Search

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 2007381 screening mammograms were identified among 799613 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. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010;102:1040-1051 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djq233

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 28100 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 nonstatistically 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.

Background: Black-white disparities exist in receipt of recommended medical care, including colorectal cancer treatment. This retrospective cohort study examines the degree to which health systems (e.g., physician, hospital) factors explain black-white disparities in colon cancer care. Methods: Data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program; Medicare claims; the American Medical Association Masterfile; and hospital surveys were linked to examine chemotherapy receipt after stage III colon cancer resection among 5294 elderly ([greater than or equal to] 66 years of age) black and white Medicare-insured patients. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with black--white differences in chemotherapy use. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: Black and white patients were equally likely to consult with a medical oncologist, but among patients who had such a consultation, black patients were less likely than white patients (59.3% versus 70.4%, difference = 10.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.1% to 16.4%, P

Background: Invasive cervical cancer is highly preventable, yet it continues to occur, even among women who have access to cancer screening and treatment services. To reduce cervical cancer among such women, reasons for its occurrence must be better understood. We examined factors associated with the diagnosis of cervical cancer among women enrolled in health plans. Methods: We identified all cases of invasive cervical cancer (n = 833) diagnosed from January 1, 1995, through December 31, 2000, among women who were long-term members of seven prepaid comprehensive health plans and reviewed each woman's medical records for the 3 years prior to her cancer diagnosis. Women were classified into one of three categories based on Pap test histories 4-36 months before diagnosis: failure to screen with a Pap test, failure in detection by a Pap test, or failure in follow-up of an abnormal test result. Results: The majority of cases (n = 464; 56%) were in women who had no Pap tests during the period 4-36 months prior to diagnosis. Of the remaining cases, 263 (32%) were attributed to Pap test detection failure and 106 (13%) to follow-up failure. Being older (odds ratio [OR] = 6.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.89 to 10.79) or living in an area of higher poverty (OR = 1.72, 95% CI = 1.11 to 2.67) or having a lower education level (OR= 1.52; 95% CI = 1.07 to 2.16) was associated with the likelihood of being assigned to the failure to screen category versus either of the other two categories. A total of 375 (81%) of the 464 patients who had not had Pap screening had had at least one outpatient visit 4-36 months prior to cancer diagnosis. The cancer diagnostic process was triggered by a routine screening examination in 44% of patients, whereas 53% of the patients presented with symptoms consistent with cervical cancer; the remaining 3% were identified fortuitously during the course of receiving noncervical care. Conclusions: To reduce the incidence of invasive cervical cancer among women with access to screening and treatment, Pap screening adherence should be increased. In addition, strategies to improve the accuracy of Pap screening could afford earlier detection of cervical cancer.

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 ([less than or equal to] 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

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: 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 [greater than or equal to] 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

Background: Younger women (40-49 years) have lower mammographic sensitivity (i.e., greater proportion of cancers detected after a negative mammogram) than older women ([greater than or equal to] 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. [J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:1432-40]

Background: With the large number of women having mammography--an estimated 28.4 million U.S. women aged 40 years and older in 1998--the percentage of cancers detected as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which has an uncertain prognosis, has increased. We pooled data from seven regional mammography registries to determine the percentage of mammographicaily detected cancers that are DCIS and the rate of DCIS per 1000 mammograms. Methods: We analyzed data on 653 833 mammograms from 540738 women between 40 and 84 years of age who underwent screening mammography at facilities participating in the National Cancer Institute's Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) throughout 1996 and 1997. Mammography results were linked to population-based cancer and pathology registries. We calculated the percentage of screen-detected breast cancers that were DCIS, the rate of screen-detected DCIS per 1000 mammograms by age and by previous mammography status, and the sensitivity of screening mammography. Statistical tests were two-sided. Results: A total of 3266 cases of breast cancer were identified, 591 DCIS and 2675 invasive breast cancer. The percentage of screen-detected breast cancers that were DCIS decreased with age (from 28.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 23.9% to 32.5%] for women aged 40-49 years to 16.0% [95% CI = 13.3% to 18.7%] for women aged 70-84 years). However, the rate of screen-detected DCIS cases per 1000 mammograms increased with age (from 0.56 [95% CI = 0.41 to 0.70] for women aged 40-49 years to 1.07 [95 % CI = 0.87 to 1.27] for women aged 70-84 years). Sensitivity of screening mammography in all age groups combined was higher for detecting DCIS (86.0% [95% CI = 83.2% to 88.8%]) than it was for detecting invasive breast cancer (75.1% [95 % CI = 73.5 % to 76.8%]). Conclusions: Overall, approximately 1 in every 1300 screening mammography examinations leads to a diagnosis of DCIS. Given uncertainty about the natural history of DCIS, the clinical significance of screen-detected DCIS needs further investigation.

