Search

Purpose: To 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., Methods: A 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)., Results: Approximately 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., Conclusions: Interpersonal 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 Survivors: Although 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.

Background: Using the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), we examined the effect of question wording on estimates of past-year mammography among racially/ethnically diverse women ages 40-49 and 50-74 without a history of breast cancer. Methods: Data from one-part ("Have you had a mammogram during the past 12 months?") and two-part ("Have you ever had a mammogram"; "When did you have your most recent mammogram?") mammography history questions administered in the 2008, 2011, and 2013 NHIS were analyzed. χ 2 tests provided estimates of changes in mammography when question wording was either the same (two-part question) or differed (two-part question followed by one-part question) in the two survey years compared. Crosstabulations and regression models assessed the type, extent, and correlates of inconsistent responses to the two questions in 2013. Results: Reports of past-year mammography were slightly higher in years when the one-part question was asked than when the two-part question was asked. Nearly 10% of women provided inconsistent responses to the two questions asked in 2013. Black women ages 50 to 74 [adjusted OR (aOR), 1.50; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.16-1.93] and women ages 40-49 in poor health (aOR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.09-4.52) had higher odds of inconsistent responses; women without a usual source of care had lower odds (40-49: aOR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.21-0.85; 50-74: aOR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.74). Conclusions: Self-reports of mammography are sensitive to question wording. Researchers should use equivalent questions that have been designed to minimize response biases such as telescoping and social desirability. Impact: Trend analyses relying on differently worded questions may be misleading and conceal disparities. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(11); 1611-8. ©2017 AACR ., (©2017 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: This study aims to determine whether radiologists who perform well in screening also perform well in interpreting diagnostic mammography., Materials and Methods: We 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., Results: A moderate correlation was noted for radiologists' accuracy when interpreting screening versus their accuracy on diagnostic examinations: sensitivity (r spearman =0.51, 95% CI: 0.22, 0.80; P=.0006) and specificity (r spearman =0.40, 95% CI: 0.30, 0.49; P<.0001)., Conclusion: Different educational approaches to screening and diagnostic imaging should be considered., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Receipt of a mammography recommendation from a physician is a strong predictor of obtaining a mammogram. In 2009, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended routine biennial mammography for women aged 50-74 but not for women aged 40-49. We examined changes in reports of clinician recommendations for mammography among White and non-White women after these age-specific recommendations were issued., Methods: Data from women aged 40-49 and 50-74 were drawn from the 2008 and 2013 National Health Interview Surveys. We used linear probability models to determine whether the proportions of women reporting a mammography recommendation changed after the USPSTF recommendation was issued and whether any changes observed differed across White and non-White women. All analyses were stratified by age groups and mammography history., Results: Among women without a recent mammogram, reported clinician recommendations did not change for White women, but they decreased by 13-percentage points (95 % CI -0.22, -0.03) among non-White women aged 40-49 (p = 0.01) and increased by 9-percentage points (95 % CI 0.01, 0.17) among non-White women aged 50-74 (p = 0.04). Among women with a mammogram in the past 2 years, reported mammography recommendation from a clinician did not change for White or non-White women., Conclusions: Recommendations to reduce screening may be differentially implemented across racial/ethnic groups. Changes in reports of mammography recommendation from a clinician after the USPSTF breast cancer screening recommendation change were observed only among non-White women without a recent history of mammography. It is unclear whether these differences are due to the clinician, the women, or both.

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., (© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

This study examined the following: (1) relationships between religiosity-as measured by religious service attendance-and screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers; (2) the potential mediating role of social support; and (3) the potential moderating effect of race/ethnicity. Statistical analyses showed that religiosity was associated with greater utilization of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening. Social support fully mediated the relationship between religiosity and Pap screening, and partially mediated the relationship between religiosity and colorectal screening, but had no effect on the relationship between religiosity and mammography screening. Race/ethnicity moderated the relationship between religiosity and social support in the cervical cancer screening model, such that the positive association between religiosity and social support was stronger for non-Hispanic Blacks than it was for non-Hispanic Whites. These findings have implications for the role of social networks in health promotion and can inform cancer screening interventions in faith-based settings.

This article discusses the care process among three groups (primary care, radiology, and surgery) aiding a 57-year-old woman during her screening mammography and diagnosis of breast cancer. This is the first in a series of articles exploring principles and topics relevant to teams guiding clinicians involved in cancer care. The challenges demonstrated in this case illustrate how clinicians work within and between groups to deliver this first phase of cancer care. The case helps demonstrate the differences between groups and teams. Focusing on the patient and the overall process of care coordination can help move groups toward becoming teams who deliver better care by identifying and managing goals, roles, and interdependent care tasks. Care providers and researchers can use the case to consider their own work and essential aspects of teamwork needed to improve care, patient outcomes, and the evidence that supports each., (Copyright © 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: To 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 Methods: In 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., Results: Annually, 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., Conclusion: These 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.

Purpose: Many studies suggest increased body mass index (BMI) is associated with worse breast cancer outcomes, but few account for variability in screening, access to treatment, and tumor differences. We examined the association between BMI and risk of breast cancer recurrence, breast cancer-specific mortality, and all-cause mortality, and evaluated whether tumor characteristics differ by BMI among a mammographically screened population with access to treatment., Methods: Using a retrospective cohort study design, we followed 485 women aged ≥40 years diagnosed with stage I/II breast cancer within 24 months of a screening mammogram occurring between 1988 and 1993 for 10-year outcomes. BMI before diagnosis was categorized as normal (<25 kg/m(2)), overweight (25-29.9 kg/m(2)), and obese (≥30 kg/m(2)). Tumor marker expression was assessed via immunohistochemistry using tissue collected before adjuvant treatment. Medical records were abstracted to identify treatment, recurrence, and mortality. We used Cox proportional hazards to separately model the hazard ratios (HR) of our three outcomes by BMI while adjusting for age, stage, and tamoxifen use., Results: Relative to normal-weight women, obese women experienced increased risk of recurrence (HR 2.43; 95 % CI 1.34-4.41) and breast cancer death (HR 2.41; 95 % CI 1.00-5.81) within 10 years of diagnosis. There was no association between BMI and all-cause mortality. Obese women had significantly faster growing tumors, as measured by Ki-67., Conclusions: Our findings add to the growing evidence that obesity may contribute to poorer breast cancer outcomes, and also suggest that increased tumor proliferation among obese women is a pathway that explains part of their excess risk of adverse outcomes.

In 1999, researchers and policy makers recognized the challenge of creating an integrated patient-centered cancer care process across the many types of care from risk assessment through end of life. More than a decade later, there has been limited progress toward that goal even though the standard reductionist approach to health services and medical research has resulted in major advances in tests, procedures, and individualized patient approaches to care. In this commentary, we propose that considering an entire care process within its multilevel context may increase progress toward an integrated experience and improvements in the quality of care. As an illustrative case, we describe the multilevel context of care delivery for the process of follow-up to an abnormal screening mammogram. By taking a multilevel perspective on this process, we identify a rich set of options for intervening and improving follow-up to abnormalities and, therefore, outcomes of screening. We propose that taking this multilevel perspective when designing interventions may improve the quality of cancer care in an effective and sustainable way., (2012 AACR)

Background: Women with elevated mammographic density have an increased risk of developing breast cancer. However, among women diagnosed with breast cancer, it is unclear whether higher density portends reduced survival, independent of other factors., Methods: We evaluated relationships between mammographic density and risk of death from breast cancer and all causes within the US Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. We studied 9232 women diagnosed with primary invasive breast carcinoma during 1996-2005, with a mean follow-up of 6.6 years. Mammographic density was assessed using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) density classification. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated by Cox proportional hazards regression; women with scattered fibroglandular densities (BI-RADS 2) were the referent group. All statistical tests were two-sided., Results: A total of 1795 women died, of whom 889 died of breast cancer. In multivariable analyses (adjusted for site, age at and year of diagnosis, American Joint Committee on Cancer stage, body mass index, mode of detection, treatment, and income), high density (BI-RADS 4) was not related to risk of death from breast cancer (HR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.71 to 1.19) or death from all causes (HR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.68 to 1.02). Analyses stratified by stage and other prognostic factors yielded similar results, except for an increased risk of breast cancer death among women with low density (BI-RADS 1) who were either obese (HR = 2.02, 95% CI = 1.37 to 2.97) or had tumors of at least 2.0 cm (HR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.14 to 2.09)., Conclusions: High mammographic breast density was not associated with risk of death from breast cancer or death from any cause after accounting for other patient and tumor characteristics. Thus, risk factors for the development of breast cancer may not necessarily be the same as factors influencing the risk of death after breast cancer has developed.

