Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Characteristics and screening outcome of women referred twice at screening mammography

  • Breast
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To determine the characteristics and screening outcome of women referred twice at screening mammography.

Methods

We included 424,703 consecutive screening mammograms and collected imaging, biopsy and surgery reports of women with screen-detected breast cancer. Review of screening mammograms was performed to determine whether or not an initial and second referral comprised the same lesion.

Results

The overall positive predictive value of referral for cancer was 38.6% (95% CI 37.3-39.8%). Of 147 (2.6%) women referred twice, 86 had been referred for a different lesion at second referral and 32 of these proved malignant (37.2%, 95% CI 27.0-47.4%). Sixty-one women had been referred twice for the same lesion, of which 22 proved malignant (36.1%, 95% CI 24.1-48.0%). Characteristics of these women were comparable to women with cancer diagnosed after first referral. Compared with women without cancer at second referral for the same lesion, women with cancer more frequently showed suspicious densities at screening mammography (86.4% vs 53.8%, P = 0.02) and work-up at first referral had less frequently included biopsy (22.7% vs 61.5%, P = 0.004).

Conclusions

Cancer risk in women referred twice for the same lesion is similar to that observed in women referred once, or referred for a second time but for a different lesion.

Key Points

• Cancer risk was 36% for lesions referred twice at screening mammography

• The cancer risk was similar for lesions referred only once at screening

• Densities at first referral were associated with increased cancer risk at second referral

• No biopsy at first referral was associated with increased cancer risk at second referral

• Patient and tumour characteristics were similar for women with and without diagnostic delay

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dowling E, Klabunde C, Patnick J, Ballard-Barbash R (2010) International Cancer Screening Network (ICSN) Breast and cervical cancer screening programme implementation in 16 countries. J Med Screen 17:139–146

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Smith-Bindman R, Chu PW, Miglioretti DL et al (2003) Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United Kingdom. JAMA 290:2129–2137

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Duijm LE, Groenewoud JH, de Koning HJ et al (2009) Delayed diagnosis of breast cancer in women recalled for suspicious screening mammography. Eur J Cancer 45:774–781

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Seigneurin A, Exbrayat C, Labarère J, Delafosse P, Poncet F, Colonna M (2011) Association of diagnostic work-up with subsequent attendance in a breast cancer screening program for false-positive cases. Breast Cancer Res 127:221–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lampic C, Thurfjell E, Bergh J, Sjödérn PO (2001) Short- and long-term anxiety and depression in women recalled after breast cancer screening. Eur J Cancer 37:436–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hofvind S, Thorensen S, Tretli S (2004) The cumulative risk of a false-positive recall in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. Cancer 101:1501–1507

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. van der Steeg AF, Keyzer-Dekker CM, de Vries J, Roukema JA (2011) Effect of abnormal screening mammogram on quality of life. Br J Surg 98:537–542

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Duijm LE, Groenewoud JH, Fracheboud J et al (2008) Utilization and cost of diagnostic imaging and biopsies following positive screening mammography in the southern breast cancer screening region of the Netherlands, 2000-2005. Eur Radiol 18:1390–1397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brewer NT, Salz T, Lillie SE (2007) Systematic review: the long term effects of false-positive mammograms. Ann Intern Med 146:502–510

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Annual Report BOZ (Bevolkings Onderzoek Zuid) 2009, www.bevolkingsonderzoekzuid.nl/page3344/Jaarverslag

  11. Fracheboud J, de Koning HJ, Beemsterboer PM et al (1998) Nation-wide breast cancer screening in the Netherlands: results of initial and subsequent screening 1990-1995. National Evaluation Team for Breast Cancer Screening. Int J Cancer 75:694–698

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Maes RM, Dronkers DJ, Hendriks JH, Thijssen MA, Nab HW (1997) Do non-specific minimal signs in a biennial mammographic breast cancer screening programme need further diagnostic assessment? Br J Radiol 70:34–38

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. UICC (International Union Against Cancer) (1997) In: Sobin LH, Wittekind C (eds) TNM classification of malignant tumours, 5th edn. Wiley-Liss, New-York

  14. American College of Radiology (2003) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS), 4th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston

  15. Setz-Pels W, Duijm LE, Groenewoud JH et al (2011) Detection of bilateral breast cancer at biennial screening mammography in the Netherlands: a population based study. Radiology 260:357–363

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Richards MA, Westcombe AM, Love SB, Littlejohns P, Ramirez AJ (1999) Influence of delay on survival in patients with breast cancer: a systematic review. Lancet 353:1119–1126