Background: The performance of diagnostic mammography for women with signs or symptoms of breast cancer has not been well studied. We evaluated whether age, breast density, self-reported breast lump, and previous mammography influence the performance of diagnostic mammography. Methods: From January 1996 through March 1998, prospective diagnostic mammography data from women aged 25-89 years with no previous breast cancer were linked to cancer outcomes data in six mammography registries participating in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. We used the final mammographic assessment at the end of the imaging work-up to determine abnormal mammographic examination rate, positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. We used age, breast density, prior mammogram, and self-reported breast lump jointly as predictors of performance. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: Of 41427 diagnostic mammograms, 6279 (15.2%) were judged abnormal. The overall PPV was 21.8%, sensitivity was 85.8%, and specificity was 87.7%. Multivariate analysis showed that sensitivity and specificity generally declined as breast density increased (P = .007 and P

Background: Although it is recommended that women with a family history of breast cancer begin screening mammography at a younger age than average-risk women, few studies have evaluated the performance of mammography in this group. Objective: To compare the performance of screening mammography in women with a first-degree family history of breast cancer and women of similar age without such history. Design: Cross-sectional. Setting: Mammography registries in California (n = 1), New Hampshire (n = 1), New Mexico (n = 1), Vermont (n = 1), Washington State (n = 2), and Colorado (n = 1). Participants: 389 533 women 30 to 69 years of age who were referred for screening mammography from April 1985 to November 1997. Measurements: Risk factors for breast cancer; results of first screening examination captured for a woman by a registry; and any invasive cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ identified by linkage to a pathology database, the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program, or a state tumor registry. Results: The number of cancer cases per 1000 examinations increased with age and was higher in women with a family history of breast cancer than in those without (3.2 vs. 1.6 for ages 30 to 39 years, 4.7 vs. 2.7 for ages 40 to 49 years, 6.6 vs. 4.6 for ages 50 to 59 years, and 9.3 vs. 6.9 for ages 60 to 69 years). The sensitivity of mammography increased significantly with age (P = 0.001 [chi-square test for trend]) in women with a family history and in those without (63.2% [95% CI, 41.5% to 84.8%] vs. 69.5% [CI, 57.7% to 81.2%] for ages 30 to 39 years, 70.2% [CI, 61.0% to 79.5%] vs. 77.5% [CI, 73.3% to 81.8%] for ages 40 to 49 years, 81.3% [CI, 73.3% to 89.3%] vs. 80.2% [CI, 76.5% to 83.9%] for ages 50 to 59 years, and 83.8% [CI, 76.8% to 90.9%] vs. 87.7% [CI, 84.8% to 90.7%] for ages 60 to 69 years). Sensitivity was similar for each decade of age regardless of family history. The positive predictive value of mammography was higher in women with a family history than in those without (3.7% vs. 2.9%; P = 0.001). Conclusions: Cancer detection rates in women who had a first-degree relative with a history of breast cancer were similar to those in women a decade older without such a history. The sensitivity of screening mammography was influenced primarily by age.

Background: Mammography is less effective for women aged 40-49 years than for older women, which has led to a call for research to improve the performance of screening mammography for younger women. One factor that may influence the performance of mammography is breast density. Younger women have greater mammographic breast density on average, and increased breast density increases the likelihood of false-negative and false-positive mammograms. We investigated whether breast density varies according to time in a woman's menstrual cycle. Methods: Premenopausal women aged 40-49 years who were not on exogenous hormones and who had a screening mammogram at a large health maintenance organization during 1996 were studied (n = 2591). Time in the menstrual cycle was based on the woman's self-reported last menstrual bleeding and usual cycle length. Results: A smaller proportion of women had 'extremely dense' breasts during the follicular phase of their menstrual cycle (24% for week 1 and 23% for week 2) than during the luteal phase (28% for both weeks 3 and 4) (two-sided P = .04 for the difference in breast density between the phases, adjusted for body mass index). The relationship was stronger for women whose body mass index was less than or equal to the median (two-sided P [is less than] .01), the group who have the greatest breast density. Conclusions/Implications: These findings are consistent with previous evidence suggesting that scheduling a woman's mammogram during the follicular phase (first and second week) of her menstrual cycle instead of during the luteal phase (third and fourth week) may improve the accuracy of mammography for premenopausal women in their forties. Breast tissue is less radiographically dense in the follicular phase than in the luteal phase. [J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:906-10]

