IMPORTANCE: Guidelines recommend that women 75 years and older should be informed of the benefits and risks of mammography before being screened. However, few are adequately informed.
OBJECTIVES: To develop and evaluate a mammography screening decision aid (DA) for women 75 years and older.
DESIGN: We designed the DA using international standards. Between July 14, 2010, and April 10, 2012, participants completed a pretest survey and read the DA before an appointment with their primary care physician. They completed a posttest survey after their appointment. Medical records were reviewed for follow-up information.
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Boston, Massachusetts, academic primary care practice. Eligible women were aged 75 to 89 years, English speaking, had not had a mammogram in 9 months but had been screened within the past 3 years, and did not have a history of dementia or invasive or noninvasive breast cancer. Of 84 women approached, 27 declined to participate, 12 were unable to complete the study for logistical reasons, and 45 participated.
INTERVENTIONS: The DA includes information on breast cancer risk, life expectancy, competing mortality risks, possible outcomes of screening, and a values clarification exercise.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Knowledge of the benefits and risks of screening, decisional conflict, and screening intentions; documentation in the medical record of a discussion of the risks and benefits of mammography with a primary care physician within 6 months; and the receipt of screening within 15 months. We used the Wilcoxon signed rank test and McNemar test to compare pretest-posttest information.
RESULTS: The median age of participants was 79 years, 69% (31 of 45) were of non-Hispanic white race/ethnicity, and 60% (27 of 45) had attended at least some college. Comparison of posttest results with pretest results demonstrated 2 findings. First, knowledge of the benefits and risks of screening improved (P < .001). Second, fewer participants intended to be screened (56% [25 of 45] afterward compared with 82% [37 of 45] before, P = .03). Decisional conflict declined but not significantly (P = .10). In the following 6 months, 53% (24 of 45) of participants had a primary care physician note that documented the discussion of the risks and benefits of screening compared with 11% (5 of 45) in the previous 5 years (P < .001). While 84% (36 of 43) had been screened within 2 years of participating, 60% (26 of 43) were screened within 15 months after participating (≥ 2 years since their last mammogram) (P = .01). Overall, 93% (42 of 45) found the DA helpful.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A DA may improve older women's decision making about mammography screening.
OBIETTIVO: Per confrontare l'incidenza del cancro al seno e la mortalità fino a 25 anni nelle donne di età compresa tra 40-59 che hanno fatto o non hanno subito lo screening mammografico.
DESIGN: Follow-up di studio randomizzato di screening dai coordinatori del centro, ufficio centrale dello studio, e linkage al registro dei tumori e banche dati statistiche vitali.
IMPOSTAZIONE: 15 centri di screening in sei province canadesi, 1980-1985 (Nuova Scozia, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, e British Columbia).
PARTECIPANTI: 89.835 donne, di età compresa 40-59, assegnati in modo casuale alla mammografia (cinque schermi annuali mammografia) o di controllo (senza mammografia).
INTERVENTI: Le donne di età compresa tra 40-49 nel braccio mammografia e tutte le donne di età compresa tra 50-59 in entrambi i bracci hanno ricevuto esami al seno fisici annuali. Le donne di età compresa tra 40-49 nel braccio di controllo hanno ricevuto una singola esame seguito da consueta cura nella comunità.
Principale misura di esito morti per cancro al seno.
