Adverse effects of screening mammography

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2004.06.013Get rights and content

Section snippets

Discomfort from breast compression

The benefits from breast compression include sharper images with better exposure, more contrast, and reduction in radiation dose [3]. Improvements in breast compression devices and techniques over the past 30 years have allowed higher cancer detection rates and more comfortable examinations [4]. Most women tolerate compression well [5], [6]. Discomfort can be minimized by following some simple recommendations. Vigorous compression is not necessary [7]. Rather, the breast should be compressed

Screening recall rates

When screening mammography is “batch interpreted” the patient leaves the imaging center right after her standard two-view per breast screening mammogram is performed and checked for image quality by the technologist. Examinations are placed on rotating film viewer and are batch interpreted by the radiologist at a later time. Patients receive their results by mail. If mammographic findings indicate that supplementary views or ultrasound are needed, the patient must return on another day.

Because

False-positive biopsies

False-positive biopsies result in patient anxiety, discomfort, pain, and increased cost and decreased use of screening mammography. The American College of Radiology and the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality recommend that the PPV when biopsy is recommended (PPV2) should be 25% to 40% [15], [16]. PPV results are affected by patient age, risk factors, and presence of clinical signs and symptoms [35]. Results from several centers have found that PPV3 (cancers/biopsies performed) for

Relative risks for screening women ages 40 to 49

Breast cancer incidence increases with age and is 0.5, 1.8, 3.1, and 4 cases per 1000 women per year for ages 30 to 39, 40 to 49, 50 to 59, and 60 to 69 years, respectively [45]. Fewer than 0.5% of all breast cancers occur below age 40, compared with 18%, 23%, 18%, and 23% for women ages 40 to 49, 50 to 59, 60 to 69, and 70 to 79, respectively [45]. Moreover, because of the large representation of the 40- to 49-year-old age group in the American population and their longer life expectancy,

Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: benefit or harm?

Coincident with the increasing use of mammography there has also been a marked increase in the incidence of DCIS. Before the mammographic screening era, DCIS represented less than 5% of all malignancies of the breast [45]. DCIS now accounts for 20% to 40% of all nonpalpable cancers detected at screening [13], [36], [56]. With appropriate treatment the survival rate for DCIS should be 99.5% [57], [58]. DCIS may be considered a frequent but nonobligate precursor of fatal breast cancer. All cases

Radiation exposure

Misperceptions regarding radiation risk from mammography persist despite the fact that no woman has ever been shown to have developed breast cancer as a result of mammography, not even from multiple examinations over many years time at doses much higher than the current dose of 3 to 4 mGy (0.3–0.40 rad) per two-view per breast examination [85], [86], [87], [88]. Such concern is based on the observation that some groups of women (eg, Japanese A-bomb survivors and North American women treated

Psychologic effects of screening

Although no increase in the level of anxiety or depression could be found by Bull and Campbell [113] among women undergoing screening, many women become understandably anxious before their mammography examination according to Rimer and Bluman [114]. Women receiving normal screening results feel relieved and free of stress according to Lowe et al [115]. Most women prefer online interpretation of their screening studies according to Wilson et al [116]. Women advised to return after screening for

Summary

The main risks and other adverse consequences from screening include pain and discomfort from breast compression, patient recall for additional imaging, and false-positive biopsies. Although these risks affect a larger number of women than those who benefit from screening, the risks are less consequential than the life-sparing benefits from early detection. Detection of DCIS is a benefit rather than a risk from screening. Radiation risk, even for multiple screenings, is negligible at current

First page preview

First page preview
Click to open first page preview

References (125)

  • S.A. Feig

    Effect of service screening mammography on population mortality from breast carcinoma

    Cancer

    (2002)
  • S.A. Feig

    Screening mammography: effect of image quality on clinical outcome

    AJR Am J Roentgenol

    (2002)
  • P.C. Stomper et al.

    Is mammography painful? A multicenter patient study

    Arch Intern Med

    (1988)
  • V.P. Jackson et al.

    Patient discomfort during screen-film mammography

    Radiology

    (1988)
  • Mammography quality control manual

    (1999)
  • D.R. Rutter et al.

    Discomfort and pain during mammography: description, prediction, and prevention

    BMJ

    (1992)
  • L.J.W. Burhenne et al.

