Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Nightingale, JM; Borgen, R; Porter-Bennett, L; Szczepura, K
Publisher: Elsevier
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: health_and_wellbeing
Introduction: Women attending breast screening may have suspicious mammographic findings that are subsequently found at assessment clinic to be normal (false positive, FP). A false positive diagnosis is not harmless, with short and long term negative psychosocial consequences reported. Women are at increased relative risk of breast cancer therefore their attendance at subsequent screening is essential.\ud \ud Aims: To assess the impact of FP breast screening diagnosis and diagnostic work-up on re-attendance rates across four consecutive screening rounds at a typical breast screening centre. \ud \ud Method: Diagnostic interventions and screening re-attendance rates at one prior and two consecutive rounds were analysed for women receiving a FP diagnosis between 2004-2006. \ud \ud Results: 397 women (5.57%) were referred for further assessment, including 228 (57.43%) false positives. 34 eligible women failed to re-attend routine screening (+ 3 years), with 17 failing to re-attend subsequently (+ 6 years). 70.6% (24/34) of non-attenders had attended at least two screening rounds prior to FP assessment. 75% of FP women had an imaging-only assessment with 17.5% (30/171) failing to re-attend, and 25% received a biopsy, with 7% (4/57) failing to re-attend subsequently. \ud \ud Conclusion: This study is unique as it follows FP women through four consecutive screening rounds. FP non-attendance rates were considerably lower compared to the general screening population, with diagnostic work-up having limited influence. FP non-attendance may appear insignificant in comparison to total screened population, but these women are at greater risk of subsequent cancer so should be actively encouraged to re-engage with the screening programme.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Cancer Research UK Cancer Statistics http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/breast/ Accessed 02/10/13
    • 2. Breast Screening Programme website. http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/breastscreen/index.html Accessed 23.04.11
    • 3. McCann J, Stockton D, Godward S. Impact of false-positive mammography on subsequent screening attendance and risk of cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2002;4(5):R11 EPub
    • 4. Von Euler-chelpin M; Risør LM; Thorsted BL; Vejborg I. Risk of breast cancer after falsepositive test results in screening mammography. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2012;104(9):682-9
    • 5. Brewer NT, Salt T, Lillie SE. Systematic review: the long term effects of false-positive mammograms. Ann Intern Med 2007;146(7):502-510
    • 6. Salz T, DeFrank J, Brewer N. False positive mammograms in Europe: do they affect reattendance? Invited Commentary. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011;127:229-231
    • 7. Rimer BK, Bluman LG. The psychosocial consequences of mammography. Journal of National Cancer Institute monographs 1997;22:131-138
    • 8. Brodersen J, Siersma VD. Long-term psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening mammography. Annals of Family Medicine 2013;11(2):106-115
    • 9. 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
    • 10. Signeurin A, Exbrayat C, Laberere J, Delafosse P, Poncet F. Association of diagnostic workup with subsequent attendance in a breast screening program for false-positive cases. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011;127(1):221-228
    • 11. Fitzpatrick P, Fleming P, O'Neill S, Kiernan D, Mooney T. False-positive mammographic screening: factors influencing re-attendance over a decade of screening. J Med Screen 2011;18(1):30-3.
    • 12. Van der Steeg AFW, Keyzer-Dekker CMG, De Vries J, Roukema JA. Effect of abnormal screening mammogram on quality of life. British Journal of Surgery 2011;98(4):537-42
    • 13. NHSBSP. Consolidated guidance on standards for the NHS Breast Screening Programme. NHSBSP Publication No. 60 (Version 2), April 2005. Published by NHS Cancer Screening Programme
    • 14. NHSBSP. Clinical Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening Assessment. NHSBSP Publication No 49, June 2010. Published by NHS Cancer Screening Programmes NHS
    • 15. Giles K, Green R. The impact of false positive screening mammography on subsequent breast screening participation. Poster Presentation. United Kingdom Radiological Congress Abstracts book. 2013;p25.
    • 16. de Sousa E, Barr L. The effect of a 'false positive' recall on intention to re-attend for screening mammography. European Journal of Surgical Oncology 2012;38(5):461
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article