0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Investigation |

Consequences of False-Positive Screening Mammograms FREE

Anna N. A. Tosteson, ScD1; Dennis G. Fryback, PhD2; Cristina S. Hammond, MPH1; Lucy G. Hanna, MS3; Margaret R. Grove, MS1; Mary Brown, MPH4; Qianfei Wang, MS1; Karen Lindfors, MD, MPH5; Etta D. Pisano, MD6
[+] Author Affiliations
1Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice and Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire
2Departments of Population Sciences and Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin at Madison
3Center for Statistical Science, Brown University School of Medicine, Providence, Rhode Island
4Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
5Department of Radiology, University of California at Davis
6Department of Radiology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston
JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(6):954-961. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.981.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Importance  False-positive mammograms, a common occurrence in breast cancer screening programs, represent a potential screening harm that is currently being evaluated by the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Objective  To measure the effect of false-positive mammograms on quality of life by measuring personal anxiety, health utility, and attitudes toward future screening.

Design, Setting, and Participants  The Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) quality-of-life substudy telephone survey was performed shortly after screening and 1 year later at 22 DMIST sites and included randomly selected DMIST participants with positive and negative mammograms.

Exposure  Mammogram requiring follow-up testing or referral without a cancer diagnosis.

Main Outcomes and Measures  The 6-question short form of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory state scale (STAI-6) and the EuroQol EQ-5D instrument with US scoring. Attitudes toward future screening as measured by women’s self-report of future intention to undergo mammographic screening and willingness to travel and stay overnight to undergo a hypothetical new type of mammography that would identify as many cancers with half the false-positive results.

Results  Among 1450 eligible women invited to participate, 1226 (84.6%) were enrolled, with follow-up interviews obtained in 1028 (83.8%). Anxiety was significantly higher for women with false-positive mammograms (STAI-6, 35.2 vs 32.7), but health utility scores did not differ and there were no significant differences between groups at 1 year. Future screening intentions differed by group (25.7% vs 14.2% more likely in false-positive vs negative groups); willingness to travel and stay overnight did not (9.9% vs 10.5% in false-positive vs negative groups). Future screening intention was significantly increased among women with false-positive mammograms (odds ratio, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.54-2.93), younger age (2.78; 1.5-5.0), and poorer health (1.63; 1.09-2.43). Women’s anticipated high-level anxiety regarding future false-positive mammograms was associated with willingness to travel overnight (odds ratio, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.28-2.95).

Conclusions and Relevance  False-positive mammograms were associated with increased short-term anxiety but not long-term anxiety, and there was no measurable health utility decrement. False-positive mammograms increased women’s intention to undergo future breast cancer screening and did not increase their stated willingness to travel to avoid a false-positive result. Our finding of time-limited harm after false-positive screening mammograms is relevant for clinicians who counsel women on mammographic screening and for screening guideline development groups.

A substantial proportion of women who undergo routine screening mammography during a 10-year period will have a false-positive mammogram, requiring additional workup to rule out breast cancer.13 The rate of false-positive mammograms leading to unnecessary biopsies with benign results, compared with the number of cancers detected, contributed to the 2009 changes in the US Preventive Services Task Force breast cancer screening guidelines.4 Instead of recommending routine screening among women 40 to 49 years old, these guidelines recommend that women in their 40s discuss the pros and cons of mammographic screening with their health care providers before deciding whether to initiate screening. This recommendation acknowledges that individual women’s preferences may differ regarding the balance of screening benefits vs harms, which include false-positive mammograms. As the US Preventive Services Task Force reevaluates the evidence for breast cancer screening, the harms of screening are among the questions to be addressed in their systematic evidence review.4

Although there is a growing literature on how women view false-positive screening mammograms,3,523 few studies have attempted to assess the effect of false-positive results on generic measures that allow comparison to a broad range of health outcomes. To include such a harm in a societal cost-effectiveness analysis, the effect of false-positive screening mammograms on generic health utility (on a scale where 0 represents death and 1 represents perfect health) is needed to compute cost-effectiveness results, which can be compared with other health care interventions.24 These facts—combined with results of early digital mammographic screening studies,2529 which suggested that digital mammography may yield fewer false-positive results than screen-film mammography—led to inclusion of a quality-of-life (QoL) substudy in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST).30 The QoL substudy was designed to characterize the personal anxiety, disutility, and personal time costs associated with workup of positive screening mammograms. Personal time costs of mammographic screening outcomes in DMIST were reported and used in the DMIST cost-effectiveness analysis.31 In this article, we report DMIST QoL substudy results that characterize the effect of false-positive screening mammograms on personal anxiety, health utility, and attitudes toward future screening.

