BMJ 2000;320:1635-1640 ( 17 June )

Papers

US women's attitudes to false positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: cross sectional survey

Lisa M Schwartz, assistant professor of medicine a,  Steven Woloshin, assistant professor of medicine a,  Harold C Sox, Joseph M Huber professor b,  Baruch Fischhoff, professor c,  H Gilbert Welch, associate professor of medicine a. 

a Veterans Administration Outcomes Group (111B), Veterans Administration Medical Center, White River Junction, VT 05009, USA, b Department of Medicine, Dartmouth-Hitchock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH 03756, USA, c Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA

Correspondence to: L M Schwartz lisa.schwartz{at}dartmouth.edu

    Abstract
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Participants and methods
Results
Discussion
References

Objective: To determine women's attitudes to and knowledge of both false positive mammography results and the detection of ductal carcinoma in situ after screening mammography.
Design: Cross sectional survey.
Setting: United States.
Participants: 479 women aged 18-97 years who did not report a history of breast cancer.
Main outcome measures: Attitudes to and knowledge of false positive results and the detection of ductal carcinoma in situ after screening mammography.
Results: Women were aware that false positive results do occur. Their median estimate of the false positive rate for 10 years of annual screening was 20% (25th percentile estimate, 10%; 75th percentile estimate, 45%). The women were highly tolerant of false positives: 63% thought that 500 or more false positives per life saved was reasonable and 37% would tolerate 10 000 or more. Women who had had a false positive result (n=76) expressed the same high tolerance: 39% would tolerate 10 000 or more false positives. 62% of women did not want to take false positive results into account when deciding about screening. Only 8% of women thought that mammography could harm a woman without breast cancer, and 94% doubted the possibility of non-progressive breast cancers. Few had heard about ductal carcinoma in situ, a cancer that may not progress, but when informed, 60% of women wanted to take into account the possibility of it being detected when deciding about screening.
Conclusions: Women are aware of false positives and seem to view them as an acceptable consequence of screening mammography. In contrast, most women are unaware that screening can detect cancers that may never progress but feel that such information would be relevant. Education should perhaps focus less on false positives and more on the less familiar outcome of detection of ductal carcinoma in situ.

    Introduction
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Participants and methods
Results
Discussion
References

Screening mammography is vigorously promoted in the United States. With the exception of the US government's Preventive Health Services Task Force, professional organisations recommend that women begin annual or biannual screening at 40 years of age.1-3 Mammography is promulgated by hospitals, insurance plans, and breast care centres. Efforts for quality improvement commonly focus on increasing the screening rates for breast cancer, and health plans highlight these rates on cards used for reporting quality of health care. Although there has been much discussion about the potential benefit of mammography there has been far less about the potential harms.

The harm that has received the most attention is false positive results. Mammograms that give false positive results are common. A 60 year old woman screened annually for 10 years has a 50% chance of having at least one false positive leading to follow up testing and a 20% chance of a false positive leading to biopsy.4 Consequently, many people are concerned about the physical, psychological, and economic costs of false positives.4-10 Several experts in screening have concluded that women would benefit from education about false positive results if they are to make informed decisions about whether to undergo, or continue with, screening. 2 11-13

Little attention has been paid to the increasingly frequent detection of ductal carcinoma in situ, a subtle but potential harm of screening.14 Although the clinical course of ductal carcinoma in situ is poorly understood, most lesions do not progress.14-17 Consequently, an increasing number of women with lesions that would never have become clinically apparent are worried about cancer, and most of them will undergo invasive treatment of unknown benefit (for example, mastectomy, lumpectomy with radiation).14

It is not known if or how women who are offered screening are being counselled about false positives and ductal carcinoma in situ. To determine what women know we conducted a national survey of women in the United States, a population with high exposure to mammography---more than 85% of US women aged 40 years or more have had at least one screening mammography.18 We wanted to find out if women are aware of false positives and if they have a sense of the chance of having one; if false positives are tolerated because women have an unrealistic sense of the benefit of mammography; and if women are aware of ductal carcinoma in situ and, if not, whether they want to know about it.