RISULTATI: Durante il periodo di screening di cinque anni, 666 tumori al seno invasivi sono stati diagnosticati nel braccio mammografia (n = 44.925 partecipanti) e 524 nei controlli (n = 44.910), e di questi, 180 donne nel gruppo mammografia e 171 donne in il braccio di controllo è morto di cancro al seno nel corso del periodo di follow-up 25 anni. L'hazard ratio complessiva di morte per cancro al seno diagnosticato durante il periodo di screening associato a mammografia was 1,05 (intervallo di confidenza al 95% 0,85 a 1,30). I risultati per le donne di età compresa tra 40-49 e 50-59 erano quasi identici. Durante tutto il periodo di studio, 3250 donne nel braccio mammografia e 3133 nel braccio di controllo avevano una diagnosi di cancro al seno, e 500 e 505, rispettivamente, è morto di cancro al seno. Così la mortalità cumulativa di cancro al seno è risultata simile tra le donne nel braccio mammografia e nel braccio di controllo (HR 0,99, IC 95% 0,88-1,12). Dopo 15 anni di follow-up di un eccesso residuo di 106 tumori è stata osservata nel braccio mammografia, riconducibile a un eccesso di diagnosi.
CONCLUSIONE: mammografia annuale nelle donne di età compresa tra 40-59 non riduce la mortalità per cancro al seno oltre che di un esame fisico o solita cura quando la terapia adiuvante per il tumore al seno è liberamente disponibile. Complessivamente, il 22% (106/484) di schermo rilevato tumori al seno invasivi erano troppo diagnosticati, che rappresenta un cancro over-diagnosi seno per ogni 424 donne che hanno ricevuto lo screening mammografico nel processo.
PURPOSE: Cancer screening programs have the potential of intended beneficial effects, but they also inevitably have unintended harmful effects. In the case of screening mammography, the most frequent harm is a false-positive result. Prior efforts to measure their psychosocial consequences have been limited by short-term follow-up, the use of generic survey instruments, and the lack of a relevant benchmark-women with breast cancer.
METHODS: In this cohort study with a 3-year follow-up, we recruited 454 women with abnormal findings in screening mammography over a 1-year period. For each woman with an abnormal finding on a screening mammogram (false and true positives), we recruited another 2 women with normal screening results who were screened the same day at the same clinic. These participants were asked to complete the Consequences of Screening in Breast Cancer-a validated questionnaire encompassing 12 psychosocial outcomes-at baseline, 1, 6, 18, and 36 months.
RESULTS: Six months after final diagnosis, women with false-positive findings reported changes in existential values and inner calmness as great as those reported by women with a diagnosis of breast cancer (Δ = 1.15; P = .015; and Δ = 0.13; P = .423, respectively). Three years after being declared free of cancer, women with false-positive results consistently reported greater negative psychosocial consequences compared with women who had normal findings in all 12 psychosocial outcomes (Δ >0 for 12 of 12 outcomes; P <.01 for 4 of 12 outcomes).
CONCLUSION: False-positive findings on screening mammography causes long-term psychosocial harm: 3 years after a false-positive finding, women experience psychosocial consequences that range between those experienced by women with a normal mammogram and those with a diagnosis of breast cancer.
Background Uncertainty exists about the appropriate use of screening mammography among older women because comorbid illnesses may diminish the benefit of screening. We examined the risk of adverse tumor characteristics and false positive rates according to screening interval, age, and comorbidity. Methods From January 1999 to December 2006, data were collected prospectively on 2993 older women with breast cancer and 137 949 older women without breast cancer who underwent mammography at facilities that participated in a data linkage between the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium and Medicare claims. Women were aged 66 to 89 years at study entry to allow for measurement of 1 year of preexisting illnesses. We used logistic regression analyses to calculate the odds of advanced (IIb, III, IV) stage, large (>20 millimeters) tumors, and 10-year cumulative probability of false-positive mammography by screening frequency (1 vs 2 years), age, and comorbidity score. The comorbidity score was derived using the Klabunde approximation of the Charlson score. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results Adverse tumor characteristics did not differ statistically significantly by comorbidity, age, or interval. Cumulative probability of a false-positive mammography result was higher among annual screeners than biennial screeners irrespective of comorbidity: 48.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 46.1% to 49.9%) of annual screeners aged 66 to 74 years had a false-positive result compared with 29.0% (95% CI = 28.1% to 29.9%) of biennial screeners. Conclusion Women aged 66 to 89 years who undergo biennial screening mammography have similar risk of advanced-stage disease and lower cumulative risk of a false-positive recommendation than annual screeners, regardless of comorbidity.
