Search

PurposeTo examine whether interpersonal aspects of patient-clinician interactions, such as patient-perceived medical discrimination, clinician mistrust, and treatment decision-making contribute to racial/ethnic/educational disparities in breast cancer care.MethodsA telephone interview was administered to 542 Asian/Pacific Islander (API), Black, Hispanic, and White women identified through the Greater Bay Area Cancer Registry, ages 20 and older diagnosed with a first primary invasive breast cancer. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated from logistic regression models that assessed associations between race/ethnicity/education, medical discrimination, clinician mistrust, and treatment decision-making with concordance to breast cancer treatment guidelines (guideline-concordant treatment) and perceived quality of care (pQoC).ResultsApproximately three-quarters of women received treatment that was guideline-concordant (76.6%) and reported that their breast cancer care was excellent (72.1%). Non-college-educated Black women had lower odds of guideline-concordant care (aOR (CI) = 0.29 (0.12-0.67)) vs. college-educated White women. Odds of excellent pQoC were lower among the following: college-educated Hispanic women (aOR (CI) = 0.09 (0.02-0.47)) and API women regardless of education (aORs ≤ 0.50) vs. college-educated White women, women reporting low and moderate levels of discrimination (aORs ≤ 0.44) vs. none, and women reporting any clinician mistrust (aOR (CI) = 0.50 (0.29-0.88)) vs. none. Disparities in guideline-concordant care and pQoC persisted after controlling for medical discrimination, clinician mistrust, and decision-making.ConclusionsInterpersonal aspects of the patient-clinician interaction had an impact on pQoC but not receipt of guideline-concordant treatment and did not explain disparities in either outcome.Implications for cancer survivorsAlthough breast cancer survivors' interpersonal interactions with clinicians did not influence receipt of appropriate treatment, intervention strategies to improve patient-clinician relations may help attenuate disparities in survivors' pQoC.

PurposeThis study aims to determine whether radiologists who perform well in screening also perform well in interpreting diagnostic mammography.Materials and methodsWe evaluated the accuracy of 468 radiologists interpreting 2,234,947 screening and 196,164 diagnostic mammograms. Adjusting for site, radiologist, and patient characteristics, we identified radiologists with performance in the highest tertile and compared to those with lower performance.ResultsA moderate correlation was noted for radiologists' accuracy when interpreting screening versus their accuracy on diagnostic examinations: sensitivity (rspearman=0.51, 95% CI: 0.22, 0.80; P=.0006) and specificity (rspearman=0.40, 95% CI: 0.30, 0.49; P

USA states have begun legislating mammographic breast density reporting to women, requiring that women undergoing screening mammography who have dense breast tissue (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [BI-RADS] density c or d) receive written notification of their breast density; however, the impact that misclassification of breast density will have on this reporting remains unclear. The aim of this study was to assess reproducibility of the four-category BI-RADS density measure and examine its relationship with a continuous measure of percent density. We enrolled 19 radiologists, experienced in breast imaging, from a single integrated health care system. Radiologists interpreted 341 screening mammograms at two points in time 6 months apart. We assessed intra- and interobserver agreement in radiologists'; interpretations of BI-RADS density and explored whether agreement depended upon radiologist characteristics. We examined the relationship between BI-RADS density and percent density in a subset of 282 examinations. Intraradiologist agreement was moderate to substantial, with kappa varying across radiologists from 0.50 to 0.81 (mean = 0.69, 95% CI [0.63, 0.73]). Intraradiologist agreement was higher for radiologists with ≥10 years experience interpreting mammograms (difference in mean kappa = 0.10, 95% CI [0.01, 0.24]). Interradiologist agreement varied widely across radiologist pairs from slight to substantial, with kappa ranging from 0.02 to 0.72 (mean = 0.46, 95% CI [0.36, 0.55]). Of 145 examinations interpreted as "nondense" (BI-RADS density a or b) by the majority of radiologists, 82.8% were interpreted as "dense" (BI-RADS density c or d) by at least one radiologist. Of 187 examinations interpreted as "dense" by the majority of radiologists, 47.1% were interpreted as "nondense" by at least one radiologist. While the examinations of almost half of the women in our study were interpreted clinically as having BI-RADS density c or d, only about 10% of examinations had percent density >50%. Our results suggest that breast density reporting based on a single BI-RADS density interpretation may be misleading due to high interradiologist variability and a lack of correspondence between BI-RADS density and percent density.