DMIST Description

The DMIST was funded by the National Cancer Institute and conducted by the American College of Radiology Imaging Network, as described in detail elsewhere.30 In brief, its primary aim was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography with that of screen-film mammography.32,33 Secondary aims included an economic evaluation of digital mammography31 and an assessment of the effect of false-positive screening mammograms on QoL.

To be eligible for DMIST, women had to present for screening, agree to undergo follow-up mammography, and provide written consent to study participation. Women were excluded if they had a focal dominant lump or bloody or clear nipple discharge, a history of breast cancer treated with lumpectomy, or breast implants, or if they believed they might be pregnant. For eligible women, both digital and screen-film mammograms were obtained, which were read independently by different radiologists. The DMIST study protocol was approved by the institutional review boards at all study sites.

DMIST QoL Substudy Participants

The substudy was conducted by telephone survey and included 2 groups of women: (1) a random sample of DMIST participants with a positive screening mammogram, defined as any mammogram for which additional workup or consultation was recommended; and (2) a sample of women with a negative screening mammogram. To ensure a comparable number of participants with positive and negative mammograms from each site, for each woman selected with a positive screening mammogram, a woman from the same institution who had a negative screening mammogram and was of similar age (within 5 years) was also selected for participation. Women in whom breast cancer was diagnosed at any time during DMIST were ineligible and were excluded.

Measures
Anxiety

The Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) is a widely used measure of general anxiety that includes both a state scale and a trait scale.34 In the current study, we are interested in state anxiety–that is, anxiety of the moment as experienced by the person. To measure this, we used a validated 6-question short form of the STAI state scale (STAI-6), which yields a score between 20 (least anxious) and 80 (most anxious).35

Health Utility

To characterize general health-related QoL, we used the validated EuroQol EQ-5D instrument, which consists of 5 questions, a question each about mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression.36 Each question has 3 possible responses categorizing the degree of problem with the particular aspect of health, ranging from 1 (no problem) to 3 (extreme problem). The 5 questions and 3 response categories are used to define 245 distinct health states. Scoring using US preference weights assigns health state values ranging from –0.11 (worst health for those with extreme problems in all 5 areas) to 1.0 (best health for those with no problem in any area).37 A current health rating scale asked “On a scale from 0 to 100 where 0 represents death or the worst health you can imagine and 100 represents perfect health or the best health you can imagine, how would you rate your health during the past 4 weeks?”

Breast-Related Resource Use

At follow-up, women were asked “since your mammogram approximately 12 months ago [date provided], have you received medical care for any breast-related concerns?” Women who answered affirmatively were read a list of tests, procedures, and health provider visits that some women have after a mammogram and were asked which they had undergone.

Future Screening Attitudes

Women were asked to think about “how your breast-related care in the past year may change your future use of screening mammography” and to choose the statement that best represented their feelings at the time of the follow-up survey. Response choices included the following: “I am less likely than a year ago to undergo screening mammography in the future,” “My use of screening mammography will not change,” and “I am more likely than a year ago to undergo screening mammography in the future.”

Two questions asked women their opinion about new types of mammograms that may be developed in the future. A “willingness to pay to avoid” approach was used to assess how women valued false-positive screening mammograms. This was implemented by asking about the duration of travel women would be willing to undertake to gain access to a hypothetical new type of mammography that would produce fewer false-positive mammograms while identifying just as many cancers. This survey item was developed for the current study and was modeled on the waiting-time trade-off developed to value transient health states encountered in radiologic cost-effectiveness analyses,38 with travel serving as a metaphor for lost time.

Women were also asked to imagine that they could choose between 2 new types of mammography that are just as accurate as those today: one that resulted in fewer false-positive mammograms and one that caused less breast compression (see eAppendix in the Supplement for details). Development of the travel and new mammography type survey items was informed by focus groups of women who had experienced false-positive screening mammograms.

Telephone Interview Schedule

Telephone interviews were conducted shortly after the baseline mammogram and approximately 1 year later. At both times, the interview included the STAI-6, the EQ-5D, and the current health rating scale.

The baseline interview was intended to occur after notification of the need for further workup and before workup completion—during what we define as the active workup window. This was not always possible. Based on follow-up data on the date of subsequent breast-related medical care, we categorized baseline interviews as occurring during or after the active workup window. Women interviewed after the active workup window were considered to have had “resolved” false-positive mammograms at the time of the baseline interview. We hypothesized that, compared with women with negative screening mammograms, anxiety would be highest and QoL lowest for women with positive screening mammograms who were interviewed in the active workup window (ie, before the false-positive mammogram was resolved). We further hypothesized that elevated anxiety and reduced health utility associated with a false-positive mammogram would be transient, such that at follow-up there would be no differences between those with positive and negative screening mammograms.

At the second interview, additional information was collected on the use of breast-related resources and attitudes toward future screening mammography.

Statistical Analysis

Characteristics of participants were summarized using means and proportions, with comparisons between women with false-positive vs negative mammograms made using t tests and χ2 tests. To assess the effect of a false-positive mammogram on anxiety and health utility, the changes between baseline and follow-up scores were compared between women in the false-positive and negative mammogram groups. In logistic regression analyses, we explored factors associated with women’s self-report of their increased likelihood to undergo future breast cancer screening and with the odds of being willing to travel overnight to avoid a false-positive mammogram. Variables considered included age, breast cancer risk, baseline mammogram positivity, need for biopsy, anticipated anxiety regarding future false-positive mammograms, race/ethnicity, and institution.

Among 1450 eligible women invited to participate, 1226 (84.6%) from 22 institutions were enrolled in the QoL substudy, and follow-up interviews were obtained for 1028 (83.8%). Women with false-positive mammograms tended to be younger but did not differ on any other characteristics (Table 1).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1.  Participant Characteristics Overall and by Screening Mammogram Outcome

At baseline, there were significant differences in anxiety between women with positive and negative mammograms but no statistically significant differences in the EQ-5D or the current health rating scale (Table 2). At follow-up, a significant decline in anxiety was noted (mean STAI-6 difference, −1.53; 95% CI, −2.70 to −0.35) among women with positive mammograms (Table 2). Women with negative mammograms were found to have a modest but significant decline in rating scale at follow-up (mean rating scale difference, −1.22; 95% CI, −2.34 to −0.10).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2.  Mean (SD) Quality of Life Measures at Baseline and Follow-up and Mean (SD) Differences Between Follow-up and Baseline Measures

Use of breast-related care reported 1 year after the initial screening examination differed by positivity status for all categories except clinical breast examination (Table 3). Biopsy procedures were used in 14.6% of women with a false-positive mammogram compared with 1.1% of those with a negative mammogram. Among women with a false-positive mammogram, anxiety was reported as moderate or higher by 50.6% and as extreme by 4.6%.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3.  Nature of Breast-Related Care and Reported Experience 1 Year After Baseline Mammogram by Screening Mammogram Outcome

Women’s plans to undergo mammography within the next 2 years did not differ by screening outcome, but significantly more women who had a false-positive mammogram characterized themselves as “more likely” to undergo future breast cancer screening (25.7%) compared with those who had a negative mammogram (14.2%) (Table 4). However, no differences were noted in women’s attitudes toward the anticipated anxiety they would feel if they were to have a positive mammogram in the future. Many women in each group (61.2% in the negative and 58.9% in the false-positive group) thought they would experience anxiety that was moderate or worse if they were to have a false-positive mammogram in the future, and a substantial proportion anticipated feeling a high level of anxiety (with about 27% characterizing anticipated anxiety as “a lot” or “extreme” in each group).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4.  Attitudes Toward Future Mammography Use and Willingness to Travel to Avoid a False-Positive Mammogram by Screening Mammogram Outcome

Women’s experience of a false-positive mammogram did not influence their willingness to travel to avoid a false-positive mammogram in the future, with the vast majority of women in both groups being willing to travel up to 4 hours to avoid such a result. A small minority in each group were willing to travel and stay overnight to avoid a false-positive mammogram (10.5% in the negative and 9.9% in the false-positive group). When women were asked to choose between a new type of mammography that would avoid breast compression and one that would avoid false-positive mammograms, most (81.6%) chose the latter.

When correlates of future breast cancer screening intention were examined, women who had a false-positive baseline mammogram or an EQ-5D utility score in the lowest quartile or were younger than 65 years were more likely to report that they would undergo future screening (Table 5). In multivariable analyses, a false-positive mammogram more than doubled a woman’s stated intention to use future screening (odds ratio, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.54-2.93). Willingness to travel and stay overnight to avoid a false-positive mammogram did not vary by positivity but was associated with women’s reports of anticipated anxiety if they were to have a false-positive mammogram in the future (Table 5).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 5.  Correlates of Greater Intention to Use Future Screening and Willingness to Travel and Stay Overnight to Avoid a False-Positive Mammogram

The DMIST QoL substudy provides evidence that women with a false-positive mammogram initially experienced a significant increase in anxiety and that these effects were transient and not measurable with the EQ-5D questionnaire or current health rating scale. A small proportion of women were willing to travel and stay overnight to undergo screening with a hypothetical modality that would have fewer false-positive findings, but this willingness was not influenced by experience of a false-positive mammogram. Instead, willingness to travel was associated with women’s anticipated feelings of anxiety surrounding a future false-positive mammogram. Women who anticipated feeling more than moderate anxiety were nearly twice as likely to report a willingness to travel and stay overnight as those who anticipated feeling less anxiety. Our results regarding the transient anxiety associated with false-positive mammograms may provide useful information for health care providers who counsel individual women regarding the decision whether to initiate breast cancer screening and for policy makers assessing the clinical effectiveness of mammographic screening.

Although there is concern that the health and psychological burden of false-positive mammograms may not be justified when weighed relative to the few additional breast cancers that routine screening would identify among younger women, we found that a false-positive mammogram had only transient effect on anxiety. Our finding differs from recent reports of longer-term effect of false-positive mammograms on specific psychological outcomes.2123 However, the ongoing harms reported in the literature are related primarily to outcomes specific to breast cancer rather than general psychological measures, such as the general anxiety measure used in our study. It is an open question whether one should expect harms that are measurable only when framed in terms of a specific disease to affect a general anxiety or health utility measure. An important feature of the 2 generic measures used in our study, STAI-6 and EQ-5D, is the ability to compare potential harms associated with breast cancer screening to those associated with a broad range of other health care practices.

In addition to the transient effect on anxiety, we also provide evidence that women are motivated to avoid false-positive mammograms. A large proportion of women were willing to travel up to 4 hours to undergo a hypothetical new type of mammography that would be just as good at finding cancer but would result in fewer false-positive mammograms. Further supporting women’s interest in avoiding false-positive mammograms, when given the choice between 2 new types of mammography—one with fewer false positives and one with reduced breast compression—most women in our study chose the type with fewer false positives.

Our study also characterized the anxiety and discomfort imposed by the health care visits and procedures used to resolve positive screening mammograms. Although anxiety and discomfort were significantly higher among women with false-positive mammograms than among those with negative mammograms, these findings seemed to have no effect on women’s plans to undergo mammography in the next 2 years—something that 93.5% of women intended to do. In contrast, women’s intention to use breast cancer screening in the future (ie, self-characterization as being more likely to undergo future breast cancer screening) was increased by 2-fold among women who had a false-positive mammogram. The reasons for this are unclear, but a meta-analysis of observed screening practices after a positive mammogram has similarly concluded that women in the United States who have a false-positive mammogram are significantly more likely to participate in future mammographic screening.11

The DMIST QoL substudy results were used to estimate previously reported economic time costs associated with follow-up of screening mammograms and were incorporated into the cost-effectiveness analysis of digital mammography.31 In this article, we have provided further information on the use of follow-up tests. Not surprisingly, some women with negative screening mammograms reported use of breast-related medical services within the year after screening (eg, additional imaging in 4.5% and breast biopsy in 1.1%), but use of such services were associated with lower levels of anxiety and less discomfort than was reported among women with false-positive mammograms.

The DMIST cost-effectiveness analysis did not adjust for a QoL/health utility loss when estimating quality-adjusted life years for women with false-positive screening mammograms, a decision supported by the fact that our results showed no measurable impact with EQ-5D.31 Nonetheless, measures such as the EQ-5D, which are appropriate for use in societal cost-effectiveness studies, are of limited value in clinical settings where individual women must consider how they value potential screening outcomes when weighing the benefits and harms of breast cancer screening. In this context, there were no differences reported between women in the false-positive and negative groups concerning how much anxiety they would anticipate feeling about a positive screening mammogram in the future. However, 26.9% of women reported that they would feel more than a moderate amount of anxiety/concern (ie, a lot of anxiety/concern or extreme anxiety/concern) if such a screening outcome were to occur. Thus, it seems prudent for women and their clinicians to consider the potential outcomes of screening when deciding on the best course of action for each woman. Studies to improve breast screening practices by finding approaches that reduce such anxiety are also warranted.

