 19, 2003; 95(4): 250 - 252. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. G. Kessler, M. R. Andersen, and R. Etzioni Much Ado About Mammography Variability J Natl Cancer Inst, September 18, 2002; 94(18): 1346 - 1347. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. G. Elmore, D. L. Miglioretti, L. M. Reisch, M. B. Barton, W. Kreuter, C. L. Christiansen, and S. W. Fletcher Screening Mammograms by Community Radiologists: Variability in False-Positive Rates J Natl Cancer Inst, September 18, 2002; 94(18): 1373 - 1380. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Stefanek, L. Hartmann, and W. Nelson Risk-Reduction Mastectomy: Clinical Issues and Research Needs J Natl Cancer Inst, September 5, 2001; 93(17): 1297 - 1297. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Lucassen, E. Watson, and D. Eccles Evidence based case report: Advice about mammography for a young woman with a family history of breast cancer BMJ, April 28, 2001; 322(7293): 1040 - 1042. [Full Text]
|
|