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Physician Insurers Association of America (2003) Breast cancer report. Physician Insurers Association of America, Rockville

  18. Vizcaíno I, Gadea L, Andreo L; Screening Program Working Group et al (2001) Short-term follow-up results in 795 non-palpable probably benign lesions detected at screening mammography. Radiology 219:475–483

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Yasmeen S, Romano PS, Pettinger M et al (2003) Frequency and predictive value of a mammographic recommendation for short-interval follow-up. J Natl Cancer Inst 95:429–436

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rosen EL, Baker JA, Soo MS (2002) Malignant lesions initially subjected to short-term mammographic follow-up. Radiology 223:221–228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Duijm LE, Groeneveld JH, Jansen FH, Fracheboud J, van Beek M, de Koning HJ (2004) Mammography screening in the Netherlands: delay in the diagnosis of breast cancer after breast cancer screening. Br J Cancer 91:1795–1799

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Ambrogetti D et al (2007) Minority report-false negative breast assessment in women recalled for suspicious screening mammography: imaging and pathological features, and associated delay in diagnosis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 105:37–43

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Rakha EA, Lee AH, Reed J et al (2010) Screen-detected malignant breast lesions diagnosed following benign (B2) or normal (B1) needle core biopsy diagnoses. Eur J Cancer 46:1835–1840

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Youk JH, Kim EK, Kim MJ, Lee JY, Oh KK (2007) Missed breast cancers at US-guided core needle biopsy: how to reduce them. Radiographics 27:79–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Otten JD, Karssemeijer N, Hendriks JH et al (2005) Effect of recall rate on earlier screen detection of breast cancers based on the Dutch performance indicators. J Nat Cancer Inst 97:748–754

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Yankaskas BC, Cleveland RJ, Schell MJ, Kozar R (2001) Association of recall rates with sensitivity and positive predictive values of screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 177:543–549

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Lampic C, Thurfjell E, Bergh J, Sjödérn PO (2003) The influence of false-positive mammogram on women’s subsequent behaviour for detecting breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 39:1730–1737

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Andersen SB, Vejborg I, von Euler-Chelpin M (2008) Particiaption behaviour following a false positive test in the Copenhagen mammography screening programme. Acta Oncologica 47:550–555

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. McCann J, Stockton D, Godward S (2002) Impact of false-positive mammography on subsequent screening attendance and risk of cancer. Breast Cancer Res 4:R11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Pinckney RG, Geller BM, Burman M, Littenberg B (2003) Effect of false-positive mammograms on return for subsequent screening mammography. Am J Med 114:120–125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Duijm LE, Groenewoud JH, Roumen RM, de Koning HJ, Plaisir M, Fracheboud J (2007) A decade of breast cancer screening in the Netherlands: trends in preoperative diagnosis of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 106:113–119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ciatto S, Rosselli del Turco M, Ambrogetti D et al (1997) Solid nonpalpable breast lesions. Success and failure of guided fine-needle aspiration cytology in a consecutive series of 2444 cases. Acta Radiol 38:815–820

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Arisio R, Cuccorese C, Accinelli G, Mano MP, Bordon R, Fessia L (1998) Role of fine-needle aspiration biopsy in breast lesions: analysis of a series of 4,110 cases. Diagn Cytopathol 18:462–467

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Pisano ED, Fajardo LL, Sneige N et al (2001) Fine-needle aspiration biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions in a multicenter clinical trial: results from the radiologic diagnostic oncology group. Radiology 219:785–792

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Catharina Hospital, PO Box 1350, 5602 ZA, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Wikke Setz-Pels, Lucien E. M. Duijm & Frits H. Jansen

  2. Comprehensive Cancer Centre South (IKZ)/Eindhoven Cancer Registry, PO Box 231, 5600 AE, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Marieke W. J. Louwman & Adri C. Voogd

  3. Department of Surgery, Maxima Medical Centre, PO Box 7777, 5500 MB, Veldhoven, The Netherlands

    Rudi M. H. Roumen

  4. Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Adri C. Voogd

Authors
  1. Wikke Setz-Pels
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lucien E. M. Duijm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marieke W. J. Louwman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rudi M. H. Roumen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Frits H. Jansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Adri C. Voogd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wikke Setz-Pels.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Setz-Pels, W., Duijm, L.E.M., Louwman, M.W.J. et al. Characteristics and screening outcome of women referred twice at screening mammography. Eur Radiol 22, 2624–2632 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2523-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2523-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation