Impact of false-positive mammography on subsequent screening attendance and risk of XXXX .

@entity1 @entity854 @entity148 @entity5
BACKGROUND: One area of concern within the largely successful UK National Health Service breast screening programme is the relatively high proportion of @entity1 showing @entity854 who undergo further diagnostic tests that prove negative. Previous studies suggest that, in addition to increasing @entity148 , such false-positive mammography is associated with increased risk of subsequent interval @entity5 . In the present article, we quantify this increased risk, investigate whether it extends to @entity5 detected at rescreening, and determine whether @entity5 differ between @entity1 who have, and have not, experienced false-positive mammography. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of 140,387 @entity1 aged 49-63 years routinely invited for first screening by the East Anglian National Health Service breast screening programme. Proportions reattending, and subsequent risk and pathological attributes of @entity5 were compared between @entity1 who underwent further (negative) assessment following false-positive mammography and @entity1 mammographically normal at first screen. RESULTS: At first screen, 108,617 (91.9%) of the screened @entity1 were mammographically normal, 4278 (3.6%) were assessed and then judged normal, and 514 (0.4%) underwent benign biopsy. Compared with nonassessed normal @entity1 , reattendance was lower among assessed @entity1 : 83.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 82.0-84.1) versus 85.7% (95% CI, 85.5-85.9) (odds ratio [OR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.76-0.89). Assessed @entity1 were at greater risk of interval @entity5 (rate per 1000 @entity1 screened, 9.6 [95% CI, 6.8-12.4] versus 3.0 [95% CI, 2.7-3.4]; OR, 3.19 [95% CI, 2.34-4.35]), and also of @entity5 detected at second screen (rate per 1000, 8.4 [95% CI, 5.8-10.9] versus 3.9 [95% CI, 3.5-4.3]; OR, 2.15 [95% CI, 1.55-2.98]). More @entity5 in assessed @entity1 measured >or = 20 mm (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 0.99-2.55). CONCLUSIONS: @entity1 undergoing false-positive mammography at first screen were less likely to reattend for subsequent screens than were nonassessed @entity1 , yet they were more likely to develop @entity5 or @entity5 at second screen, and their @entity5 were larger. Factors predisposing for false-positive mammography require investigation. @entity1 should be encouraged to continue with screening.