    Participants and methods
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Participants and methods
Results
Discussion
References

Design
We randomly selected women from details compiled from telephone directories and administrative records (for example, applications for a driver's licence, electoral registries, house purchases) by National Decision Systems (Atlanta, GA). We restricted our sample to the 80% of US women in households with telephones. We used stratified random sampling to oversample women of screening age. Specifically, we selected women by age (18-39 years old, 200 women; 40-49, 250; 50-69, 250; 70 or older, 100), estimated income (income more or less than twice the 1992 poverty threshold for a family of four people19), and area of residence.

From August to October 1997 we posted a questionnaire (with $2 (£1.25) as an incentive) to 800 women. We chose to conduct a postal survey to utilise visual analogue scales. We posted reminder letters to non-respondents after two weeks, sent a second copy of the questionnaire after four weeks, and attempted to telephone those who had still not responded after six weeks.

Of the 800 people selected, 33 were ineligible (21 had died, 12 were male), leaving 767 possible respondents. Of these women, 55 had incorrect addresses, two did not speak English, and 207 did not return the questionnaire. Overall, 503 of the 767 women (65.6%) returned completed questionnaires. We report on the 479 respondents with no history of breast cancer.

Survey
We developed a 13 page questionnaire as part of a larger project on women's decision making about mammography. A pilot was tested on women veterans served by the Veterans Administration Medical Center at White River Junction, Vermont.

Visual analogue scales
We asked women to estimate the sensitivity and false positive rate of mammography with a previously validated visual analogue scale.20 To familiarise respondents with the scale, we included two practice questions about events having extreme probabilities. Overall, 94% of respondents used the correct end of the scale for each event---close to 1 for the chance of stopping at a red light, and close to 0 for the chance of being hit by a meteorite.

We also asked women to compare the benefits of mammography with those of other preventive activities that would extend the life of a 60 year old woman (fig 1). For each prevention strategy, we asked respondents to mark anywhere on a line scaled from "much less benefit" to "much greater benefit" compared with 10 years of annual mammography, the mid-point being "same benefit." We measured the distance of each woman's mark from "much less benefit" and calculated the median value.



View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig 1.    Women's ranking of benefits of health promoting activities and 10 year programme of mammography for extending life in a 60 year old woman. Arrows show median response for each strategy

Analysis
Because we used stratified random sampling, we calculated sample weights to account for probability of selection and to compensate for small differences in response rates across sample strata. We then adjusted the sample distribution to conform to known marginal distributions of the US population based on data from the 1990 US census 19 21 by creating "balance weights."22 Because the crude results and the weighted results were almost identical, for simplicity we present the crude data. Based on our sample size, we estimate the margin of error of the results to be 4-6% in either direction.23 All analyses were done with STATA software (College Station, TX).

    Results
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Participants and methods
Results
Discussion
References

Sample characteristics
Table 1 shows the characteristics of the women. Respondents were from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Most women reported having had at least one mammogram: 35% of women less than 40 years of age, 87% of women in their 40s, 93% of women aged 50-69, and 87% of women aged 70 or more.3 Similarly high proportions of women planned to have a mammogram in the next two years.


                              
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 

Table 1. Characteristics of sample compared with women 18 years and older from the 1990 US census. Values are numbers (percentages) unless stated otherwise

Perception of harm
Overall, 441 (92.0%) women believed that mammography could not harm a woman without breast cancer (table 2). Thirty of the 40 women who thought harm was possible responded to our request for an explanation. The most common responses were exposure to radiation (16 women), stress or anxiety (four), and false positives (three). None mentioned the effects of treating non-progressive cancer.


                              
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 

Table 2. Women's perceptions of benefits and harms of screening

False positive results
Overall, 99% of women believed that false positive results occur during a 10 year programme of annual mammography beginning at age 60 years. The women's median estimated chance of a false positive during such a programme was 20%. This estimate is in line with a recent report citing a 47% 10 year probability of a false positive mammogram leading to any follow up testing for a 60 year old woman and a 19% probability of a false positive mammogram leading to a biopsy.4

To understand the importance of false positives, we asked respondents whether they wanted to take into account such results when deciding about mammography; only 38% did. When asked how many false positives would be acceptable for each life saved, women showed a high tolerance: 63% would tolerate 500 or more false positives and 37% would tolerate 10 000 or more (fig 2). The best estimate of the actual number of false positive mammograms for each life saved is somewhere between 30 and 200, assuming 2-6 lives saved for every 1000 women screened for 12 years 24 25 and a 10 year false positive rate between 20% and 40%.4 Thus, the actual number of false positives is far below the number most women deemed acceptable.