Several limitations to our study deserve comment. First, we intended to interview women during the active workup window, but this was not always achieved. As a result, many women were interviewed after workup was completed. Nonetheless, we were able to document heightened anxiety associated with false-positive mammograms. We did not document any effect on overall health utility using the EQ-5D preference-based measure that is appropriate for use in estimating quality-adjusted life years. This may be due to limitations in the EQ-5D descriptive system, which combines the rating of anxiety and depression together at only 3 levels: no anxiety/depression, moderate anxiety/depression, and extreme anxiety/depression. Alternatively, it may reflect the general insensitivity of the EQ-5D to small changes in the health of healthy persons, or it may suggest a relatively low anxiety effect for false-positive mammograms. In addition, at baseline most participants rated their health at the ceiling of the EQ-5D descriptive system in both the false-positive (272 of 494 patients [55.1%]) and negative (293 of 531 [55.2%]) groups.

Second, the attitudes of DMIST volunteers may not be representative of the general population of women eligible for breast cancer screening. Enthusiasm for screening may be higher among DMIST participants than in the general population, a conjecture supported by the fact that 93.5% of women reported their intention to undergo breast cancer screening with mammography again within 2 years. However, attitudes toward cancer screening in the United States have generally been documented as highly favorable.39

We conclude that false-positive mammograms are associated with a measurable, small, and transient effect on personal anxiety and that further research should address opportunities for reducing this anxiety. Although the effect of false-positive mammograms on health utility for estimating quality-adjusted life years is not measurable using the current EQ-5D instrument, it is clear that women, regardless of whether or not they had a false-positive mammogram, are willing to invest the necessary travel time to avoid such results in the future. The fact that women’s anticipated anxiety about future false-positive mammograms was a correlate of willingness to travel and stay overnight to avoid such a result, but the actual experience of a false-positive mammogram was not, further highlights opportunities to educate women about screening outcomes. Although health utility scores were not measurably affected, the experience of a false-positive mammogram did increase women’s intentions to undergo breast cancer screening in the future. Ongoing studies of breast cancer screening processes of care through the National Cancer Institute’s PROSPR (Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens) initiative may further elucidate the frequency and sequelae of false-positive screening mammograms. Meanwhile, our report on women’s experience of false-positive mammograms may provide useful information for those counseling women on the decision to undergo mammographic screening and for screening guideline development groups.

Accepted for Publication: January 29, 2014.

Corresponding Author: Anna N. A. Tosteson, ScD, Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, 1 Medical Center Dr (HB7505), Lebanon, NH 03756 (anna.n.a.tosteson@dartmouth.edu).

Published Online: April 21, 2014. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.981.

Author Contributions: Dr Tosteson and Ms Wang had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: Tosteson, Fryback, Hammond, Hanna, Pisano.

Acquisition of data: Fryback, Hammond, Hanna, Brown, Lindfors, Pisano.

Analysis and interpretation of data: Tosteson, Fryback, Hammond, Hanna, Grove, Wang, Pisano.

Drafting of the manuscript: Tosteson, Fryback, Hammond, Grove, Brown, Wang, Lindfors.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Tosteson, Fryback, Hanna, Lindfors, Pisano.

Statistical analysis: Tosteson, Hammond, Hanna, Grove, Wang.

Obtained funding: Tosteson, Fryback, Pisano.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Tosteson, Fryback, Hammond, Brown, Lindfors, Pisano.

Study supervision: Tosteson, Pisano.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Pisano reports grants received or pending from Alan Penn & Associates, Koning Corp, the US Department of Health and Human Services, Konica Minolta, Zumatek, Inc, and the National Science Foundation; and patents planned/pending or issued, assigned to University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Brookhaven Science Associates, and the University of Saskatchewan and to NextRay, Inc. Dr Pisano is also a cofounder and board member of NextRay, Inc.

Funding/Support: This study was supported by grants U01CA80098, U01CA80098-S1, U01CA79778, U0179778-S1, RC2/UC2CA148259, and U54CA163307 from the National Cancer Institute.