PurposeTo examine radiologists' screening performance in relation to the number of diagnostic work-ups performed after abnormal findings are discovered at screening mammography by the same radiologist or by different radiologists.Materials and methodsIn an institutional review board-approved HIPAA-compliant study, the authors linked 651 671 screening mammograms interpreted from 2002 to 2006 by 96 radiologists in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium to cancer registries (standard of reference) to evaluate the performance of screening mammography (sensitivity, false-positive rate [ FPR false-positive rate ], and cancer detection rate [ CDR cancer detection rate ]). Logistic regression was used to assess the association between the volume of recalled screening mammograms ("own" mammograms, where the radiologist who interpreted the diagnostic image was the same radiologist who had interpreted the screening image, and "any" mammograms, where the radiologist who interpreted the diagnostic image may or may not have been the radiologist who interpreted the screening image) and screening performance and whether the association between total annual volume and performance differed according to the volume of diagnostic work-up.ResultsAnnually, 38% of radiologists performed the diagnostic work-up for 25 or fewer of their own recalled screening mammograms, 24% performed the work-up for 0-50, and 39% performed the work-up for more than 50. For the work-up of recalled screening mammograms from any radiologist, 24% of radiologists performed the work-up for 0-50 mammograms, 32% performed the work-up for 51-125, and 44% performed the work-up for more than 125. With increasing numbers of radiologist work-ups for their own recalled mammograms, the sensitivity (P = .039), FPR false-positive rate (P = .004), and CDR cancer detection rate (P < .001) of screening mammography increased, yielding a stepped increase in women recalled per cancer detected from 17.4 for 25 or fewer mammograms to 24.6 for more than 50 mammograms. Increases in work-ups for any radiologist yielded significant increases in FPR false-positive rate (P = .011) and CDR cancer detection rate (P = .001) and a nonsignificant increase in sensitivity (P = .15). Radiologists with a lower annual volume of any work-ups had consistently lower FPR false-positive rate , sensitivity, and CDR cancer detection rate at all annual interpretive volumes.ConclusionThese findings support the hypothesis that radiologists may improve their screening performance by performing the diagnostic work-up for their own recalled screening mammograms and directly receiving feedback afforded by means of the outcomes associated with their initial decision to recall. Arranging for radiologists to work up a minimum number of their own recalled cases could improve screening performance but would need systems to facilitate this workflow.

In general, it has been found that cancer fatalism is negatively associated with important cancer prevention and control behaviors, whereas religiosity is positively associated with these behaviors. Yet, the notion that religiosity gives rise to fatalistic beliefs that may discourage health behaviors is deeply ingrained in the public health literature. In addition, racial/ethnic group membership is associated with higher reports of cancer fatalism, though this association may be confounded by socioeconomic status (SES). A better understanding of the relationships between racial/ethnic group membership, SES, and religiosity may contribute to the development of effective interventions to address cancer fatalism and improve health behaviors. In this study, we examined associations between racial/ethnic group membership, SES, and cancer fatalism as the outcome. In addition, we tested whether religiosity (as measured by religious service attendance) moderated these relationships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Challenges of recruiting participants into pragmatic trials, particularly at the level of the health system, remain largely unexplored. As part of Strategies and Opportunities to STOP Colon Cancer in Priority Populations (STOP CRC), we recruited eight separate community health centers (consisting of 26 individual safety net clinics) into a large comparative effectiveness pragmatic study to evaluate methods of raising the rates of colorectal cancer screening. Methods: In partnership with STOP CRC’s advisory board, we defined criteria to identify eligible health centers and applied these criteria to a list of health centers in Washington, Oregon, and California affiliated with Oregon Community Health Information Network, a 16-state practice-based research network of federally sponsored health centers. Project staff contacted centers that met eligibility criteria and arranged in-person meetings of key study investigators with health center leadership teams. We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to thematically analyze the content of discussions during these meetings to identify major facilitators of and barriers to health center participation. Results: From an initial list of 41 health centers, 11 met the initial inclusion criteria. Of these, leaders at three centers declined and at eight centers (26 clinic sites) agreed to participate (73%). Participating and nonparticipating health centers were similar with respect to clinic size, percent Hispanic patients, and percent uninsured patients. Participating health centers had higher proportions of Medicaid patients and higher baseline colorectal cancer screening rates. Common facilitators of participation were perception by center leadership that the project was an opportunity to increase colorectal cancer screening rates and to use electronic health record tools for population management. Barriers to participation were concerns of center leaders about ability to provide fecal testing to and assure follow-up of uninsured patients, limited clinic capacity to prepare mailings required by the study protocol, discomfort with randomization, and concerns about delaying program implementation at some clinics due to the research requirements. Conclusion: Our findings address an important research gap and may inform future efforts to recruit community health centers into pragmatic research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]