Background: Screening mammography and invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) rates recently declined in the United States; screening mammography declines among former hormone therapy (HT) users may be an important contributor. We longitudinally examined women and compared mammography use and cancer rates by HT use [current, former, and never users of estrogen + progestin (EPT) and estrogen only (ET)]., Methods: We studied 163,490 unique women aged 50-79 years enrolled in Group Health (Washington State) between 1994-2009. Electronic data identified HT dispensing, mammography use and incident breast cancer diagnosis. We calculated age-adjusted screening compliance as a time-varying variable (screened-within-the-past-26 months, yes/no)., Results: Before 2002, screening compliance differed significantly by HT with current EPT users having the highest rates (83%) followed by former EPT (77%), current ET (77%), former ET (72%), and never users (56%). After 2002, screening was high (∼81%) among current and former EPT and ET users and significantly increased among never users (∼62%). Invasive breast cancer rates significantly decreased over the whole study period (P(trend) ≤ 0.05) for all HT users, except EPT current users (P(trend) = 0.68); DCIS rates did not change in any group., Conclusions: Differential screening mammography rates by HT use do not explain invasive breast cancer incidence declines. Our data suggest discontinuing HT has an immediate effect on breast cancer rates, lending support to the mechanism that cessation leads to tumor regression., Impact: Studies examining the influence of a changing exposure in relation to outcomes should account for varying exposures, individuals' characteristics, as well as screening methods and frequency.

Purpose: To investigate the association between radiologist interpretive volume and diagnostic mammography performance in community-based settings., Materials and Methods: This study received institutional review board approval and was HIPAA compliant. A total of 117,136 diagnostic mammograms that were interpreted by 107 radiologists between 2002 and 2006 in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium were included. Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the adjusted effect on sensitivity and the rates of false-positive findings and cancer detection of four volume measures: annual diagnostic volume, screening volume, total volume, and diagnostic focus (percentage of total volume that is diagnostic). Analyses were stratified by the indication for imaging: additional imaging after screening mammography or evaluation of a breast concern or problem., Results: Diagnostic volume was associated with sensitivity; the odds of a true-positive finding rose until a diagnostic volume of 1000 mammograms was reached; thereafter, they either leveled off (P < .001 for additional imaging) or decreased (P = .049 for breast concerns or problems) with further volume increases. Diagnostic focus was associated with false-positive rate; the odds of a false-positive finding increased until a diagnostic focus of 20% was reached and decreased thereafter (P < .024 for additional imaging and P < .001 for breast concerns or problems with no self-reported lump). Neither total volume nor screening volume was consistently associated with diagnostic performance., Conclusion: Interpretive volume and diagnostic performance have complex multifaceted relationships. Our results suggest that diagnostic interpretive volume is a key determinant in the development of thresholds for considering a diagnostic mammogram to be abnormal. Current volume regulations do not distinguish between screening and diagnostic mammography, and doing so would likely be challenging., (© RSNA, 2011.)

Background: In 2005, mammography rates in the United States dropped nationally for the first time among age-eligible women. An increased risk of breast cancer related to hormone therapy (HT) use reported in 2002 led to a dramatic drop in its use by 2005. Because current users of HT also tend to have higher mammography rates, the authors examined whether concurrent drops in HT and mammography use were associated., Methods: Multivariate logistic regression was used to test for an interaction between HT use and survey year, controlling for a range of measurable factors in data from the 2000 and 2005 National Health Interview Surveys (NHIS)., Results: Women ages 50 to 64 years were more likely to report a recent mammogram if they also reported more education, a usual source of care, private health insurance, any race except non-Hispanic Asian, talking with an obstetrician/gynecologist or other physician in the past 12 months, or were currently taking HT. Women aged ≥ 65 years were more likely to report a recent mammogram if they also reported younger age (ages 65-74 years), more education, a usual source of care, having Medicare Part B or other supplemental Medicare insurance, excellent health, any race except non-Hispanic Asian, talking with an obstetrician/gynecologist or other physician in the past 12 months, or were currently taking HT., Conclusions: The change in HT use was associated with the drop in mammography use for women ages 50 to 64 years but not for women aged ≥ 65 years. NHIS data explained 70% to 80% of the change in mammography use., (Copyright © 2011 American Cancer Society.)

Purpose: To describe the timeliness of follow-up care in community-based settings among women who receive a recommendation for immediate follow-up during the screening mammography process and how follow-up timeliness varies according to facility and facility-level characteristics., Materials and Methods: This was an institutional review board-approved and HIPAA-compliant study. Screening mammograms obtained from 1996 to 2007 in women 40-80 years old in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium were examined. Inclusion criteria were a recommendation for immediate follow-up at screening, or subsequent imaging, and observed follow-up within 180 days of the recommendation. Recommendations for additional imaging (AI) and biopsy or surgical consultation (BSC) were analyzed separately. The distribution of time to follow-up care was estimated by using the Kaplan-Meier estimator., Results: Data were available on 214,897 AI recommendations from 118 facilities and 35,622 BSC recommendations from 101 facilities. The median time to subsequent follow-up care after recommendation was 14 days for AI and 16 days for BSC. Approximately 90% of AI follow-up and 81% of BSC follow-up occurred within 30 days. Facilities with higher recall rates tended to have longer AI follow-up times (P < .001). Over the study period, BSC follow-up rates at 15 and 30 days improved (P < .001). Follow-up times varied substantially across facilities. Timely follow-up was associated with larger volumes of the recommended procedures but not notably associated with facility type nor observed facility-level characteristics., Conclusion: Most patients with follow-up returned within 3 weeks of the recommendation., (RSNA, 2011)

Background: Few studies have examined the comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in U.S. community practice., Objective: To determine whether the interpretive performance of digital and film-screen mammography differs., Design: Prospective cohort study., Setting: Mammography facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium., Participants: 329,261 women aged 40 to 79 years underwent 869 286 mammograms (231 034 digital; 638 252 film-screen)., Measurements: Invasive cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed within 12 months of a digital or film-screen examination and calculation of mammography sensitivity, specificity, cancer detection rates, and tumor outcomes., Results: Overall, cancer detection rates and tumor characteristics were similar for digital and film-screen mammography, but the sensitivity and specificity of each modality varied by age, tumor characteristics, breast density, and menopausal status. Compared with film-screen mammography, the sensitivity of digital mammography was significantly higher for women aged 60 to 69 years (89.9% vs. 83.0%; P = 0.014) and those with estrogen receptor-negative cancer (78.5% vs. 65.8%; P = 0.016); borderline significantly higher for women aged 40 to 49 years (82.4% vs. 75.6%; P = 0.071), those with extremely dense breasts (83.6% vs. 68.1%; P = 0.051), and pre- or perimenopausal women (87.1% vs. 81.7%; P = 0.057); and borderline significantly lower for women aged 50 to 59 years (80.5% vs. 85.1%; P = 0.097). The specificity of digital and film-screen mammography was similar by decade of age, except for women aged 40 to 49 years (88.0% vs. 89.7%; P < 0.001)., Limitation: Statistical power for subgroup analyses was limited., Conclusion: Overall, cancer detection with digital or film-screen mammography is similar in U.S. women aged 50 to 79 years undergoing screening mammography. Women aged 40 to 49 years are more likely to have extremely dense breasts and estrogen receptor-negative tumors; if they are offered mammography screening, they may choose to undergo digital mammography to optimize cancer detection., Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute.

