23 research outputs found

    Re-attendance after false-positive screening mammography: a population-based study in the Netherlands

    No full text
    BACKGROUND: In the current study, mammography adherence of women who had experienced a false-positive referral is evaluated, with emphasis on the probability of receiving surveillance mammography outside the national screening programme. METHODS: We included 424 703 consecutive screens and collected imaging, biopsy and surgery reports of 3463 women who experienced a false-positive referral. Adherence to screening, both in and outside the screening programme, was evaluated. RESULTS: Two years after the false-positive referral, overall screening adherence was 94.6%, with 64.7% of women returning to the national screening programme, compared with 94.9% of women re-attending the screening programme after a negative screen (P<0.0001). Four years after the false-positive screen, the overall adherence had decreased to 85.2% (P<0.0001) with a similar proportion of the women re-attending the screening programme (64.4%) and a lower proportion (20.8%) having clinical surveillance mammography. Women who had experienced a false-positive screen at their first screening round were less likely to adhere to mammography than women with an abnormal finding at one of the following screening rounds (92.4% vs 95.5%, P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Overall screening adherence after previous false-positive referral was comparable to the re-attendance rate of women with a negative screen at 2-year follow-up. Overall adherence decreased 4 years after previous false-positive referral from 94.6% to 85.2%, with a relatively high estimate of women who continue with clinical surveillance mammography (20.8%). Women with false-positive screens should be made aware of the importance to re-attend future screening rounds, as a way to improve the effectiveness of the screening programme

    Site-specific association between distal aortic pulse wave velocity and peripheral arterial stenosis severity: a prospective cardiovascular magnetic resonance study

    Get PDF
    Background: Vascular disease expression in one location may not be representative for disease severity in other vascular territories, however, strong correlation between disease expression and severity within the same vascular segment may be expected. Therefore, we hypothesized that aortic stiffening is more strongly associated with disease expression in a vascular territory directly linked to that aortic segment rather than in a more remote segment. We prospectively compared the association between aortic wall stiffness, expressed by pulse wave velocity (PWV), sampled in the distal aorta, with the severity of peripheral arterial occlusive disease (PAOD) as compared to atherosclerotic markers sampled in remote vascular territories such as PWV in the proximal aorta and the normalized wall index (NWI), representing the vessel wall thickness, of the left common carotid artery. Methods: Forty-two patients (23 men; mean age 64 +/- 10 years) underwent velocity-encoded cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) in the proximal and distal aorta, whole-body contrast-enhanced MR angiography (CE-MRA) and carotid vessel wall imaging with black-blood CMR in the work-up for PAOD. Strength of associations between aortic stiffness, carotid NWI and peripheral vascular stenosis grade were assessed and evaluated with multiple linear regression. Results: Stenosis severity correlated well with PWV in the distal aorta (Pearson r(P)=0.64, p Conclusions: Distal aortic wall stiffness is more directly related to peripheral arterial stenosis severity than markers from more remote vascular territories such as proximal aortic wall stiffness or carotid arterial wall thickness. Site-specific evaluation of vascular disease may be required for full vascular risk estimation
    corecore