Background: Enrollment in health maintenance organizations (HMOs) has increased rapidly during the past 10 years, reflecting a growing emphasis on health care cost containment. To determine whether there is a difference in the treatment and outcome for female patients with breast cancer enrolled in HMOs versus a fee-for-service setting, we compared the 10-year survival and initial treatment of patients with breast cancer enrolled in both types of plans. Methods: With the use of tumor registries covering the greater San Francisco-Oakland and Seattle-Puget Sound areas, respectively, we obtained information on the treatment and outcome for 13 358 female patients with breast cancer, aged 65 years and older, diagnosed between 1985 and 1992. We linked registry information with Medicare data and data from the two large HMOs included in the study. We compared the survival and treatment differences between HMO and fee-for-service care after adjusting for tumor stage, comorbidity, and sociodemographic characteristics. Results: In San Francisco-Oakland, the 10-year adjusted risk ratio for breast cancer deaths among HMO patients compared with fee-for-service patients was 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.59-0.87) and was comparable for all deaths. In Seattle-Puget Sound, the risk ratio for breast cancer deaths was 1.01 (95% CI = 0.77-1.33) but somewhat lower for all deaths. Women enrolled in HMOs were more likely to receive breast-conserving surgery than women in fee-for-service (odds ratio = 1.55 in San Francisco-Oakland; 3.39 in Seattle). HMO enrollees undergoing breast-conserving surgery were also more likely to receive adjuvant radiotherapy (San Francisco-Oakland odds ratio = 2.49; Seattle odds ratio = 4.62). Conclusions: Long-term survival outcomes in the two prepaid group practice HMOs in this study were at least equal to, and possibly better than, outcomes in the fee-for-service system. In addition, the use of recommended therapy for early stage breast cancer was more frequent in the two HMOs. [J. Natl Cancer Inst 1997;89:1683-91]

Background: Previous studies have demonstrated that mammographic breast density increases following the initiation of estrogen replacement therapy (ERT). The effect, if any, that this increase in density has on the specificity (related to false-positive readings) and the sensitivity (related to false-negative readings) of screening mammography is unknown. Purpose: Using a retrospective cohort study design, we assessed the effects of ERT on the specificity and the sensitivity of screening mammography. Methods: Participants (n = 8779) were postmenopausal women, aged 50 years or older, who were enrolled in a health maintenance organization located in western Washington state and who entered a breast cancer screening program between January 1988 and June 1993. Two-view mammography was performed as part of a comprehensive breast cancer screening visit. Menopausal status, as well as demographic and risk-factor information, was recorded via self-administered questionnaires. Hormonal replacement therapy type and use were determined from questionnaire data and from an automated review of pharmacy records. Individuals diagnosed with breast cancer within 12 months of their first screening-program mammograms were identified through use of a regional cancer registry. Risk ratios (RRs) plus 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of false-positive as well as false-negative examinations among current and former ERT users (with never users as the reference group) were calculated. Reported P values are two-sided. Results: The specificity of mammographic screening was lower for current users of ERT than for never users or former users. Defining a positive mammographic reading as any non-normal reading (either suspicious for cancer or indeterminate), the adjusted RR (95% CI) of a false-positive reading for current users versus never users was 1.33 (1.15-1.54) (P

Purpose: This study was conducted to evaluate the effect of stage at diagnosis, age, and level of comorbidity (presence of other illness) on the costs of treating three types of cancer among members of a health maintenance organization. Methods: Among 388 000 members enrolled anytime during 1990 and 1991 in group Health Cooperative (GHC) of Puget Sound (Washington State), we estimated the total and net direct costs of medical care for colon, prostate, and breast cancers, including both incident (290, 554, and 645 patients, respectively) and prevalent (1046, 1295, and 2299 patients, respectively) cases. We summarized costs for initial, continuing, and terminal phases of care. Net costs were the difference between the costs of the care of each case subject and the average costs of the care for all enrollees without the cancer of interest who were of the same sex and in the same 5-year age group. Differences in estimated total and net costs by stage at diagnosis, age, and comorbidity were separately evaluated using multivariate regression modeling. All P values were two-sided. Comorbidity was based on a score calculated from 1988 pharmacy data. Results: Total costs of initial care increased with stage at diagnosis for colon (P = .0013) and breast (P

