Background

In the UK, women aged 50–73 years are invited for screening by mammography every 3 years. In 2009–10, more than 2.24 million women in this age group in England were invited to take part in the programme, of whom 73% attended a screening clinic. Of these, 64,104 women were recalled for assessment. Of those recalled, 81% did not have breast cancer; these women are described as having a false-positive mammogram.

 Objective

The aim of this systematic review was to identify the psychological impact on women of false-positive screening mammograms and any evidence for the effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce this impact. We were also looking for evidence of effects in subgroups of women.

 Data sources

MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Health Management Information Consortium, Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, CRD Health Technology Assessment (HTA), Cochrane Methodology, Web of Science, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, Conference Proceeding Citation Index-Social Science and Humanities, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Sociological Abstracts, the International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, the British Library's Electronic Table of Contents and others. Initial searches were carried out between 8 October 2010 and 25 January 2011. Update searches were carried out on 26 October 2011 and 23 March 2012.

 Review methods

Based on the inclusion criteria, titles and abstracts were screened independently by two reviewers. Retrieved papers were reviewed and selected using the same independent process. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by another. Each included study was assessed for risk of bias.

 Results

Eleven studies were found from 4423 titles and abstracts. Studies that used disease-specific measures found a negative psychological impact lasting up to 3 years. Distress increased with the level of invasiveness of the assessment procedure. Studies using instruments designed to detect clinical levels of morbidity did not find this effect. Women with false-positive mammograms were less likely to return for the next round of screening [relative risk (RR) 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 0.98] than those with normal mammograms, were more likely to have interval cancer [odds ratio (OR) 3.19 (95% CI 2.34 to 4.35)] and were more likely to have cancer detected at the next screening round [OR 2.15 (95% CI 1.55 to 2.98)].

 Limitations

This study was limited to UK research and by the robustness of the included studies, which frequently failed to report quality indicators, for example failure to consider the risk of bias or confounding, or failure to report participants' demographic characteristics.

 Conclusions

We conclude that the experience of having a false-positive screening mammogram can cause breast cancer-specific psychological distress that may endure for up to 3 years, and reduce the likelihood that women will return for their next round of mammography screening. These results should be treated cautiously owing to inherent weakness of observational designs and weaknesses in reporting. Future research should include a qualitative interview study and observational studies that compare generic and disease-specific measures, collect demographic data and include women from different social and ethnic groups.

Systematic review of the psychological consequences of false-positive screening mammograms

Synthesized 2D images can be reconstructed from tomosynthesis images in breast imaging. This study aims to investigate the diagnostic efficacy of synthesized 2D images (C-View) in comparison to full field digital mammography (FFDM) when used with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in multi-ethnic Malaysian population. FFDM and C-View images (n = 380) were independently evaluated by three readers through Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) categorisation, breast density and lesion characterisation. Statistical analysis was done comparing sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of C-View + DBT with FFDM + DBT as standard of reference. Very good interreader agreement in BI-RADS category and density assessment between C-View + DBT and FFDM + DBT, with high sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of C-View + DBT when compared with FFDM + DBT. There was comparable PPV between C-View + DBT and FFDM + DBT, with histopathology as gold standard. High level of interreader agreement in BI-RADS category and density assessment for FFDM + DBT and C-View + DBT. There was good agreement between FFDM + DBT and C-View + DBT in mass characterization, and almost perfect agreement in calcification and asymmetric density. 52.2% lower radiation dose incurred when using C-View + DBT. Hence, synthesized 2D images are comparable to FFDM with reduction in radiation dose within the limits of Malaysian multi-ethnic population.

/pdf/diagnostic-efficacy-of-synthesized-2d-digital-breast-4aeeq2kmn9.pdf

Diagnostic Efficacy of Synthesized 2D Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Multi-ethnic Malaysian Population.

Aim Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT), with or without Digital Mammography (DM) or Synthetic Mammography (SM), has been introduced or is under consideration for its introduction in breast cancer screening in several countries, as it has been shown that it has advantages over DM. Despite this there is no agreement on how to implement DBT in screening, and in many cases there is a lack of official guidance on the optimum usage of each commercially available system. The aim of this review is to carry out a manufacturer-specific summary of studies on the implementation of DBT in breast cancer screening. Methods An exhaustive literature review was undertaken to identify clinical observer studies that evaluated at least one of five common metrics: sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) analysis, recall rate and cancer detection rate. Four common DBT implementation methods were discussed in this review: (1) DBT, (2) DM with DBT, (3) 1-view DBT with or without 1-view DM or 2-view DM and (4) DBT with SM. Results A summary of 89 studies, selected from a database of 677 studies, on the assessment of the implementation of DBT in breast cancer screening is presented in tables and discussed in a manufacturer- and metric-specific approach. Much more studies were carried out using some DBT systems than others. For one implementation method of DBT by one manufacturer there is a shortage of studies, for another implementation there are conflicting results. In some cases, there is a strong agreement between studies, making the advantages and disadvantages of each system clear. Conclusion The optimum implementation method of DBT in breast screening, in terms of diagnostic benefit and patient radiation dose, for one manufacturer does not necessarily apply to other manufacturers.

/pdf/the-role-of-digital-breast-tomosynthesis-in-breast-cancer-2sr9mfs0h7.pdf

The role of digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: a manufacturer- and metrics-specific analysis.

Breast cancer is considered the most serious lesion among different breast lesions. Mammography is the corner stone for screening for detection of breast cancer. It has been modified to digital mammography (DM) and then to digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Tomosynthesis is an emerging technique for diagnosis and screening of breast lesions. The aim of this study is to interrogate whether the addition of DBT to DM helps in better detection and characterization of different breast lesions. This is a prospective study carried on 38 female patients according to our inclusion criteria. All patients were evaluated by using DM alone and thereafter with the addition of DBT to DM. Recall rate was calculated, and the imaging findings of each case were correlated with the final diagnosis and follow-up.
 DM identified 32 lesions while DBT with DM identified 37 lesions. On DM alone, 17 lesions were characterized as masses, 5 as focal asymmetry, 2 as architectural distortion, 7 as microcalcification and 1 as macrocalcification. With the addition of DBT, 27 lesions were characterized as masses, 1 as focal asymmetry, 1 as architectural distortion, 7 as microcalcification and 1 as macrocalcification. So, there were better detection and characterization of lesions with the addition of DBT than DM alone. The sensitivity, specificity, AUC, positive and negative predictive values were significantly higher with the addition of DBT to DM (100%, 90.5%, 0.952, 90% and 100%, respectively) than with DM (77.8%, 80.9%, 0.794, 77.8% and 80.9%, respectively) for all breast lesions. The addition of DBT to DM helps in better detection and characterization of different breast lesions. This leads to early detection of breast cancer, improvement of the performance of radiologists and saving time by reduction of recall rate.

N. Soneji

Papers

The effect of the addition of tomosynthesis to digital mammography on reader recall rate and reader confidence in the UK prevalent screening round.