Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 2, 2026
Detection of Architectural Distortion in Prior Mammograms via Analysis of Oriented Patterns
Published on: August 30, 2013
False-positive mammographic screening: factors influencing re-attendance over a decade of screening
P Fitzpatrick1, P Fleming, S O'Neill
1National Cancer Screening Service, King's Inn House, 200 Parnell Street, Dublin 1, Ireland. patricia.fitzpatrick@cancerscreening.ie
Introduction:
International studies on the effect of false-positive mammographic screening results on subsequent re-attendance at screening are inconsistent.
Setting:
BreastCheck, the national breast screening programme for the Republic of Ireland, screens women two-yearly. Re-attendance for subsequent screening is approximately 90%.
Objectives And Methods:
The aim of this research was to quantify the impact of false-positive mammographic screening results on subsequent re-attendance, using the BreastCheck clinical database with a decade of screening and to determine if age group, assessment procedure, initial or subsequent screening, location of appointment for next screening round and time from recall to non-malignant diagnosis predicted re-attendance.
Results:
From programme commencement in 2000 to the end of 2007, 13,352 screening tests resulted in assessment; 11,765 participants were aged 50-62 years and of these 9746 received false-positive results (positive predictive value 17.2%). Following a false-positive recall to assessment, re-attendance at subsequent screening differed significantly by procedure type (open biopsy 80.3%; core biopsy only 90.2%; no tissue sampling 91.4%; P < 0.0001). Re-attendance differed significantly by timing of false-positive assessment in a woman's screening history (first versus subsequent screening, 89.5% versus 93.5%, P < 0.0001) and by location of next screening appointment (screening centre 89.8% versus mobile unit 91.3%, P < 0.01). The longer the period between recall to assessment and non-malignant diagnosis the less likely women were to re-attend. After logistic regression, first screening, older age, open surgical biopsy, re-invitation to screening centre and a longer period between recall and non-malignant diagnosis were significant negative predictors of re-attendance.
Conclusion:
Since April 2008 BreastCheck has employed full field digital mammography throughout the programme, with a resulting increase in recalls; re-attendance will be closely monitored.