View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig 2.   No of false positive results women were prepared to tolerate for each life saved

Women who had had a false positive mammogram expressed a similarly high tolerance for false positive results. Seventy six women (16%) reported having had a false positive mammogram---that is, a breast biopsy but no diagnosis of breast cancer. In this subgroup, 93% believed that mammography could not harm a woman who turned out not to have breast cancer, 35% wanted to take false positives into acount when deciding on screening, 71% would tolerate 500 or more false positives per life saved, and 39% would tolerate 10 000 or more (fig 2).

Perception of benefit
To explore whether this high tolerance reflected an unrealistic sense of the benefit of mammography, we examined perceptions of benefit. As expected, most (94%) of the women believed that women whose breast cancer was diagnosed by screening mammography benefited from having been screened (table 2). Although most believed that mammography reduced the chance of dying of breast cancer, none thought it reduced the risk to zero. The most common expectation was that mammography would reduce the chance of dying of breast cancer by half and the second most common expectation was that it would reduce the chance by one third 24 25 (we considered this to be the correct answer; however, a recent study suggests that a one third reduction in risk may be an overestimate26). Women were aware that mammograms did not find all cancers. Their median estimated sensitivity for a single mammogram (for a 60 year old woman) of 73% underestimated the reported sensitivity of 94% (95% confidence interval 83% to 99%).27

Most women (82%) recognised that a 10 year programme of mammography was more beneficial than mammography performed only once (fig 1). Women rated health promoting strategies like not smoking, exercising regularly, and eating a low fat diet as much more beneficial than mammography. Surprisingly, women believed breast self examinations to be more beneficial than the 10 year programme of annual mammography.

Non-progressive cancer
Few women knew about the possibility of non-progressive breast cancer (table 2). Only 7% agreed that some breast cancers grow so slowly that even without treatment they would not affect a woman's health. We gave the following brief explanation of ductal carcinoma in situ: "We would like to ask your opinion about ductal carcinoma in situ or DCIS, a breast abnormality which can only be picked up by mammograms. Cancer specialists are confused about DCIS because sometimes it becomes invasive and sometimes it doesn't. If DCIS does not become invasive, it will not affect how long a person will live even without treatment. Doctors don't know which DCIS will become invasive. Nowadays, almost everyone with DCIS gets treated. Many people receive surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation who would never have gotten sick. For these people, treatment provides no physical benefit."

Only 6% of women reported having heard of ductal carcinoma in situ by name or corresponding to the description provided, and 60% wanted to take ductal carcinoma in situ into account when deciding about mammography, with interest highest among younger women (71% of women aged 18-39).

To assess how information about non-progressive cancer might influence decision making, we asked women to decide about treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ under different assumptions of its probability of becoming invasive (fig 3). In the hypothetical scenario that ductal carcinoma in situ became increasingly likely to become invasive, more women chose treatment as the chance of invasion increased. At a 1% chance of ductal carcinoma in situ becoming invasive, 42% of women chose treatment whereas at a 33% chance of invasion, 78% chose treatment. The limited published estimates of the chance of ductal carcinoma in situ becoming invasive varies and are as high as 33%. 14 17



View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig 3.   Women's threshold for treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ according to chance of becoming invasive


    Discussion
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Participants and methods
Results
Discussion
References

The women in our study were aware of false positive results from screening mammography but seemed to view them as an acceptable consequence of screening. Although studies attest to the short term physical and psychological impact of false positive results,5-9 our respondents were highly accepting of them: most would not take them into account when deciding about screening, and almost 40% would tolerate 10 000 or more false positives requiring biopsy for each life saved.

One explanation for this high tolerance is that women have an overly optimistic sense of the benefit of mammography. We found no evidence to support this explanation. No respondent thought screening mammography eliminated the chance of dying of breast cancer. Women were aware that mammography misses some cancers (actually underestimating the reported sensitivity). Most women also recognised that health promoting behaviours such as not smoking, exercising regularly, and eating a low fat diet were more beneficial than mammography in prolonging life, which is true for the average 60 year old woman.28

Alternatively, it might be posited that women did not fully understand the consequences of a false positive result (for example, anxiety, pain, inconvenience, or extremely rare harms such as severe infection or death related to anaesthesia). We found, however, that women who had had false mammograms expressed the same high tolerance as women who had not. Thus, women seemed to think that false positives are worth the reassurance of being told they do not have cancer. Similarly, Gram et al found that almost half of women with false positive mammograms viewed the experience as having an overall positive impact on their lives,8 and most women continue to undergo mammography.29

Women's perceptions about a potential diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ differed noticeably from their perceptions about false positive mammograms. In contrast to false positives, most women were unaware of non-progressive forms of breast cancer and even doubted their existence. Once informed about non-progressive cancer, the women seemed concerned. Most wanted to take into account the possibility of ductal carcinoma in situ when deciding about screening. Younger women, in whom 90% of the cancers found by screening mammography are ductal carcinoma in situ,15 were the most interested in such information. In addition, women's reported willingness to treat ductal carcinoma in situ increased as we hypothetically increased the chance of ductal carcinoma in situ progressing to invasive breast cancer, suggesting that such information might influence decisions.

Limitations
One limitation of our study is the representativeness of the sample: we did not include women in households without a telephone and those who requested that their name be removed from the database. This left about 80% of US women eligible for sampling. Secondly, although our sample represents women across a broad range of age, education, and income, it differed from the general population: the women were wealthier and better educated, and almost all were white. Women from ethnic minorities and women with the lowest socioeconomic indicators were underrepresented. Subsequent studies are needed to assess whether such women have different perceptions.

One concern is the possibility of systematic bias in our sample because respondents differed from non-respondents. Our response rate of 66% lessens but does not eliminate this concern. Respondents and non-respondents did not differ by age (the one variable available for comparison). Our main findings were, however, extreme enough (for example, only 7% of women were aware of non-progressive breast cancer) to suggest that even if respondents and non-respondents differed noticeably, our overall conclusions should remain robust. Although the survey was long and complex, response rates for items were high. Response rates were lowest for the question on the treatment threshold for ductal carcinoma in situ (82%) and averaged 98% for all other questions.

Although experts on screening have focused much attention on the anxiety experienced by women with false positive mammograms,13 we believe clinicians counselling women about mammography should spend less time reviewing what most women know and accept---that is, that false positives are part of screening. In contrast, more time should probably be spent educating women about the less familiar outcome of the ambiguity associated with the detection of ductal carcinoma in situ.


What is already known on this topic

False positive results and diagnoses of non-progressive cancer are recognised problems of screening mammography

Little is known about how women feel about these problems

What this study adds

Almost all of the 479 women (99%) knew that false positive mammograms occur

Women do not seem to think that false positive mammograms are an important harm of screening---even women who have had a false positive result

Women's tolerance of false positives is not explained by overly optimistic beliefs about the benefit of mammography

Few of the women (6%) were aware of the possibility of non-progressive cancer



    Acknowledgments

We thank Robert Pritchard for help with the study design, R Peter Mogielnicki for helpful comments, and Jennifer Winder and Suzy Shukwit for assistance with data collection.

Contributors: LMS and SW collaborate on all work and are the joint principal investigators on the Department of Defense grant "enhancing informed decision making about mammography"; they will act as guarantors for the paper. They initiated and coordinated the formulation of the study hypotheses, discussed core ideas, designed the study protocol, developed the survey, and participated in the data collection, analysis, and writing of the paper. HCS and BF participated in formulating the study hypotheses, discussing core ideas, designing the study, developing the survey, and writing the paper. HGW participated in the formulation of study hypotheses, discussing core ideas, designing the study, developing the survey, the analysis, and writing of the paper.

    Footnotes

Funding: SW and LMS are supported by the veterans affairs career development awards in health services research and development. This work was also funded by a new investigator award from the Department of Defense breast cancer research program (DAMD17-96-MM-6712). The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the US government.

Competing interests: None declared.

This article is part of the BMJ's randomised controlled trial of open peer review. Documentation relating to the editorial decision making process is available on the BMJ's website

    References
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Participants and methods
Results
Discussion
References

1. American Cancer Society. Summary of current guidelines for the cancer-related checkup: recommendations. New York: ACS, 1988.
2. National Cancer Advisory Board. National Cancer Advisory Board mammography recommendations for women ages 40-49. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Advisory Board, 1997.
3. US Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to clinical preventive services 2nd ed. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1996.
4. Elmore J, Barton M, Moceri V, Polk S, Arena P, Fletcher S. Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 1089-1096[Abstract/Free Full Text].
5. Lerman C, Trock B, Rimer B, Boyce A, Jepson C, Engstrom P. Psychological and behavioral implications of abnormal mammograms. Ann Intern Med 1991; 114: 657-661.
6. Sutton S, Saidi G, Bickler G, Hunter J. Does routine screening for breast cancer raise anxiety? Results from a three wave prospective study in England. J Epidemiol Community Health 1995; 49: 413-418[Abstract].
7. Lerman L, Trock B, Rimer B, Jepson C, Brody D, Boyce A. Psychological side effects of breast cancer screening. Health Psychol 1991; 10: 259-267[CrossRef][Medline].
8. Gram I, Lund E, Slenker S. Quality of life following a false positive mammogram. Br J Cancer 1990; 62: 1018-1022[Medline].
9. Ellman R, Angeli N, Christians A, Moss S, Chamberlain J, Maguire P. Psychiatric morbidity associated with screening for breast cancer. Br J Cancer 1989; 60: 781-784[Medline].
10. Lidbrink E, Elfving J, Frisell J, Jonsson E. Neglected aspects of false positive findings of mammography in breast cancer screening: analysis of false positive cases from the Stockholm trial. BMJ 1996; 312: 273-276[Abstract/Free Full Text].
11. Ransohoff D, Harris R. Lessons from the mammography screening controversy: can we improve the debate? Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 1029-1034[Abstract/Free Full Text].
12. Fletcher S. False-positive screening mammograms: good news, but more to do. Ann Intern Med 1999; 131: 60-62[Free Full Text].
13. National Institutes of Health consensus statement. Breast cancer screening for women ages 40-49. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, 1997.
14. Ernster VL, Barclay J, Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Henderson C. Incidence of and treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. JAMA 1996; 275: 913-918[Abstract].
15. Ernster VL, Barclay J. Increases in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast in relation to mammography: a dilemma. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst 1997; 22: 151-156.
16. Welch H, Black W. Using autopsy series to estimate the disease "reservoir" for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: how much more breast cancer can we find? Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 1023-1028[Abstract/Free Full Text].
17. Page D, Dupont W, Rogers L, Jensen R, Schuyler P. Continued local recurrence of carcinoma 15-25 years after a diagnosis of low grade duc-tal carcinoma in situ of the breast treated only by biopsy. Cancer 1995; 76: 1197-2000[CrossRef][Medline].
18. Blackman DK, Bennett EM, Miller DS. Trends in self-reported use of mammograms (1989-1997) and Papanicolaou tests (1991-1997)---behavioral risk factor surveillance system. MMWR CDC Surveill Summ 1999; 48: 1-22[Medline].
19. US Bureau of the Census. Statistical abstract of the United States 117th ed. Washington, DC: US Bureau of the Census, 1997.
20. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Byram S, Fishhoff B, Welch H. A new scale for assessing perceptions of chance: a validation study. Med Decis Making 2000. (In press.)
21. Ruggles S, Sobek M. Integrated public use microdata series: version 2.0. In: Minneapolis: Historical Census Projects, University of Minnesota, 1997.
22. Blendon R, Scheck A, Donelan K, Hill C, Smith M, Beatrice D, et al. How white and African Americans view their health and social problems. JAMA 1995; 273: 341-345[CrossRef][Medline].
23. Fowler Jr F. Survey research methods 2nd ed. Newbury Park: Sage, 1993.
24. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Rubin SM, Sandrock C, Ernster V. Efficacy of screening mammography. A meta-analysis. JAMA 1995; 273: 149-154[Abstract].
25. Nystrom L, Rutqvist L, Wall S, Lindgren A, Lindqvist M, Ryden S, et al. Breast cancer screening with mammography: overview of Swedish randomized trials. Lancet 1993; 341: 973-978[CrossRef][Medline].
26. Gotzsche P, Olsen O. Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable? Lancet 2000; 355: 129-134[CrossRef][Medline].
27. Kerlikowskie K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles E, Ernster V. Effect of age, breast density and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA 1996; 276: 33-38[Abstract].
28. McGinnis J, Foege W. Actual causes of death in the United States. JAMA 1993; 270: 2207-2212[Abstract].
29. Burman M, Taplin S, Herta D, Elmore J. Effect of false-positive mammograms on interval breast cancer screening in a health maintenance organization. Ann Intern Med 1999; 131: 1-6[Abstract/Free Full Text].