Background: Computer-aided detection (CAD) is applied during screening mammography for millions of US women annually, although it is uncertain whether CAD improves breast cancer detection when used by community radiologists., Methods: We investigated the association between CAD use during film-screen screening mammography and specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value, cancer detection rates, and prognostic characteristics of breast cancers (stage, size, and node involvement). Records from 684 956 women who received more than 1.6 million film-screen mammograms at Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium facilities in seven states in the United States from 1998 to 2006 were analyzed. We used random-effects logistic regression to estimate associations between CAD and specificity (true-negative examinations among women without breast cancer), sensitivity (true-positive examinations among women with breast cancer diagnosed within 1 year of mammography), and positive predictive value (breast cancer diagnosed after positive mammograms) while adjusting for mammography registry, patient age, time since previous mammography, breast density, use of hormone replacement therapy, and year of examination (1998-2002 vs 2003-2006). All statistical tests were two-sided., Results: Of 90 total facilities, 25 (27.8%) adopted CAD and used it for an average of 27.5 study months. In adjusted analyses, CAD use was associated with statistically significantly lower specificity (OR = 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.85 to 0.89, P < .001) and positive predictive value (OR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.80 to 0.99, P = .03). A non-statistically significant increase in overall sensitivity with CAD (OR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.84 to 1.33, P = .62) was attributed to increased sensitivity for ductal carcinoma in situ (OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 0.83 to 2.91; P = .17), although sensitivity for invasive cancer was similar with or without CAD (OR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.75 to 1.24; P = .77). CAD was not associated with higher breast cancer detection rates or more favorable stage, size, or lymph node status of invasive breast cancer., Conclusion: CAD use during film-screen screening mammography in the United States is associated with decreased specificity but not with improvement in the detection rate or prognostic characteristics of invasive breast cancer.

Purpose: To examine whether U.S. radiologists' interpretive volume affects their screening mammography performance., Materials and Methods: Annual interpretive volume measures (total, screening, diagnostic, and screening focus [ratio of screening to diagnostic mammograms]) were collected for 120 radiologists in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) who interpreted 783 965 screening mammograms from 2002 to 2006. Volume measures in 1 year were examined by using multivariate logistic regression relative to screening sensitivity, false-positive rates, and cancer detection rate the next year. BCSC registries and the Statistical Coordinating Center received institutional review board approval for active or passive consenting processes and a Federal Certificate of Confidentiality and other protections for participating women, physicians, and facilities. All procedures were compliant with the terms of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act., Results: Mean sensitivity was 85.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 83.7%, 86.6%) and was significantly lower for radiologists with a greater screening focus (P = .023) but did not significantly differ by total (P = .47), screening (P = .33), or diagnostic (P = .23) volume. The mean false-positive rate was 9.1% (95% CI: 8.1%, 10.1%), with rates significantly higher for radiologists who had the lowest total (P = .008) and screening (P = .015) volumes. Radiologists with low diagnostic volume (P = .004 and P = .008) and a greater screening focus (P = .003 and P = .002) had significantly lower false-positive and cancer detection rates, respectively. Median invasive tumor size and proportion of cancers detected at early stages did not vary by volume., Conclusion: Increasing minimum interpretive volume requirements in the United States while adding a minimal requirement for diagnostic interpretation could reduce the number of false-positive work-ups without hindering cancer detection. These results provide detailed associations between mammography volumes and performance for policymakers to consider along with workforce, practice organization, and access issues and radiologist experience when reevaluating requirements., (© RSNA, 2011.)

Background: Multiple clinical practice guidelines exist for breast and cervical cancer screening, and differ in aggressiveness with respect to the recommended frequency and target populations for screening., Objectives: To determine (1) US primary care physicians' (PCPs) perceptions of the influence of different clinical practice guidelines; (2) the relationship between the number, aggressiveness, and agreement of influential guidelines and the aggressiveness of physicians' screening recommendations; and (3) factors associated with guideline perceptions., Research Design and Methods: A nationally representative sample of 1212 PCPs was surveyed in 2006-2007. Cross-sectional analyses examined physicians' perceptions of the influence of different breast and cervical cancer screening guidelines, the relationship of guideline perceptions to screening recommendations in response to hypothetical vignettes, and the predictors of guideline perceptions., Results: American Cancer Society and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines were perceived as more influential than other guidelines. Most physicians (62%) valued multiple guidelines, and conflicting and aggressive rather than conservative guideline combinations. The number, aggressiveness, and agreement of influential guidelines were associated with the aggressiveness of screening recommendations (P < 0.01)-which was highest for physicians valuing multiple-aggressive, lowest for physicians valuing multiple-conservative, and intermediate for physicians valuing multiple-conflicting, single, and no guidelines. Obstetrician/gynecologists specialty predicted valuation of aggressive guidelines (P < 0.001)., Conclusions: PCPs' perceptions of cancer screening guidelines vary, relate to screening recommendations in logically-consistent ways, and are predicted by specialty and other factors. The number, aggressiveness, and agreement of valued guidelines are associated with screening recommendations, suggesting that guideline multiplicity is an important problem in clinical decision-making.

Purpose: To investigate sensitivity, specificity, and cancer detection rate of screening mammography according to week of menstrual cycle among premenopausal women., Materials and Methods: In this institutional review board-approved HIPAA-compliant study, sensitivity, specificity, and cancer detection rate of 387,218 screening mammograms linked to 1283 breast cancers in premenopausal women according to week of menstrual cycle were studied by using prospectively collected information from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Logistic regression analysis was used to test for differences in mammography performance according to week of menstrual cycle, adjusting for age and registry., Results: Overall, screening mammography performance did not differ according to week of menstrual cycle. However, when analyses were subdivided according to prior mammography, different patterns emerged. For the 66.6% of women who had undergone regular screening (mammography had been performed within the past 2 years), sensitivity was higher in week 1 (79.5%) than in subsequent weeks (week 2, 70.3%; week 3, 67.4%; week 4, 73.0%; P = .041). In the 17.8% of women who underwent mammography for the first time in this study, sensitivity tended to be lower during the follicular phase (week 1, 72.1%; week 2, 80.4%; week 3, 84.6%; week 4, 93.8%; P = .051). Sensitivity did not vary significantly by week in menstrual cycle in women who had undergone mammography more than 3 years earlier. There were no clinically meaningful differences in specificity or cancer detection rate., Conclusion: Premenopausal women who undergo regular screening may benefit from higher sensitivity of mammography if they schedule screening mammography during the 1st week of their menstrual cycle., Supplemental Material: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.10100974/-/DC1., (© RSNA, 2010)

Background: Most breast biopsies will be negative for cancer. Benign breast biopsy can cause changes in the breast tissue, but whether such changes affect the interpretive performance of future screening mammography is not known., Methods: We prospectively evaluated whether self-reported benign breast biopsy was associated with reduced subsequent screening mammography performance using examination data from the mammography registries of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium from January 2, 1996, through December 31, 2005. A positive interpretation was defined as a recommendation for any additional evaluation. Cancer was defined as any invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed within 1 year of mammography screening. Measures of mammography performance (sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value 1 [PPV1]) were compared both at woman level and breast level in the presence and absence of self-reported benign biopsy history. Referral to biopsy was considered a positive interpretation to calculate positive predictive value 2 (PPV2). Multivariable analysis of a correct interpretation on each performance measure was conducted after adjusting for registry, year of examination, patient characteristics, months since last mammogram, and availability of comparison film. Accuracy of the mammogram interpretation was measured using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). All statistical tests were two-sided., Results: A total of 2,007,381 screening mammograms were identified among 799,613 women, of which 14.6% mammograms were associated with self-reported previous breast biopsy. Multivariable adjusted models for mammography performance showed reduced specificity (odds ratio [OR] = 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.73 to 0.75, P < .001), PPV2 (OR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.79 to 0.92, P < .001), and AUC (AUC 0.892 vs 0.925, P < .001) among women with self-reported benign biopsy. There was no difference in sensitivity or PPV1 in the same adjusted models, although unadjusted differences in both were found. Specificity was lowest among women with documented fine needle aspiration-the least invasive biopsy technique (OR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.55 to 0.61, P < .001). Repeating the analysis among women with documented biopsy history, unilateral biopsy history, or restricted to invasive cancers did not change the results., Conclusions: Self-reported benign breast biopsy history was associated with statistically significantly reduced mammography performance. The difference in performance was likely because of tissue characteristics rather than the biopsy itself.

Purpose: To examine time trends in radiologists' interpretive performance at screening mammography between 1996 and 2004., Materials and Methods: All study procedures were institutional review board approved and HIPAA compliant. Data were collected on subsequent screening mammograms obtained from 1996 to 2004 in women aged 40-79 years who were followed up for 1 year for breast cancer. Recall rate, sensitivity, and specificity were examined annually. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) and random-effects models were used to test for linear trend. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), tumor histologic findings, and size of the largest dimension or diameter of the tumor were also examined., Results: Data on 2,542,049 subsequent screening mammograms and 12,498 cancers diagnosed in the follow-up period were included in this study. Recall rate increased from 6.7% to 8.6%, sensitivity increased from 71.4% to 83.8%, and specificity decreased from 93.6% to 91.7%. In GEE models, adjusted odds ratios per calendar year were 1.04 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02, 1.05) for recall rate, 1.09 (95% CI: 1.07. 1.12) for sensitivity, and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95, 0.98) for specificity (P < .001 for all). Random-effects model results were similar. The AUC increased over time: 0.869 (95% CI: 0.861, 0.877) for 1996-1998, 0.884 (95% CI: 0.879, 0.890) for 1999-2001, and 0.891 (95% CI: 0.885, 0.896) for 2002-2004 (P < .001). Tumor histologic findings and size remained constant., Conclusion: Recall rate and sensitivity for screening mammograms increased, whereas specificity decreased from 1996 to 2004 among women with a prior mammogram. This trend remained after accounting for risk factors. The net effect was an improvement in overall discrimination, a measure of the probability that a mammogram with cancer in the follow-up period has a higher Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System assessment category than does a mammogram without cancer in the follow-up period.

Cancer screening is a process of care consisting of several steps and interfaces. This article reviews what is known about the association between organizational factors and cancer screening rates and examines how organizational strategies can address the steps and interfaces of cancer screening in the context of both intraorganizational and interorganizational processes. We reviewed 79 studies assessing the relationship between organizational factors and cancer screening. Screening rates are largely driven by strategies to 1) limit the number of interfaces across organizational boundaries; 2) recruit patients, promote referrals, and facilitate appointment scheduling; and 3) promote continuous patient care. Optimal screening rates can be achieved when health-care organizations tailor strategies to the steps and interfaces in the cancer screening process that are most critical for their organizations, the providers who work within them, and the patients they serve.

To achieve the benefit of cancer screening, appropriate follow-up of abnormal screening test results must occur. Such follow-up requires traversing the transition between screening detection and diagnosis, including several steps and interfaces in care. This article reviews factors and interventions associated with follow-up of abnormal tests for cervical, breast and colorectal cancers. We synthesized 12 reviews of descriptive and intervention studies published between 1980 and 2008. There was wide variability in definition of follow-up, setting, study population, and reported prevalence rates. Correlates of follow-up included patient characteristics (eg, knowledge and age), social support, provider characteristics, practice (eg, having reminders systems), community and professional norms (eg, quality measures), and policy (eg, federal programs). Effective interventions included patient education and support; delivery systems design changes, such as navigation; and information system changes, most notably patient tracking and physician reminders. Few studies focused explicitly on interfaces and steps of care, such as communication between primary care and specialists, or simultaneously targeted the multilevel factors that affect care. Future practice and research priorities should include development of clear operational definitions of the steps and interfaces related to patients, providers, and organizations; reflect evolving guidelines and new technologies; determine priorities for intervention testing; and improve measures and apply appropriate study designs.

This study estimated the sensitivity and specificity of self-reported breast cancer and their associations with patient factors and pathologic findings using data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. We included 24,631 women with and 463,804 women without a prior diagnosis of breast cancer who completed a questionnaire (including breast cancer history) at participating US mammography facilities between 1996 and 2006. We determined "true" cancer status using cancer registries and pathology databases. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine associations with patient factors and pathologic findings. Sensitivity of self-reported breast cancer was higher for women with invasive cancer (96.9%) than for those with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (90.2%). Specificity was high overall (99.7%) but much lower for women with a history of lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) (65.0%). In multivariable models, women reporting older ages, a nonwhite race/ethnicity, or less education had lower sensitivities and specificities. Sensitivity was reduced when there was evidence of prior DCIS, especially when this diagnosis had been made more than 2 years before questionnaire completion. Women reporting a family history of breast cancer had higher sensitivity. Evidence of prior LCIS was associated with lower specificity. The accuracy of self-reported breast cancer depends on the respondent's characteristics and prior diagnoses. Accuracy is lower among nonwhite women and women reporting less education. There appears to be uncertainty surrounding breast findings such as DCIS and LCIS. These results have important implications for research relying on self-report and for patient communication and care.

Background: Interpretive performance of screening mammography varies substantially by facility, but performance of diagnostic interpretation has not been studied., Methods: Facilities performing diagnostic mammography within three registries of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium were surveyed about their structure, organization, and interpretive processes. Performance measurements (false-positive rate, sensitivity, and likelihood of cancer among women referred for biopsy [positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation {PPV2}]) from January 1, 1998, through December 31, 2005, were prospectively measured. Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses, adjusted for patient and radiologist characteristics, were used to assess the association between facility characteristics and interpretive performance. All statistical tests were two-sided., Results: Forty-five of the 53 facilities completed a facility survey (85% response rate), and 32 of the 45 facilities performed diagnostic mammography. The analyses included 28 100 diagnostic mammograms performed as an evaluation of a breast problem, and data were available for 118 radiologists who interpreted diagnostic mammograms at the facilities. Performance measurements demonstrated statistically significant interpretive variability among facilities (sensitivity, P = .006; false-positive rate, P < .001; and PPV2, P < .001) in unadjusted analyses. However, after adjustment for patient and radiologist characteristics, only false-positive rate variation remained statistically significant and facility traits associated with performance measures changed (false-positive rate = 6.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.5% to 7.4%; sensitivity = 73.5%, 95% CI = 67.1% to 79.9%; and PPV2 = 33.8%, 95% CI = 29.1% to 38.5%). Facilities reporting that concern about malpractice had moderately or greatly increased diagnostic examination recommendations at the facility had a higher false-positive rate (odds ratio [OR] = 1.48, 95% CI = 1.09 to 2.01) and a non-statistically significantly higher sensitivity (OR = 1.74, 95% CI = 0.94 to 3.23). Facilities offering specialized interventional services had a non-statistically significantly higher false-positive rate (OR = 1.97, 95% CI = 0.94 to 4.1). No characteristics were associated with overall accuracy by ROC curve analyses., Conclusions: Variation in diagnostic mammography interpretation exists across facilities. Failure to adjust for patient characteristics when comparing facility performance could lead to erroneous conclusions. Malpractice concerns are associated with interpretive performance.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to identify patient and lesion characteristics associated with a diagnosis of breast malignancy within 3 years of having a probably benign finding (BI-RADS category 3) on a mammogram obtained in a community radiology practice., Materials and Methods: The subjects were women 30 years old and older without breast implants or previous breast cancer who received notice of a probably benign finding on a bilateral screening mammogram between January 1, 1996, and June 30, 1999, in a community-based practice. From 82,898 mammograms, we identified 129 breast lesions designated probably benign that progressed to malignancy within 3 years of an index examination (cases) and matched them to 129 lesions designated probably benign that did not progress to malignancy within 3 years (controls). A breast imaging specialist blinded to case-control status interpreted all examinations and recorded detailed lesion descriptors according to the BI-RADS lexicon., Results: Case lesions were more likely in patients who were older, postmenopausal, or had a strong family history of breast cancer or previous biopsy. The lesions were more likely masses with obscured, indistinct, or spiculated margins compared with control lesions (84.6% vs 66%, p = 0.03). Case lesions were more likely calcifications (29.5% vs 17.8%, p = 0.03). No cases were encountered among calcifications considered typically benign in the BI-RADS lexicon (vascular or coarse), and no controls were encountered among calcifications considered suspicious or highly suggestive of malignancy in the BI-RADS lexicon (amorphous, pleomorphic, branching, and fine linear) (p < 0.0001)., Conclusion: In community practice, patient and lesion mammographic characteristics can be predictive of the likelihood of a subsequent cancer diagnosis of mammographic lesions designated as probably benign. Careful evaluation of mass margins and of the morphologic features of calcifications can help distinguish a malignant lesion from a probably benign finding.

Background: Timely screening with mammography can prevent a substantial number of deaths from breast cancer. The objective of this brief was to ascertain whether recent use of mammography has dropped nationally., Methods: The authors assessed the trend in mammography rates from 1987 through 2005. Then, they used the 2000 and 2005 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) estimates to characterize trends and current patterns in mammography use., Results: After robust, rapid increases in reported use of mammography by women in the U.S. since 1987, estimates from the 2005 NHIS showed a decline compared with 2000 (from 70% to 66%). Although it was small, this decline may be cause for concern, because it signals a change in direction., Conclusions: This report establishes for the nation what already has been observed in some local data. The results confirmed that the use of mammography may be falling. This change needs to be monitored carefully and also may call for intervention., (Published 2007 by the American Cancer Society.)

Background: Computer-aided detection identifies suspicious findings on mammograms to assist radiologists. Since the Food and Drug Administration approved the technology in 1998, it has been disseminated into practice, but its effect on the accuracy of interpretation is unclear., Methods: We determined the association between the use of computer-aided detection at mammography facilities and the performance of screening mammography from 1998 through 2002 at 43 facilities in three states. We had complete data for 222,135 women (a total of 429,345 mammograms), including 2351 women who received a diagnosis of breast cancer within 1 year after screening. We calculated the specificity, sensitivity, and positive predictive value of screening mammography with and without computer-aided detection, as well as the rates of biopsy and breast-cancer detection and the overall accuracy, measured as the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curve., Results: Seven facilities (16%) implemented computer-aided detection during the study period. Diagnostic specificity decreased from 90.2% before implementation to 87.2% after implementation (P<0.001), the positive predictive value decreased from 4.1% to 3.2% (P=0.01), and the rate of biopsy increased by 19.7% (P<0.001). The increase in sensitivity from 80.4% before implementation of computer-aided detection to 84.0% after implementation was not significant (P=0.32). The change in the cancer-detection rate (including invasive breast cancers and ductal carcinomas in situ) was not significant (4.15 cases per 1000 screening mammograms before implementation and 4.20 cases after implementation, P=0.90). Analyses of data from all 43 facilities showed that the use of computer-aided detection was associated with significantly lower overall accuracy than was nonuse (area under the ROC curve, 0.871 vs. 0.919; P=0.005)., Conclusions: The use of computer-aided detection is associated with reduced accuracy of interpretation of screening mammograms. The increased rate of biopsy with the use of computer-aided detection is not clearly associated with improved detection of invasive breast cancer., (Copyright 2007 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Objective: The objective of our study was to test whether the use of computer-assisted detection (CAD) improves sensitivity at no cost to specificity for the detection of breast cancer and enables more accurate assessment of fatty breast tissue compared with dense breast tissue., Materials and Methods: We created a stratified random sample of screening mammograms weighted with difficult cases split evenly among women with fatty breast tissue and those with dense breast tissue: 114 patients were cancer-free, 114 had cancer 1 year after screening, and 113 had cancer 13-24 months after screening. In test settings 6 months apart, 19 community radiologists interpreted 341 bilateral screening mammograms with and without CAD. We compared the sensitivity and specificity using regression models adjusting for repeated measures., Results: CAD assistance did not affect overall sensitivity (cancer by 1 year: 63.2% without CAD and 62.0% with CAD; cancer in 13-24 months: 33.5% without CAD and 32.3% with CAD), but its effect differed for visible masses that were marked by CAD compared with those that were not marked by CAD (hereafter referred to as "unmarked"). CAD was associated with improved sensitivity for marked visible cancers and decreased sensitivity for unmarked visible masses; the sensitivities without and with CAD, respectively, were as follows: marked cancer by 1 year, 82.7% versus 83.1%; marked cancer in 13-24 months, 44.2% versus 57.9%; unmarked cancer by 1 year, 37.4% versus 30.1%; unmarked cancer in 13-24 months, 29.7% versus 23.0% (p < 0.03 for both interactions between assistance and CAD marking for cancer by 1 year and cancer in 13-24 months). CAD marked 77% (70/91) of the visible cancers by 1 year and 67.3% (37/55) of the visible cancers in 13-24 months. CAD marked more visible calcified lesions (86%) than masses and asymmetric densities (67%) (p < 0.05). Overall specificity was 72% without and 75% with CAD (p < 0.02). CAD had a greater effect on both specificity (p < 0.02) and sensitivity (p < 0.03) among radiologists who interpret more than 50 mammograms per week. The results were the same for fatty breast tissue and dense breast tissue., Conclusion: In this experiment, CAD increased interpretive specificity but did not affect sensitivity because visible noncalcified lesions that went unmarked by CAD were less likely to be assessed as abnormal by radiologists. Breast density did not affect CAD's performance.

Background: There is little information on the quality of breast self-examination (BSE) and associated outcomes., Method: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 27,421 women enrolled in a Pacific Northwest health plan. We linked responses regarding BSE quality from a questionnaire to subsequent screening and diagnostic efforts., Results: A total of 75% of the women performed BSE. We rated BSE quality as adequate in 27%. Women who reported higher BSE duration, frequency, and quality were more likely to have diagnostic mammograms. Participants ultimately diagnosed with breast cancer (N = 300) were significantly less likely to report performing BSE. Tumor size and stage were not associated with BSE behavior., Conclusion: A high proportion of women perform BSE, but few do so adequately. We found no evidence for benefit of BSE. It is time to ask whether systematic BSE performance should continue to be encouraged.

Objective: Federal regulations mandate that radiologists receive regular albeit limited feedback regarding their interpretive accuracy in mammography. We sought to determine whether radiologists who regularly receive more extensive feedback can report their actual performance in screening mammography accurately., Subjects and Methods: Radiologists (n = 105) who routinely interpret screening mammograms in three states (Washington, Colorado, and New Hampshire) completed a mailed survey in 2001. Radiologists were asked to estimate how frequently they recommended additional diagnostic testing after screening mammography and the positive predictive value of their recommendations for biopsy (PPV2). We then used outcomes from 336,128 screening mammography examinations interpreted by the radiologists from 1998 to 2001 to ascertain their true rates of recommendations for diagnostic testing and PPV2., Results: Radiologists' self-reported rate of recommending immediate additional imaging (11.1%) exceeded their actual rate (9.1%) (mean difference, 1.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9-3.0%). The mean self-reported rate of recommending short-interval follow-up was 6.2%; the true rate was 1.8% (mean difference, 4.3%; 95% CI, 3.6-5.1%). Similarly, the mean self-reported and true rates of recommending immediate biopsy or surgical evaluation were 3.2% and 0.6%, respectively (mean difference, 2.6%; 95% CI, 1.8-3.4%). Conversely, radiologists' mean self-reported PPV2 (18.3%) was significantly less than their mean true PPV2 (27.6%) (mean difference, -9.3%; 95% CI, -12.4% to -6.2%)., Conclusion: Despite regular performance feedback, community radiologists may overestimate their true rates of recommending further evaluation after screening mammography and underestimate their true positive predictive value.

Purpose: To assess the relationship between radiologists' perception of and experience with medical malpractice and their patient-recall rates in actual community-based clinical settings., Materials and Methods: All study activities were approved by the institutional review boards of the involved institutions, and patient and radiologist informed consent was obtained where necessary. This study was performed in three regions of the United States (Washington, Colorado, and New Hampshire). Radiologists who routinely interpret mammograms completed a mailed survey that included questions on demographic data, practice environment, and medical malpractice. Survey responses were linked to interpretive performance for all screening mammography examinations performed between January 1, 1996, and December 31, 2001. The odds of recall were modeled by using logistic regression analysis based on generalized estimating equations that adjust for study region., Results: Of 181 eligible radiologists, 139 (76.8%) returned the survey with full consent. The analysis included 124 radiologists who had interpreted a total of 557 143 screening mammograms. Approximately half (64 of 122 [52.4%]) of the radiologists reported a prior malpractice claim, with 18 (14.8%) reporting mammography-related claims. The majority (n = 51 [81.0%]) of the 63 radiologists who responded to a question regarding the degree of stress caused by a medical malpractice claim described the experience as very or extremely stressful. More than three of every four radiologists (ie, 94 [76.4%] of 123) expressed concern about the impact medical malpractice has on mammography practice, with over half (72 [58.5%] of 123) indicating that their concern moderately to greatly increased the number of their recommendations for breast biopsies. Radiologists' estimates of their future malpractice risk were substantially higher than the actual historical risk. Almost one of every three radiologists (43 of 122 [35.3%]) had considered withdrawing from mammogram interpretation because of malpractice concerns. No significant association was found between recall rates and radiologists' experiences or perceptions of medical malpractice., Conclusion: U.S. radiologists are extremely concerned about medical malpractice and report that this concern affects their recall rates and biopsy recommendations. However, medical malpractice experience and concerns were not associated with recall or false-positive rates. Heightened concern of almost all radiologists may be a key reason that recall rates are higher in the United States than in other countries, but this hypothesis requires further study., (Copyright RSNA, 2005)

Purpose: To evaluate the current (2001-2002) capacity of community-based mammography facilities to deliver screening and diagnostic services in the United States., Materials and Methods: Institutional review board approvals and patient consent were obtained. A mailed survey was sent to 53 eligible mammography facilities in three states (Washington, New Hampshire, and Colorado). Survey questions assessed equipment and staffing availability, as well as appointment waiting times for screening and diagnostic mammography services. Criterion-related content and construct validity were obtained first by means of a national advisory committee of academic, scientific, and clinical colleagues in mammography that reviewed literature on existing surveys and second by pilot testing a series of draft surveys among community mammography facilities not inclusive of the study facilities. The final survey results were independently double entered into a relational database with programmed data checks. The data were sent encrypted by means of file transfer protocol to a central analytical center at Group Health Cooperative. A two-sided P value with alpha = .05 was considered to show statistical significance in all analyses., Results: Forty-five of 53 eligible mammography facilities (85%) returned the survey. Shortages of radiologists relative to the mammographic volume were found in 44% of mammography facilities overall, with shortages of radiologists higher in not-for-profit versus for-profit facilities (60% vs 28% reported). Shortages of Mammography Quality Standards Act-qualified technologists were reported by 20% of facilities, with 46% reporting some level of difficulty in maintaining qualified technologists. Waiting times for diagnostic mammography ranged from less than 1 week to 4 weeks, with 85% performed within 1 week. Waiting times for screening mammography ranged from less than 1 week to 8 weeks, with 59% performed between 1 week and 4 weeks. Waiting times for both diagnostic and screening services were two to three times higher in high-volume compared with low-volume facilities., Conclusion: Survey results show shortages of radiologists and certified mammography technologists., ((c) RSNA, 2005.)

Objective: To understand mammographers' perception of individual women's breast cancer risk., Materials and Methods: Radiologists interpreting screening mammography examinations completed a mailed survey consisting of questions pertaining to demographic and clinical practice characteristics, as well as 2 vignettes describing different risk profiles of women. Respondents were asked to estimate the probability of a breast cancer diagnosis in the next 5 years for each vignette. Vignette responses were plotted against mean recall rates in actual clinical practice., Results: The survey was returned by 77% of eligible radiologists. Ninety-three percent of radiologists overestimated risk in the vignette involving a 70-year-old woman; 96% overestimated risk in the vignette involving a 41-year-old woman. Radiologists who more accurately estimated breast cancer risk were younger, worked full-time, were affiliated with an academic medical center, had fellowship training, had fewer than 10 years experience interpreting mammograms, and worked more than 40% of the time in breast imaging. However, only age was statistically significant. No association was found between radiologists' risk estimate and their recall rate., Conclusion: U.S. radiologists have a heightened perception of breast cancer risk.

Objective: The purpose of our study was to accurately describe facility characteristics among community-based screening and diagnostic mammography practices in the United States., Materials and Methods: A survey was developed and applied to community-based facilities providing screening mammography in three geographically distinct locations in the states of Washington, Colorado, and New Hampshire. The facility survey was conducted between December 2001 and September 2002. Characteristics surveyed included facility type, services offered, charges for screening and diagnostic mammography, information systems, and interpretation methods, including the frequency of double interpretation., Results: Among 45 responding facilities, services offered included screening mammography at all facilities, diagnostic mammography at 34 facilities (76%), breast sonography at 30 (67%), breast MRI at seven (16%), and nuclear medicine breast scanning at seven (16%). Most facilities surveyed were radiology practices in nonhospital settings. Eight facilities (18%) reported performing clinical breast examinations routinely along with screening mammography. Only five screening sites (11%) used computer-aided detection (CAD) and only two (5%) used digital mammography. Nearly two thirds of facilities interpreted screening mammography examinations on-site, whereas 91% of facilities interpreted diagnostic examinations on-site. Only three facilities (7%) interpreted screening examinations on line as they were performed. Approximately half of facilities reported using some type of double interpretation, although the methods of double interpretation and the fraction of cases double-interpreted varied widely across facilities. On average, approximately 15% of screening examinations and 10% of diagnostic examinations were reported as being double-interpreted., Conclusion: Comparison of this survey's results with those collected a decade earlier indicates dramatic changes in the practice of mammography, including a clear distinction between screening and diagnostic mammography, batch interpretation of screening mammograms, and improved quality assurance and medical audit tools. Diffusion of new technologies such as CAD and digital mammography was not widespread. The methods of double-interpretation and the fraction of cases double-interpreted varied widely across study sites.

Background: Delay in diagnosis of breast cancer can occur at several points on the diagnostic pathway. We examined characteristics of women with breast cancer who before diagnosis actively refused recommended follow-up of tests or symptoms suggestive of breast cancer., Methods: We identified women aged 50 years or older diagnosed with late-stage (metastatic disease or tumors > or = 3 cm at diagnosis) and a matched sample of women with early-stage (tumors < 3 cm) breast cancer from 1995 to 1999. Using medical records, we investigated clinical characteristics, use of health care, and documentation of care refusal during the 3 years before diagnosis. We used logistic regression models to compare refusers to nonrefusers., Results: Of the 2694 women studied, 7.2% refused provider follow-up advice during the 3 years. These women were more likely to have late-stage breast cancer at diagnosis than were nonrefusers (odds ratio [OR] = 1.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.4 to 2.6). They were more likely to be aged 75 years or older (OR = 1.9, 95% CI = 1.4 to 2.7 compared with age 50-64) or to have six or more children (OR = 2.3, 95% CI = 1.3 to 4.2 compared to women with one to two children). Clinical factors associated with refusal included low use of mammography, high use of clinical breast exam, and missed appointments. A minority of women who refused had a reason documented in the medical record; the most frequent reasons were avoidance-denial-fatalism, fear of diagnostic tests, and fear of surgery or disfigurement., Conclusions: Our results suggest that certain demographic and clinical characteristics are associated with women's refusal of diagnostic testing for breast cancer. Further study is needed on refusers' characteristics and on how such refusals affect outcomes. Efforts aimed at identifying and counseling women with abnormal results who refuse follow-up are warranted.

Background: Radiologists differ in their ability to interpret screening mammograms accurately. We investigated the relationship of radiologist characteristics to actual performance from 1996 to 2001., Methods: Screening mammograms (n = 469,512) interpreted by 124 radiologists were linked to cancer outcome data. The radiologists completed a survey that included questions on demographics, malpractice concerns, years of experience interpreting mammograms, and the number of mammograms read annually. We used receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis to analyze variables associated with sensitivity, specificity, and the combination of the two, adjusting for patient variables that affect performance. All P values are two-sided., Results: Within 1 year of the mammogram, 2402 breast cancers were identified. Relative to low annual interpretive volume (< or =1000 mammograms), greater interpretive volume was associated with higher sensitivity (P = .001; odds ratio [OR] for moderate volume [1001-2000] = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.18 to 2.39; OR for high volume [>2000] = 1.89, 95% CI = 1.36 to 2.63). Specificity decreased with volume (OR for 1001-2000 = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.52 to 0.83; OR for more than 2000 = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.60 to 0.96), compared with 1000 or less (P = .002). Greater number of years of experience interpreting mammograms was associated with lower sensitivity (P = .001), but higher specificity (P = .003). ROC analysis using the ordinal BI-RADS interpretation showed an association between accuracy and both previous mammographic history (P = .012) and breast density (P<.001). No association was observed between accuracy and years interpreting mammograms (P = .34) or mammography volume (P = .94), after adjusting for variables that affect the threshold for calling a mammogram positive., Conclusions: We found no evidence that greater volume or experience at interpreting mammograms is associated with better performance. However, they may affect sensitivity and specificity, possibly by determining the threshold for calling a mammogram positive. Increasing volume requirements is unlikely to improve overall mammography performance.