BACKGROUND: In the current study, mammography adherence of women who had experienced a false-positive referral is evaluated, with emphasis on the probability of receiving surveillance mammography outside the national screening programme.
METHODS: We included 424,703 consecutive screens and collected imaging, biopsy and surgery reports of 3463 women who experienced a false-positive referral. Adherence to screening, both in and outside the screening programme, was evaluated.
RESULTS: Two years after the false-positive referral, overall screening adherence was 94.6%, with 64.7% of women returning to the national screening programme, compared with 94.9% of women re-attending the screening programme after a negative screen (P<0.0001). Four years after the false-positive screen, the overall adherence had decreased to 85.2% (P<0.0001) with a similar proportion of the women re-attending the screening programme (64.4%) and a lower proportion (20.8%) having clinical surveillance mammography. Women who had experienced a false-positive screen at their first screening round were less likely to adhere to mammography than women with an abnormal finding at one of the following screening rounds (92.4% vs 95.5%, P<0.0001).
CONCLUSION: Overall screening adherence after previous false-positive referral was comparable to the re-attendance rate of women with a negative screen at 2-year follow-up. Overall adherence decreased 4 years after previous false-positive referral from 94.6% to 85.2%, with a relatively high estimate of women who continue with clinical surveillance mammography (20.8%). Women with false-positive screens should be made aware of the importance to re-attend future screening rounds, as a way to improve the effectiveness of the screening programme.
OBJECTIVE: To elicit women's responses to information about the nature and extent of overdiagnosis in mammography screening (detecting disease that would not present clinically during the woman's lifetime) and explore how awareness of overdiagnosis might influence attitudes and intentions about screening.
DESIGN: Qualitative study using focus groups that included a presentation explaining overdiagnosis, incorporating different published estimates of its rate (1-10%, 30%, 50%) and information on the mortality benefit of screening, with guided group discussions
SETTING: Sydney, Australia
PARTICIPANTS: Fifty women aged 40-79 years with no personal history of breast cancer and with varying levels of education and participation in screening.
RESULTS: Prior awareness of breast cancer overdiagnosis was minimal. Women generally reacted with surprise, but most came to understand the issue. Responses to overdiagnosis and the different estimates of its magnitude were diverse. The highest estimate (50%) made some women perceive a need for more careful personal decision making about screening. In contrast, the lower and intermediate estimates (1-10% and 30%) had limited impact on attitudes and intentions, with many women remaining committed to screening. For some women, the information raised concerns, not about whether to screen but whether to treat a screen detected cancer or consider alternative approaches (such as watchful waiting). Information preferences varied: many women considered it important to take overdiagnosis into account and make informed choices about whether to have screening, but many wanted to be encouraged to be screened.
CONCLUSIONS: Women from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds could comprehend the issue of overdiagnosis in mammography screening, and they generally valued information about it. Effects on screening intentions may depend heavily on the rate of overdiagnosis. Overdiagnosis will be new and counterintuitive for many people and may influence screening and treatment decisions in unintended ways, underscoring the need for careful communication.
IMPORTANCE: Controversy exists about the frequency women should undergo screening mammography and whether screening interval should vary according to risk factors beyond age.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the benefits and harms of screening mammography frequencies according to age, breast density, and postmenopausal hormone therapy (HT) use.
DESIGN: Prospective cohort.
SETTING: Data collected January 1994 to December 2008 from mammography facilities in community practice that participate in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) mammography registries.
PARTICIPANTS: Data were collected prospectively on 11,474 women with breast cancer and 922,624 without breast cancer who underwent mammography at facilities that participate in the BCSC.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We used logistic regression to calculate the odds of advanced stage (IIb, III, or IV) and large tumors (>20 mm in diameter) and 10-year cumulative probability of a false-positive mammography result by screening frequency, age, breast density, and HT use. The main predictor was screening mammography interval.