(Accepted 15 March 2000)

© BMJ 2000
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Participation in mammography screening
Lisa M Schwartz and Steven Woloshin
BMJ 2007 335: 731-732. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Content of invitations for publicly funded screening mammography
Karsten Juhl Jørgensen and Peter C Gøtzsche
BMJ 2006 332: 538-541. [Full Text] [PDF]

Model of outcomes of screening mammography: Authors' reply
Alexandra Barratt, Kirsten Howard, Les Irwig, Glenn Salkeld, and Nehmat Houssami
BMJ 2005 331: 351. [Extract] [Full Text]

Women's attitudes to false positive mammography results
Carol Jean Godby, Anne Peticolas, Joyce M Carter, Samuel Ghebrehewet, Steven Woloshin, Lisa Schwartz, H Gilbert Welch, and Harold C Sox
BMJ 2000 321: 1409. [Extract] [Full Text]

A week of overexcitement
BMJ 2000 320: 0. [Full Text] [PDF]

A week of overexcitement
BMJ 2000 320: 0. [Full Text] [PDF]

Women are unaware that mammography may detect non-progressive cancer
BMJ 2000 320: 0. [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Schwartz, L. M, Woloshin, S. (2007). Participation in mammography screening. BMJ 335: 731-732 [Full text]  
  • Brewer, N. T., Salz, T., Lillie, S. E. (2007). Systematic Review: The Long-Term Effects of False-Positive Mammograms. ANN INTERN MED 146: 502-510 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Qaseem, A., Snow, V., Sherif, K., Aronson, M., Weiss, K. B., Owens, D. K., for the Clinical Efficacy Assessment Subcommittee, (2007). Screening Mammography for Women 40 to 49 Years of Age: A Clinical Practice Guideline from the American College of Physicians. ANN INTERN MED 146: 511-515 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Keen, J. D., Keen, J. E., Ganott, M. A., Sumkin, J. H., Gur, D. (2007). Does the Marginal Benefit Exceed the Marginal Cost?. Radiology 243: 299-300 [Full text]  
  • Gostin, L. O. (2007). HIV Screening and False-Positive Results--Reply. JAMA 297: 948-948 [Full text]  
  • Black, W. C. (2006). Randomized Clinical Trials for Cancer Screening: Rationale and Design Considerations for Imaging Tests. JCO 24: 3252-3260 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Jorgensen, K. J., Gotzsche, P. C (2006). Content of invitations for publicly funded screening mammography.. BMJ 332: 538-541 [Full text]  
  • Ganott, M. A., Sumkin, J. H., King, J. L., Klym, A. H., Catullo, V. J., Cohen, C. S., Gur, D. (2006). Screening Mammography: Do Women Prefer a Higher Recall Rate Given the Possibility of Earlier Detection of Cancer?. Radiology 238: 793-800 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Barratt, A., Howard, K., Irwig, L., Salkeld, G., Houssami, N. (2005). Model of outcomes of screening mammography: Authors' reply. BMJ 331: 351-351 [Full text]  
  • Nekhlyudov, L., Li, R., Fletcher, S. W. (2005). Information and Involvement Preferences of Women in Their 40s Before Their First Screening Mammogram. Arch Intern Med 165: 1370-1374 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Jorgensen, K. J., Gotzsche, P. C (2004). Presentation on websites of possible benefits and harms from screening for breast cancer: cross sectional study. BMJ 328: 148- [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Smith, R. A., Saslow, D., Andrews Sawyer, K., Burke, W., Costanza, M. E., Evans, W. P. III, Foster, R. S. Jr., Hendrick, E., Eyre, H. J., Sener, S. (2003). American Cancer Society Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening: Update 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 53: 141-169 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Black, W. C., Brant-Zawadzki, M. N. (2002). Invited Commentary * Author's Response. RadioGraphics 22: 1536-1539 [Full text]  