Background: Mammography screening may reduce breast cancer mortality by detecting cancers at an earlier stage. However, certain questions remain, including the ideal interval between mammograms., Methods: We conducted an observational study using information collected by seven mammography registries across the United States to investigate whether women diagnosed with breast cancer after having screening mammograms separated by a 2-year interval (n = 2440) are more likely to be diagnosed with late-stage disease (positive lymph nodes or metastases) than women diagnosed with breast cancer after having screening mammograms separated by a 1-year interval (n = 5400). Analyses were stratified by age and breast density to clarify whether groups that have the poorest mammography sensitivity (i.e., women under age 50 years and those with mammographically dense breasts) would benefit most from annual screening. The subjects were women diagnosed with breast cancer between 1996 and 2001 who were 40-89 years old at their index mammographic examination (i.e., the most recent screen at or before breast cancer diagnosis). Data were analyzed by logistic regression, adjusting for race, ethnicity, family history of breast cancer, and mammography registry., Results: Among women age 40-49 years at the index mammogram, those with a 2-year screening interval were more likely to have late-stage disease at diagnosis than those with a 1-year screening interval (28% versus 21%; odds ratio [OR] = 1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.01 to 1.81). There was no increase in late-stage disease for women 50 years or older with a 2-year versus a 1-year screening interval (women age 50-59 years at index mammogram: OR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.75 to 1.25; women age 60-69 years at index mammogram: OR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.72 to 1.35; women age 70 years or older at index mammogram: OR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.64 to 1.19). There was no indication that women with dense breasts would benefit more from a 1-year versus 2-year screening interval than women with fatty breasts., Conclusion: These findings may be useful for policy decisions about appropriate screening intervals and for use in statistical models that estimate the costs and benefits of mammography by age and screening interval.

Background: Breast cancer rates in women with multiple breast symptoms have not been well described., Methods: We examined the association between self-reported symptoms (lump, nipple discharge, pain, other) and breast cancer risk for screening and diagnostic mammograms in 57,681 women. Subanalyses evaluated risk among women with no prior mammograms, new symptoms, and repeated symptoms. One thousand, three hundred and eighty-nine women were diagnosed with cancer within 12 months of their mammograms. We calculated the breast cancer rate for each symptom and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for breast cancer among symptomatic women compared with asymptomatic women., Results: Women reporting a lump had an increased odds of breast cancer compared with asymptomatic women (OR for diagnostic examination = 2.8, 95% CI = 2.3 to 3.4; OR for screening examination = 3.6, 95% CI = 2.6 to 5.0). No other symptoms were associated with breast cancer after controlling for a reported lump. A new lump at a diagnostic examination was significantly predictive of cancer among women with no prior mammograms (OR = 12.2, 95% CI = 2.8 to 53.5); reporting symptoms at 2 successive exams had little effect on breast cancer risk (OR for lump = 1.2, 95% CI = 0.6 to 2.5)., Conclusions: Having a lump is the most predictive symptom of breast cancer whether it is reported at a screening or diagnostic examination or in conjunction with other symptoms.

Background: Mammography screening increases the detection of early-stage breast cancers. Therefore, implementing screening should reduce the percentage of women who are diagnosed with late-stage disease. However, despite high national mammography screening rates, late-stage breast cancers still occur, possibly because of failures in screening implementation., Methods: Using data from seven health care plans that included 1.5 million women aged 50 years or older, we conducted retrospective reviews of chart and automated data for 3 years before 1995-1999 diagnoses of late-stage (metastatic and/or tumor size > or =3 cm; case subjects, n = 1347) and early-stage breast cancers (control subjects, n = 1347). We categorized the earliest screening mammogram during the period 13-36 months before diagnosis as none (absence of screening), negative (absence of detection), or positive (potential breakdown in follow-up). We compared the proportion of case and control subjects in each category of screening implementation and estimated the likelihood (odds ratio [OR] with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) of late-stage breast cancer. We also evaluated demographic characteristics associated with absence of screening in women with late-stage disease. All statistical tests were two-sided., Results: Absence of screening, absence of detection, and potential breakdown in follow-up were distributed differently among case (52.1%, 39.5%, and 8.4%, respectively) and control subjects (34.4%, 56.9%, and 8.8%, respectively) (P = .03). Among all women, the odds of having late-stage cancer were higher among women with an absence of screening (OR = 2.17, 95% CI = 1.84 to 2.56; P<.001). Among case patients, women were more likely to be in the absence-of-screening group if they were aged 75 years or older (OR = 2.77, 95% CI = 2.10 to 3.65), unmarried (OR = 1.78, 95% CI = 1.41 to 2.24), or without a family history of breast cancer (OR = 1.84, 95% CI = 1.45 to 2.34). A higher proportion of women from census blocks with less education (58.5% versus 49.4%; P = .003) or lower median annual income (54.4% versus 42.9%; P = .004) were in the absence-of-screening category compared with the proportion for the other two categories combined., Conclusions: To reduce late-stage breast cancer occurrence, reaching unscreened women, including elderly, unmarried, low-income, and less educated women, should be made a top priority for screening implementation.

Background: Younger women (40-49 years) have lower mammographic sensitivity (i.e., greater proportion of cancers detected after a negative mammogram) than older women (> or =50 years). We explored the effect of tumor growth rate, breast density, mammographic image quality, and breast cancer risk factors on mammographic sensitivity in younger and older women., Methods: We studied 576 women (n = 73 aged 40-49 years and n = 503 aged 50 years or older) who were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between 1988 and 1993. Interval cancers were defined as those diagnosed within 12 or 24 months after a negative screening mammogram and before a subsequent mammogram. Tumor growth rate was assessed by mitotic figure count and Ki-67 positivity. The main outcome measures were percentage of women with interval cancer (1 -mammographic sensitivity) by age, odds ratio (OR) of interval cancer by age, and excess odds (i.e., the percentage of the odds ratio for age that was explained by individual covariates)., Results: Interval cancers occurred in 27.7% of younger women and 13.9% of older women within 12 months (OR = 2.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.14 to 4.77) and in 52.1% of younger women and 24.7% of older women within 24 months (OR = 3.58, 95% CI = 2.15 to 5.97). Greater breast density explained 67.6% of the decreased mammographic sensitivity in younger women at 12 months, whereas rapid tumor growth explained 30.6% and breast density explained 37.6% of the decreased sensitivity in younger women at 24 months., Conclusions: Breast density largely explained decreased mammographic sensitivity at 12 months, whereas rapid tumor growth contributed to decreased mammographic sensitivity at 24 months. A 12-month versus a 24-month mammography screening interval may therefore reduce the adverse impact of faster growing tumors on mammographic sensitivity in younger women.

