Characteristics and screening outcome of women referred twice at screening mammography
- PMID: 22696156
- DOI: 10.1007/s00330-012-2523-1
Characteristics and screening outcome of women referred twice at screening mammography
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.
Similar articles
-
Additional double reading of screening mammograms by radiologic technologists: impact on screening performance parameters.J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Aug 1;99(15):1162-70. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djm050. Epub 2007 Jul 24. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007. PMID: 17652282
-
Delayed diagnosis of breast cancer in women recalled for suspicious screening mammography.Eur J Cancer. 2009 Mar;45(5):774-81. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.020. Epub 2008 Dec 4. Eur J Cancer. 2009. PMID: 19046632
-
Detection of bilateral breast cancer at biennial screening mammography in the Netherlands: a population-based study.Radiology. 2011 Aug;260(2):357-63. doi: 10.1148/radiol.11102117. Epub 2011 Apr 7. Radiology. 2011. PMID: 21474705
-
Blinded double reading yields a higher programme sensitivity than non-blinded double reading at digital screening mammography: a prospected population based study in the south of The Netherlands.Eur J Cancer. 2015 Feb;51(3):391-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.12.008. Epub 2015 Jan 5. Eur J Cancer. 2015. PMID: 25573788
-
A multicentre review of the direct-access mammography programme in Ireland for women with breast pain.Clin Radiol. 2024 Feb;79(2):e227-e231. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2023.10.030. Epub 2023 Nov 11. Clin Radiol. 2024. PMID: 38007335 Review.
Cited by
-
Screening outcome in women repeatedly recalled for the same mammographic abnormality before, during and after the transition from screen-film to full-field digital screening mammography.Eur Radiol. 2017 Feb;27(2):553-561. doi: 10.1007/s00330-016-4399-y. Epub 2016 May 14. Eur Radiol. 2017. PMID: 27180183
References
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical