Choice of Assessment and Subsequent Risk of Breast Cancer among Women with False-Positive Mammography Screening

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

27 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Women with false-positive mammography screening results have a two- to four-fold higher risk of breast cancer. This study aimed to investigate if the subsequent risk of breast cancer after a false-positive mammography screening is associated with the received diagnostic assessment. The study population consisted of women who underwent false-positive mammography screening from January 2010 to June 2019. They were categorised into seven groups depending on the elements in the assessment (standard care: additional mammography, ultrasound, and if they had a relevant biopsy). Risks of interval cancer, next-round screen-detected cancer, and long-term breast cancer for non-standard care assessments were compared to standard care assessments using Binomial and Cox regression models. We included 44,279 women with a false-positive result. Invasive assessments that lacked an ultrasound or additional mammography were not more associated with an increased risk of subsequent cancers compared to that of 'all three elements'. The few assessments that included 'only ultrasound' or 'only mammography' resulted in higher relative risks of next-round screen-detected cancer of 1.52 (95% CI: 0.93-2.47) and 1.67 (95% CI: 0.54-5.16), respectively, compared to that of standard care. The increased subsequent risk of breast cancer among women with a previous false-positive result was not found to be correlated with the choice of elements in the assessment process.

Original languageEnglish
Article number1867
JournalCancers
Volume15
Issue number6
Number of pages12
ISSN2072-6694
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 20. Mar 2023

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Choice of Assessment and Subsequent Risk of Breast Cancer among Women with False-Positive Mammography Screening'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this