Background: Given limited research, we investigated patient reports of processes of care related to screening follow-up, timing of result notification, communication issues, and adherence following an abnormal mammogram or Pap test., Methods: Women age 50 and over with an abnormal screening mammogram and women age 18 and above with an abnormal Pap test result completed surveys. The mammogram and Pap survey instruments had similar items except pertaining to measures specific to mammography or Pap tests. Bivariate associations between processes of care variables (test results, result receipt, recommendation adherence, receipt of confusing/conflicting information) and global satisfaction were explored using chi-square contingency table analysis. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was conducted., Results: One thousand one hundred thirty-four women (79.1%) completed the mammogram survey and 1087 women (69.7%) completed the Pap survey. The majority of women received test results quickly. High compliance was reported with recommendations for short-term follow-up. Conflicting/confusing information was reported by a minority of women, but was significantly and positively related to reporting that "care could be better". Patient's lack of understanding about equivocal findings was evident., Conclusions: This study confirms that patients need clear messages about recommendations, especially when findings are equivocal and where multiple providers are involved in the process of making clinical decisions., (Copyright 2004 The Institute for Cancer Prevention and Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Obesity is increasing among American women, especially as they age. The influence of obesity on the accuracy of screening mammography has not been studied extensively., Methods: We analyzed 100 622 screening mammography examinations performed on members of a nonprofit health plan. The relationship between body mass index (weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters) and measures of screening accuracy was assessed. Body mass index was categorized as underweight or normal weight (<25), overweight (25-29), obesity class I (30-34), and obesity classes II to III (> or =35)., Results: Compared with underweight or normal weight women, overweight and obese women were more likely to be recalled for additional tests after adjusting for important covariates, including age and breast density (overweight odds ratio [OR], 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.23); obesity class I OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.19-1.35; obesity classes II-III OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.22-1.41). As body mass index increased, women were more likely to have lower specificity (overweight OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.81-0.90; obesity class I OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.74-0.84; and obesity classes II-III OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.71-0.82). No statistically significant differences were noted in sensitivity. Adjusted receiver operating characteristic analysis showed statistically significant improvement in the area under the curve (AUC) for underweight or normal weight women (AUC = 0.941) vs overweight women (AUC = 0.916, P =.02) and underweight or normal weight women vs obesity classes II and III women (AUC = 0.904, P =.02)., Conclusions: Obese women had more than a 20% increased risk of having false-positive mammography results compared with underweight and normal weight women, although sensitivity was unchanged. Achieving a normal weight may improve screening mammography performance.

Context: Use of antibiotics may be associated with risk of breast cancer through effects on immune function, inflammation, and metabolism of estrogen and phytochemicals; however, clinical data on the association between antibiotic use and risk of breast cancer are sparse., Objective: To examine the association between use of antibiotics and risk of breast cancer., Design, Setting, and Participants: Case-control study among 2266 women older than 19 years with primary, invasive breast cancer (cases) enrolled in a large, nonprofit health plan for at least 1 year between January 1, 1993, and June 30, 2001, and 7953 randomly selected female health plan members (controls), frequency-matched to cases on age and length of enrollment. Cases were ascertained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry. Antibiotic use was ascertained from computerized pharmacy records., Main Outcome Measure: Association between extent of antibiotic use and risk of breast cancer., Results: Increasing cumulative days of antibiotic use were associated with increased risk of incident breast cancer, adjusted for age and length of enrollment. For categories of increasing use (0, 1-50, 51-100, 101-500, 501-1000, and > or =1001 days), odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for breast cancer were 1.00 (reference), 1.45 (1.24-1.69), 1.53 (1.28-1.83), 1.68 (1.42-2.00), 2.14 (1.60-2.88), and 2.07 (1.48-2.89) (P<.001 for trend). Increased risk was observed in all antibiotic classes studied and in a subanalysis having breast cancer fatality as the outcome. Among women with the highest levels of tetracycline or macrolide use, risk of breast cancer was not elevated in those using these antibiotics exclusively for acne or rosacea (indications that could be risk factors for breast cancer due to altered hormone levels), compared with those using them exclusively for respiratory tract infections, adjusted for age and length of enrollment (odds ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-1.87)., Conclusions: Use of antibiotics is associated with increased risk of incident and fatal breast cancer. It cannot be determined from this study whether antibiotic use is causally related to breast cancer, or whether indication for use, overall weakened immune function, or other factors are pertinent underlying exposures. Although further studies are needed, these findings reinforce the need for prudent long-term use of antibiotics.

Background: Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with radiation (BCSR) requires a multidisciplinary care approach between surgeons and radiation oncologists., Methods: This retrospective cohort study examined the use of preoperative radiation oncology consultation and whether use of or distance to this care was associated with treatment choice among 1188 women age > or = 65 years who were diagnosed with local or regional breast carcinoma in Washington State in 1994 and 1995. Study outcomes included rates of BCSR; BCS alone; and mastectomy; and radiation therapy among women who underwent BCS., Results: Only 29% of patients in the current study consulted with a radiation oncologist preoperatively, and less than half of the patients (46.6%) consulted with either a medical oncologist or a radiation oncologist. Among women who underwent either BCSR or mastectomy, the odds of undergoing BCSR among women who had a preoperative radiation oncology consultation were 6.7 times the odds of women who did not have the consultation (P < or = 0.001). Similarly, the odds of receiving radiation therapy among women who underwent BCS and had a preoperative radiation oncology consultation were 5 times the odds of women who did not have the consultation (P < 0.001). The 3.4% of women who lived > 50 miles from the radiation therapy center had the lowest BCSR rate (15.8%) and had the lowest radiation therapy rate among women who underwent BCS (54.5%), although these findings were not statistically significant in adjusted analyses., Conclusions: A preoperative visit with a radiation oncologist was associated strongly with BCSR use. More should be done to evaluate the role of multidisciplinary consultation in the decision to use BCSR., (Copyright 2004 American Cancer Society.)

The objective of our study was to evaluate organized breast cancer screening implementation by measuring the association between screening program enrollment and late-stage disease. Our setting was a health plan using mailed mammography reminders to women ages > or = 40. We conducted yearly cross-sectional summaries of mammography experience and late-stage (regional or distant Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results Reporting (SEER) stage) breast cancer occurrence for all of the health-plan women ages > or = 40 (1986-1998). We estimated the odds of late-stage breast cancer among health-plan and surrounding community women because it was too early to compare changes in mortality. We also estimated the odds of late-stage disease (1995-1998) associated with program enrollment and mammography screening among health-plan women. We found that mammography-within-two-years increased within the health plan from 25.9% to 51.2% among women ages 40-49 and from 32.9% to 74.7% among women ages> or = 50. Health-plan late-stage rates were lower than those in the surrounding community [ages 40-49: odds ratio (OR), 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.77-0.99; ages 50-79: OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.92] and declined parallel to the community. Among health-plan cancer cases, women ages > or = 43 who were enrolled in the screening program and who had at least one program mammogram were less likely to have late-stage disease compared with the women not enrolled in the program (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.16-0.61) but the odds of late-stage was also reduced among program-enrolled women not receiving program mammograms (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.21-0.95). We concluded that enrollment in organized screening is associated with increased likelihood of mammography and reduced odds of late-stage breast cancer. Addressing the concerns of un-enrolled women and those without mammograms offers an opportunity for further late-stage disease reduction.

Context: Breast augmentation is not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer; however, implants may interfere with the detection of breast cancer thereby delaying cancer diagnosis in women with augmentation., Objective: To determine whether mammography accuracy and tumor characteristics are different for women with and without augmentation., Design, Setting, and Participants: A prospective cohort of 137 women with augmentation and 685 women without augmentation diagnosed with breast cancer between January 1, 1995, and October 15, 2002, matched (1:5) by age, race/ethnicity, previous mammography screening, and mammography registry, and 10 533 women with augmentation and 974 915 women without augmentation and without breast cancer among 7 mammography registries in Denver, Colo; Lebanon, NH; Albuquerque, NM; Chapel Hill, NC; San Francisco, Calif; Seattle, Wash; and Burlington, Vt., Main Outcome Measures: Comparison between women with and without augmentation of mammography performance measures and cancer characteristics, including invasive carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ, tumor stage, nodal status, size, grade, and estrogen-receptor status., Results: Among asymptomatic women, the sensitivity of screening mammography based on the final assessment was lower in women with breast augmentation vs women without (45.0% [95% confidence interval [CI], 29.3%-61.5%] vs 66.8% [95% CI, 60.4%-72.8%]; P =.008), and specificity was slightly higher in women with augmentation (97.7% [95% CI, 97.4%-98.0%] vs 96.7% [95% CI, 96.6%-96.7%]; P<.001). Among symptomatic women, both sensitivity and specificity were lower for women with augmentation compared with women without but these differences were not significant. Tumors were of similar stage, size, estrogen-receptor status, and nodal status but tended to be lower grade (P =.052) for women with breast augmentation vs without., Conclusions: Breast augmentation decreases the sensitivity of screening mammography among asymptomatic women but does not increase the false-positive rate. Despite the lower accuracy of mammography in women with augmentation, the prognostic characteristics of tumors are not influenced by augmentation.