RESULTS: Mammography biennially vs annually for women aged 50 to 74 years does not increase risk of tumors with advanced stage or large size regardless of women's breast density or HT use. Among women aged 40 to 49 years with extremely dense breasts, biennial mammography vs annual is associated with increased risk of advanced-stage cancer (odds ratio [OR], 1.89; 95% CI, 1.06-3.39) and large tumors (OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.37-4.18). Cumulative probability of a false-positive mammography result was high among women undergoing annual mammography with extremely dense breasts who were either aged 40 to 49 years (65.5%) or used estrogen plus progestogen (65.8%) and was lower among women aged 50 to 74 years who underwent biennial or triennial mammography with scattered fibroglandular densities (30.7% and 21.9%, respectively) or fatty breasts (17.4% and 12.1%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Women aged 50 to 74 years, even those with high breast density or HT use, who undergo biennial screening mammography have similar risk of advanced-stage disease and lower cumulative risk of false-positive results than those who undergo annual mammography. When deciding whether to undergo mammography, women aged 40 to 49 years who have extremely dense breasts should be informed that annual mammography may minimize their risk of advanced-stage disease but the cumulative risk of false-positive results is high.
BACKGROUND: Decreased anxiety has been reported among women with false-positive results in mammography screening programs. No long-term effects have been fully demonstrated, and the findings for anxiety and depression are contradictory. Few studies have addressed changes in health-related quality of life (HRQOL).
OBJECTIVE: The objective was to study the short- and long-term effects such as changes in anxiety, depression, and HRQOL among women with false-positive results.
METHODS: With a longitudinal study design, data were collected on anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and HRQOL (Short-Form 36 [SF-36] Health Survey) among women with false-positive results before screening, at recall, and at 3 and 6 months after screening. Controls (negative results in screening) were measured before screening and at 6 months after.
RESULTS: Women with false-positive results (n = 128) showed increased anxiety at recall (mean, 4.6 [SD, 3.7]) versus before screening (P = .04), but this decreased until 6 months after screening. Depression was increased until 6 months after screening (not statistically significant). Women with false-positive results scored lower than did control subjects on general health (P = .02) and mental health (P = .03) and higher on depression (P = .045) at 6 months after screening.
CONCLUSIONS: Efforts should be made to minimize anxiety at recall and depression after screening. Further research is needed on the long-term effects of recall and any effects on HRQOL.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Information about the prevalence of false-positive results and time until unambiguous diagnostic results should be improved. Information leaflet based on evidence needs to be continually updated.
BACKGROUND: To reduce mortality, screening must detect life-threatening disease at an earlier, more curable stage. Effective cancer-screening programs therefore both increase the incidence of cancer detected at an early stage and decrease the incidence of cancer presenting at a late stage.
METHODS: We used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data to examine trends from 1976 through 2008 in the incidence of early-stage breast cancer (ductal carcinoma in situ and localized disease) and late-stage breast cancer (regional and distant disease) among women 40 years of age or older.
RESULTS: The introduction of screening mammography in the United States has been associated with a doubling in the number of cases of early-stage breast cancer that are detected each year, from 112 to 234 cases per 100,000 women--an absolute increase of 122 cases per 100,000 women. Concomitantly, the rate at which women present with late-stage cancer has decreased by 8%, from 102 to 94 cases per 100,000 women--an absolute decrease of 8 cases per 100,000 women. With the assumption of a constant underlying disease burden, only 8 of the 122 additional early-stage cancers diagnosed were expected to progress to advanced disease. After excluding the transient excess incidence associated with hormone-replacement therapy and adjusting for trends in the incidence of breast cancer among women younger than 40 years of age, we estimated that breast cancer was overdiagnosed (i.e., tumors were detected on screening that would never have led to clinical symptoms) in 1.3 million U.S. women in the past 30 years. We estimated that in 2008, breast cancer was overdiagnosed in more than 70,000 women; this accounted for 31% of all breast cancers diagnosed.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite substantial increases in the number of cases of early-stage breast cancer detected, screening mammography has only marginally reduced the rate at which women present with advanced cancer. Although it is not certain which women have been affected, the imbalance suggests that there is substantial overdiagnosis, accounting for nearly a third of all newly diagnosed breast cancers, and that screening is having, at best, only a small effect on the rate of death from breast cancer.