Role of the Sponsor: The funding source had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Elmore  JG, Barton  MB, Moceri  VM, Polk  S, Arena  PJ, Fletcher  SW.  Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. N Engl J Med. 1998;338(16):1089-1096.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Hubbard  RA, Kerlikowske  K, Flowers  CI, Yankaskas  BC, Zhu  W, Miglioretti  DL.  Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):481-492.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Schwartz  LM, Woloshin  S, Sox  HC, Fischhoff  B, Welch  HG.  US women’s attitudes to false positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: cross sectional survey. BMJ. 2000;320(7250):1635-1640.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
US Preventive Services Task Force. Draft research plan: screening for breast cancer.http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf14/breastcancer/breastcandraftresplan.htm. Published 2013. Accessed November 17, 2013.
Aro  AR, Pilvikki Absetz  S, van Elderen  TM, van der Ploeg  E, van der Kamp  LJ.  False-positive findings in mammography screening induces short-term distress—breast cancer-specific concern prevails longer. Eur J Cancer. 2000;36(9):1089-1097.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Barton  MB, Moore  S, Polk  S, Shtatland  E, Elmore  JG, Fletcher  SW.  Increased patient concern after false-positive mammograms: clinician documentation and subsequent ambulatory visits. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(3):150-156.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Barton  MB, Morley  DS, Moore  S,  et al.  Decreasing women’s anxieties after abnormal mammograms: a controlled trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96(7):529-538.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Brett  J, Austoker  J.  Women who are recalled for further investigation for breast screening: psychological consequences 3 years after recall and factors affecting re-attendance. J Public Health Med. 2001;23(4):292-300.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Brett  J, Austoker  J, Ong  G.  Do women who undergo further investigation for breast screening suffer adverse psychological consequences? a multi-centre follow-up study comparing different breast screening result groups five months after their last breast screening appointment. J Public Health Med. 1998;20(4):396-403.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Brett  J, Bankhead  C, Henderson  B, Watson  E, Austoker  J.  The psychological impact of mammographic screening: a systematic review. Psychooncology. 2005;14(11):917-938.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Brewer  NT, Salz  T, Lillie  SE.  Systematic review: the long-term effects of false-positive mammograms. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146(7):502-510.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Brodersen  J, Thorsen  H, Cockburn  J.  The adequacy of measurement of short and long-term consequences of false-positive screening mammography. J Med Screen. 2004;11(1):39-44.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Burman  ML, Taplin  SH, Herta  DF, Elmore  JG.  Effect of false-positive mammograms on interval breast cancer screening in a health maintenance organization. Ann Intern Med. 1999;131(1):1-6.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Castells  X, Molins  E, Macià  F.  Cumulative false positive recall rate and association with participant related factors in a population based breast cancer screening programme. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60(4):316-321.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Christiansen  CL, Wang  F, Barton  MB,  et al.  Predicting the cumulative risk of false-positive mammograms. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92(20):1657-1666.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Currence  BV, Pisano  ED, Earp  JA,  et al.  Does biopsy, aspiration or six-month follow-up of a false-positive mammogram reduce future screening or have large psychosocial effects? Acad Radiol. 2003;10(11):1257-1266.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Sickles  EA.  False positive rate of screening mammography. N Engl J Med. 1998;339(8):561-562, author reply 563.
PubMed
Sickles  EA.  Successful methods to reduce false-positive mammography interpretations. Radiol Clin North Am. 2000;38(4):693-700.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Tobias  IS, Baum  M.  False positive findings of mammography will have psychological consequences [letter]. BMJ. 1996;312(7040):1227.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Woloshin  S, Schwartz  LM.  The benefits and harms of mammography screening: understanding the trade-offs. JAMA. 2010;303(2):164-165.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Brodersen  J, Siersma  VD.  Long-term psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening mammography. Ann Fam Med. 2013;11(2):106-115.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Bond  M, Pavey  T, Welch  K,  et al.  Systematic review of the psychological consequences of false-positive screening mammograms. Health Technol Assess. 2013;17(13):1-170, v-vi.
PubMed
Salz  T, Richman  AR, Brewer  NT.  Meta-analyses of the effect of false-positive mammograms on generic and specific psychosocial outcomes. Psychooncology. 2010;19(10):1026-1034.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Gold  M, Siegel  J, Russell  L,  et al, eds. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1996.
Cole  EB, Pisano  ED, Kistner  EO,  et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography in patients with dense breasts who underwent problem-solving mammography: effects of image processing and lesion type. Radiology. 2003;226(1):153-160.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Hendrick  RE, Lewin  JM, D'Orsi  C,  et al. Non-inferiority study of ffdm in an enriched diagnostic cohort: comparison with screen-film mammography in 625 women. In: Yaffe M, ed. International Workshop on Digital Mammography 2000: 5th International Workshop on Digital Mammography. Madison, WI: Medical Physics; 2001:475-481.
Lewin  JM, D’Orsi  CJ, Hendrick  RE,  et al.  Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179(3):671-677.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Skaane  P, Skjennald  A.  Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program—the Oslo II Study. Radiology. 2004;232(1):197-204.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Skaane  P, Young  K, Skjennald  A.  Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading—Oslo I study. Radiology. 2003;229(3):877-884.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Pisano  ED, Gatsonis  CA, Yaffe  MJ,  et al.  American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial: objectives and methodology. Radiology. 2005;236(2):404-412.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Tosteson  AN, Stout  NK, Fryback  DG,  et al; DMIST Investigators.  Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(1):1-10.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Pisano  ED, Gatsonis  C, Hendrick  E,  et al; Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group.  Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(17):1773-1783.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Pisano  ED, Hendrick  RE, Yaffe  MJ,  et al; DMIST Investigators Group.  Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology. 2008;246(2):376-383.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Spielberger  CD, Gorsuch  RL, Lushene  R, Vagg  PR, Jacobs  GA. Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1983.
Marteau  TM, Bekker  H.  The development of a six-item short-form of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Br J Clin Psychol. 1992;31(pt 3):301-306.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Kind  P. The EuroQol instrument: an index of health-related quality of life. In: Spilker  B, ed. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials.2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven; 1996.
Shaw  JW, Johnson  JA, Coons  SJ.  US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care. 2005;43(3):203-220.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Swan  JS, Fryback  DG, Lawrence  WF, Sainfort  F, Hagenauer  ME, Heisey  DM.  A time-tradeoff method for cost-effectiveness models applied to radiology. Med Decis Making. 2000;20(1):79-88.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Schwartz  LM, Woloshin  S, Fowler  FJ  Jr, Welch  HG.  Enthusiasm for cancer screening in the United States. JAMA. 2004;291(1):71-78.
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Figures