  • Ernster, V. L., Ballard-Barbash, R., Barlow, W. E., Zheng, Y., Weaver, D. L., Cutter, G., Yankaskas, B. C., Rosenberg, R., Carney, P. A., Kerlikowske, K., Taplin, S. H., Urban, N., Geller, B. M. (2002). Detection of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ in Women Undergoing Screening Mammography. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 94: 1546-1554 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Humphrey, L. L., Helfand, M., Chan, B. K.S., Woolf, S. H. (2002). Breast Cancer Screening: A Summary of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. ANN INTERN MED 137: 347-360 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Sox, H. (2002). Screening Mammography for Younger Women: Back to Basics. ANN INTERN MED 137: 361-362 [Full text]  
  • Hall, F. M., Patz, E. F. Jr, Black, W. C., Goodman, P. C. (2002). Screening for Lung Cancer: Been There and Done That * Dr Patz and colleagues respond:. Radiology 224: 928-929 [Full text]  
  • Schwartz, L. M., Woloshin, S. (2002). News Media Coverage of Screening Mammography for Women in Their 40s and Tamoxifen for Primary Prevention of Breast Cancer. JAMA 287: 3136-3142 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Chamot, E, Perneger, T V (2001). Misconceptions about efficacy of mammography screening: a public health dilemma. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 55: 799-803 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Foucar, E. (2001). Predictive genetics and predictive morphology have certain similarities. BMJ 323: 514-514 [Full text]  
  • Welch, H. G. (2001). Informed Choice in Cancer Screening. JAMA 285: 2776-2778 [Full text]  
  • Miller, A. B, Rozenberg, S., Carly, B., Liebens, F., Ham, H., Baum, M., Tobias, J S (2000). Effect of screening programme on mortality from breast cancer. BMJ 321: 1527a-1527 [Full text]  
  • Godby, C. J., Peticolas, A., Carter, J. M, Ghebrehewet, S., Woloshin, S., Schwartz, L., Welch, H G., Sox, H. C (2000). Women's attitudes to false positive mammography results. BMJ 321: 1409-1409 [Full text]  
  • Black, W. C. (2000). Overdiagnosis: An Underrecognized Cause of Confusion and Harm in Cancer Screening. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 92: 1280-1282 [Full text]  
  • (2000). Women Know About -- and Accept -- False-Positive Mammograms. JWatch Women's Health 2000: 16-16 [Full text]  
  • (2000). Women Know About -- and Accept -- False-Positive Mammograms. JWatch General 2000: 7-7 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

A formerly clueless patient responds
Carol Jean Godby
bmj.com, 17 Jun 2000 [Full text]
Unrealistic beliefs about screening benefits not really ruled out
Anne Peticolas
bmj.com, 19 Jun 2000 [Full text]
Survey on False Positives Belies Present Data and Obstacles to Health
C J Thompson
bmj.com, 23 Jun 2000 [Full text]
Sampling: a query?
Julie Christie
bmj.com, 6 Jul 2000 [Full text]
False conclusions about false positives?
Joyce M Carter, et al.
bmj.com, 12 Jul 2000 [Full text]
Mammography: what do women want, and what do they get?
Elliott Foucar
bmj.com, 17 Jul 2000 [Full text]
Ignorance about ductal carcinoma in situ
Eileen Barrett
bmj.com, 4 Aug 2000 [Full text]

Student BMJ

Asylum seekers' care

UK medical students have published unreleased government plans to restrict failed asylum seekers' access to medical care

www.student.bmj.com

Listen to the latest BMJ Interview