    The British Columbia mammography screening program: evaluation of the first 15 months

    AJR Am J Roentgenol

    (1992)
  • M.N. Linver et al.

    Improvement in mammography interpretation skills in a community radiology practice after dedicated teaching courses: 2-year medical audit of 38,633 cases

    Radiology

    (1992)
  • C.L. Robertson

    A private breast imaging practice: medical audit of 25,788 screening and 1,077 diagnostic examinations

    Radiology

    (1993)
  • E.A. Sickles et al.

    Medical audit of a rapid-throughput mammography screening practice: methodology and results of 27,114 examinations

    Radiology

    (1990)
  • R.E. Bird

    Low-cost screening mammography: report on finances and review of 21,716 consecutive cases

    Radiology

    (1989)
  • Quality determinants of mammography

    (1994)
  • Breast imaging reporting and data system: mammography

    (2003)
  • K.A. Hunt et al.

    Outcome analysis for women undergoing annual versus biennial screening mammography: a review of 24,211 examinations

    AJR Am J Roentgenol

    (1999)
  • B.C. Yankaskas et al.

    Association of recall rates with sensitivity and positive predictive values of screening mammography

    AJR Am J Roentgenol

    (2001)
  • O. Gur et al.

    Recall and detection rates in screening mammography: a review of clinical experience—implications for practice guidelines

    Cancer

    (2004)
  • J.G. Elmore et al.

    Screening mammograms by community radiologists: variability in false-positive rates

    J Natl Cancer Inst

    (2002)
  • L.L. Fajardo et al.

    Correlation between breast parenchymal patterns and mammographers certainty of diagnosis

    Invest Radiol

    (1988)
  • M.B. Laya et al.

    Effect of postmenopausal hormonal replacement therapy on mammographic density and parenchymal pattern

    Radiology

    (1995)
  • M.B. Laya et al.

    Effect of estrogen replacement therapy on the specificity and sensitivity of screening mammography

    J Natl Cancer Inst

    (1996)
  • C.L. Christiansen et al.

    Predicting the risk of false-positive mammograms

    J Natl Cancer Inst

    (2000)
  • J.G. Elmore et al.

    Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations

    N Engl J Med

    (1998)
  • Feig S.A. A perspective on false positive screening mammograms. ACR Bulletin...
  • M. Brown et al.

    Screening mammography in community practice: positive predictive value of abnormal findings and yield of follow-up diagnostic procedures

    AJR Am J Roentgenol

    (1995)
  • J.G. Elmore et al.

    International variation in screening mammography interpretations in community-based programs

    J Natl Cancer Inst

    (2003)
  • R. Smith-Bindman et al.

    Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United Kingdom

    JAMA

    (2003)
  • M. Moskowitz

    Retrospective reviews of breast cancer screening: what do we really learn from them?

    Radiology

    (1996)
  • R. Smith-Bindman et al.

    Optimal recall rates following mammography [letter to the editor]

    JAMA

    (2004)
  • M. Sant et al.

    Breast carcinoma survival in Europe and the United States: a population- based study

    Cancer

    (2004)
  • Breast cancer study

    (2002)
  • D.R. Enzmann et al.

    Providing professional mammography services: financial analysis

    Radiology

    (2001)
  • D.B. Kopans

    The positive predictive value of mammography

    AJR Am J Roentgenol

    (1992)
  • D.B. Kopans et al.

    Positive predictive value of breast biopsy performed as a result of mammography: there is no abrupt change at age 50 years

    Radiology

    (1996)
  • E.A. Sickles

    Auditing your practice

  • M.N. Linver et al.

    Mammography outcomes in a practice setting by age: prognostic factors, sensitivity, and positive biopsy rate

    Monogr Natl Cancer Inst

    (1997)
  • S. Ciatto et al.

    Nonpalpable lesions detected with mammography: review of 512 consecutive cases

    Radiology

    (1987)
  • J.E. Meyer et al.

    Cancellation of preoperative breast localization procedures: analysis of 53 cases

    Radiology

    (1988)
  • G. Svane et al.

    Screening mammography: breast cancer diagnosis in asymptomatic women

    (1993)
  • E.D. Pisano et al.

    Fine-needle aspiration biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions in a Group V

    Radiology

    (2001)
  • S.H. Parker et al.

    Percutaneous breast biopsy

    (1993)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text