BACKGROUND: Mammography is the only breast screening method, we are aware of today, which is able to reduce mortality from breast cancer. Nevertheless, this procedure carries an inherent risk of false-positive screening mammogram. The association between these results and reattendance at the next scheduled screening mammogram is controversial. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of a false-positive screening mammogram and women's characteristics on reattendance in eight regional population-based breast cancer screening programmes in Spain.
METHODS: This study included 1 383 032 women aged 44-67 years who were initially screened for breast cancer between 1990 and 2004. To investigate factors associated with reattendance, logistic regression models were used.
RESULTS: The mean age of women at first screening was 53.6 years (SD = 6.1 years). Of 120 800 women with a false-positive screening mammogram, 78.3% returned for a subsequent screening mammogram compared with 81.9% of those with a negative result (P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that women with a false-positive result at first screening mammogram were less likely to reattend (OR = 0.71; 95% CI 0.70-0.73) and that the likelihood was lower in those who had undergone invasive additional tests (OR = 0.56; 95% CI 0.53-0.59).
CONCLUSION: A false-positive screening mammogram in the first screening negatively affected attendance at the subsequent screening. The results of this study could be useful to improve the screening process and to increase women's compliance.
Guidelines recommend that women 75 years and older should be informed of the benefits and risks of mammography before being screened. However, few are adequately informed.
OBJECTIVES:
To develop and evaluate a mammography screening decision aid (DA) for women 75 years and older.
DESIGN:
We designed the DA using international standards. Between July 14, 2010, and April 10, 2012, participants completed a pretest survey and read the DA before an appointment with their primary care physician. They completed a posttest survey after their appointment. Medical records were reviewed for follow-up information.
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:
Boston, Massachusetts, academic primary care practice. Eligible women were aged 75 to 89 years, English speaking, had not had a mammogram in 9 months but had been screened within the past 3 years, and did not have a history of dementia or invasive or noninvasive breast cancer. Of 84 women approached, 27 declined to participate, 12 were unable to complete the study for logistical reasons, and 45 participated.
INTERVENTIONS:
The DA includes information on breast cancer risk, life expectancy, competing mortality risks, possible outcomes of screening, and a values clarification exercise.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:
Knowledge of the benefits and risks of screening, decisional conflict, and screening intentions; documentation in the medical record of a discussion of the risks and benefits of mammography with a primary care physician within 6 months; and the receipt of screening within 15 months. We used the Wilcoxon signed rank test and McNemar test to compare pretest-posttest information.
RESULTS:
The median age of participants was 79 years, 69% (31 of 45) were of non-Hispanic white race/ethnicity, and 60% (27 of 45) had attended at least some college. Comparison of posttest results with pretest results demonstrated 2 findings. First, knowledge of the benefits and risks of screening improved (P < .001). Second, fewer participants intended to be screened (56% [25 of 45] afterward compared with 82% [37 of 45] before, P = .03). Decisional conflict declined but not significantly (P = .10). In the following 6 months, 53% (24 of 45) of participants had a primary care physician note that documented the discussion of the risks and benefits of screening compared with 11% (5 of 45) in the previous 5 years (P < .001). While 84% (36 of 43) had been screened within 2 years of participating, 60% (26 of 43) were screened within 15 months after participating (≥ 2 years since their last mammogram) (P = .01). Overall, 93% (42 of 45) found the DA helpful.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:
A DA may improve older women's decision making about mammography screening.