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1.  Participant Characteristics Overall and by Screening Mammogram Outcome
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2.  Mean (SD) Quality of Life Measures at Baseline and Follow-up and Mean (SD) Differences Between Follow-up and Baseline Measures
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3.  Nature of Breast-Related Care and Reported Experience 1 Year After Baseline Mammogram by Screening Mammogram Outcome
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4.  Attitudes Toward Future Mammography Use and Willingness to Travel to Avoid a False-Positive Mammogram by Screening Mammogram Outcome
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 5.  Correlates of Greater Intention to Use Future Screening and Willingness to Travel and Stay Overnight to Avoid a False-Positive Mammogram

References

Elmore  JG, Barton  MB, Moceri  VM, Polk  S, Arena  PJ, Fletcher  SW.  Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. N Engl J Med. 1998;338(16):1089-1096.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Hubbard  RA, Kerlikowske  K, Flowers  CI, Yankaskas  BC, Zhu  W, Miglioretti  DL.  Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):481-492.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Schwartz  LM, Woloshin  S, Sox  HC, Fischhoff  B, Welch  HG.  US women’s attitudes to false positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: cross sectional survey. BMJ. 2000;320(7250):1635-1640.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
US Preventive Services Task Force. Draft research plan: screening for breast cancer.http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf14/breastcancer/breastcandraftresplan.htm. Published 2013. Accessed November 17, 2013.
Aro  AR, Pilvikki Absetz  S, van Elderen  TM, van der Ploeg  E, van der Kamp  LJ.  False-positive findings in mammography screening induces short-term distress—breast cancer-specific concern prevails longer. Eur J Cancer. 2000;36(9):1089-1097.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Barton  MB, Moore  S, Polk  S, Shtatland  E, Elmore  JG, Fletcher  SW.  Increased patient concern after false-positive mammograms: clinician documentation and subsequent ambulatory visits. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16(3):150-156.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Barton  MB, Morley  DS, Moore  S,  et al.  Decreasing women’s anxieties after abnormal mammograms: a controlled trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96(7):529-538.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Brett  J, Austoker  J.  Women who are recalled for further investigation for breast screening: psychological consequences 3 years after recall and factors affecting re-attendance. J Public Health Med. 2001;23(4):292-300.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Brett  J, Austoker  J, Ong  G.  Do women who undergo further investigation for breast screening suffer adverse psychological consequences? a multi-centre follow-up study comparing different breast screening result groups five months after their last breast screening appointment. J Public Health Med. 1998;20(4):396-403.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Brett  J, Bankhead  C, Henderson  B, Watson  E, Austoker  J.  The psychological impact of mammographic screening: a systematic review. Psychooncology. 2005;14(11):917-938.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Brewer  NT, Salz  T, Lillie  SE.  Systematic review: the long-term effects of false-positive mammograms. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146(7):502-510.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Brodersen  J, Thorsen  H, Cockburn  J.  The adequacy of measurement of short and long-term consequences of false-positive screening mammography. J Med Screen. 2004;11(1):39-44.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Burman  ML, Taplin  SH, Herta  DF, Elmore  JG.  Effect of false-positive mammograms on interval breast cancer screening in a health maintenance organization. Ann Intern Med. 1999;131(1):1-6.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Castells  X, Molins  E, Macià  F.  Cumulative false positive recall rate and association with participant related factors in a population based breast cancer screening programme. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60(4):316-321.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Christiansen  CL, Wang  F, Barton  MB,  et al.  Predicting the cumulative risk of false-positive mammograms. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92(20):1657-1666.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Currence  BV, Pisano  ED, Earp  JA,  et al.  Does biopsy, aspiration or six-month follow-up of a false-positive mammogram reduce future screening or have large psychosocial effects? Acad Radiol. 2003;10(11):1257-1266.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Sickles  EA.  False positive rate of screening mammography. N Engl J Med. 1998;339(8):561-562, author reply 563.
PubMed
Sickles  EA.  Successful methods to reduce false-positive mammography interpretations. Radiol Clin North Am. 2000;38(4):693-700.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Tobias  IS, Baum  M.  False positive findings of mammography will have psychological consequences [letter]. BMJ. 1996;312(7040):1227.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Woloshin  S, Schwartz  LM.  The benefits and harms of mammography screening: understanding the trade-offs. JAMA. 2010;303(2):164-165.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Brodersen  J, Siersma  VD.  Long-term psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening mammography. Ann Fam Med. 2013;11(2):106-115.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Bond  M, Pavey  T, Welch  K,  et al.  Systematic review of the psychological consequences of false-positive screening mammograms. Health Technol Assess. 2013;17(13):1-170, v-vi.
PubMed
Salz  T, Richman  AR, Brewer  NT.  Meta-analyses of the effect of false-positive mammograms on generic and specific psychosocial outcomes. Psychooncology. 2010;19(10):1026-1034.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Gold  M, Siegel  J, Russell  L,  et al, eds. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1996.
Cole  EB, Pisano  ED, Kistner  EO,  et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography in patients with dense breasts who underwent problem-solving mammography: effects of image processing and lesion type. Radiology. 2003;226(1):153-160.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Hendrick  RE, Lewin  JM, D'Orsi  C,  et al. Non-inferiority study of ffdm in an enriched diagnostic cohort: comparison with screen-film mammography in 625 women. In: Yaffe M, ed. International Workshop on Digital Mammography 2000: 5th International Workshop on Digital Mammography. Madison, WI: Medical Physics; 2001:475-481.
Lewin  JM, D’Orsi  CJ, Hendrick  RE,  et al.  Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179(3):671-677.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Skaane  P, Skjennald  A.  Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program—the Oslo II Study. Radiology. 2004;232(1):197-204.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Skaane  P, Young  K, Skjennald  A.  Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading—Oslo I study. Radiology. 2003;229(3):877-884.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Pisano  ED, Gatsonis  CA, Yaffe  MJ,  et al.  American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial: objectives and methodology. Radiology. 2005;236(2):404-412.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Tosteson  AN, Stout  NK, Fryback  DG,  et al; DMIST Investigators.  Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(1):1-10.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Pisano  ED, Gatsonis  C, Hendrick  E,  et al; Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group.  Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(17):1773-1783.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Pisano  ED, Hendrick  RE, Yaffe  MJ,  et al; DMIST Investigators Group.  Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology. 2008;246(2):376-383.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Spielberger  CD, Gorsuch  RL, Lushene  R, Vagg  PR, Jacobs  GA. Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1983.
Marteau  TM, Bekker  H.  The development of a six-item short-form of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Br J Clin Psychol. 1992;31(pt 3):301-306.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Kind  P. The EuroQol instrument: an index of health-related quality of life. In: Spilker  B, ed. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials.2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven; 1996.
Shaw  JW, Johnson  JA, Coons  SJ.  US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care. 2005;43(3):203-220.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Swan  JS, Fryback  DG, Lawrence  WF, Sainfort  F, Hagenauer  ME, Heisey  DM.  A time-tradeoff method for cost-effectiveness models applied to radiology. Med Decis Making. 2000;20(1):79-88.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Schwartz  LM, Woloshin  S, Fowler  FJ  Jr, Welch  HG.  Enthusiasm for cancer screening in the United States. JAMA. 2004;291(1):71-78.
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Supplement.

eAppendix. Follow-up Interview Used to Assess Attitudes Toward Future Screening

Supplemental Content

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

2,498 Views
8 Citations

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
Jobs
JAMAevidence.com

The Rational Clinical Examination: Evidence-Based Clinical Diagnosis
Breast Cancer

The Rational Clinical Examination: Evidence-Based Clinical Diagnosis
Original Article: Does This Patient Have Breast Cancer? The Screening Clinical Breast Examination: Should It Be Done? How?

×