The increased uses of mammography and breast physical examination are part of the early detection objectives of the National Cancer Institute and have become a national priority. However, there are limitations in resources, mammographic equipment, and trained personnel. One approach has been to limit mammographic screening to women who belong to increased risk groups. Unfortunately, research has shown this technique to be ineffective, since it fails to include a large number of women who are likely to develop breast cancer. A more workable solution is to vary the recommended interval of mammographic screening, depending upon the risk category of the individual. This method has several advantages. More women are recommended to have mammographic screening, and yet the total number of screenings need not increase. In addition, the small but finite risks of mammographic screening are more concentrated among the women who are also the most likely to benefit. (The risks of the screening itself are, in fact, smaller than the risks involved with following up what would otherwise turn out to be false positives reports.) Such a program of risk determination has been instituted in a large northwest health maintenance organization (HMO) serving 400,000 members. After completing a questionnaire and noting such factors as age of first menstruation, nulliparity, first birth over 30, breast cancer in a first degree relative, and so forth, the woman is assigned to one of four risk categories. Women in the lowest category have mammography only when referred by their physician. In the next three categories, women are suggested to have mammographic exams at five-, three-, and one-year intervals. The net result is that within this HMO the number of mammographic exams has not increased, but the percentage of women over 40 who are eligible for mammography has risen from 57 to 83 percent. (Consumer Summary produced by Reliance Medical Information, Inc.)

Background: Choice of treatment for early-stage breast cancer depends on many factors, including the size and stage of the cancer, the woman's age, comorbid conditions, and perhaps the costs of treatment. We compared the costs of all medical care for women with early-stage breast cancer cases treated by breast-conserving therapy (BCT) or mastectomy. Methods: A total of 1675 women 35 years old or older with incident early-stage breast cancer were identified in a large regional nonprofit health maintenance organization in the period 1990 through 1997. The women were treated with mastectomy only (n = 183), mastectomy with adjuvant hormonal therapy or chemotherapy (n = 417), BCT with radiation therapy (n = 405), or BCT with radiation therapy and adjuvant hormonal therapy or chemotherapy (n = 670). The costs of all medical care for the period 1990 through 1998 were computed for each woman, and monthly costs were analyzed by treatment, adjusting for age and cancer stage. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: At 6 months after diagnosis, the mean total medical care costs for the four groups differed statistically significantly (P [is less than] .001), with BCT being more expensive than mastectomy. The adjusted mean costs were $12 987, $14 309, $14 963, and $15 779 for mastectomy alone, mastectomy with adjuvant therapy, BCT plus radiation therapy, and BCT plus radiation therapy with adjuvant therapy, respectively. At 1 year, the difference in costs was still statistically significant (P [is less than] .001), but costs were influenced more by the use of adjuvant therapy than by type of surgery. The 1-year adjusted mean costs were $16 704, $18 856, $17 344, and $19 081, respectively, for the four groups. By 5 years, BCT was less expensive than mastectomy (P [is less than] .001), with 5-year adjusted mean costs of $41 930, $45 670, $35 787, and $39 926, respectively. Costs also varied by age, with women under 65 years having higher treatment costs than older women. Conclusions: BCT may have higher short-term costs but lower long-term costs than mastectomy. [J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:447-55]

Background: Screening mammography is the best method to reduce mortality from breast cancer, yet some breast cancers cannot be detected by mammography. Cancers diagnosed after a negative mammogram are known as interval cancers. This study investigated whether mammographic breast density is related to the risk of interval cancer. Methods: Subjects were selected from women participating in mammographic screening from 1988 through 1993 in a large health maintenance organization based in Seattle, WA. Women were eligible for the study if they had been diagnosed with a first primary invasive breast cancer within 24 months of a screening mammogram and before a subsequent one. Interval cancer case subjects (n = 149) were women whose breast cancer occurred after a negative or benign mammographic assessment. Screen-detected control subjects (n = 388) were diagnosed after a positive screening mammogram. One radiologist, who was blinded to cancer status, assessed breast density by use of the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Results: Mammographic sensitivity (i.e., the ability of mammography to detect a cancer) was 80% among women with predominantly fatty breasts but just 30% in women with extremely dense breasts. The odds ratio (OR) for interval cancer among women with extremely dense breasts was 6.14 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.95-19.4), compared with women with extremely fatty breasts, after adjustment for age at index mammogram, menopausal status, use of hormone replacement therapy, and body mass index. When only those interval cancer cases confirmed by retrospective review of index mammograms were considered, the OR increased to 9.47 (95% CI = 2.78-32.3). Conclusion: Mammographic breast density appears to be a major risk factor for interval cancer. [J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1081-7]

Background: Prospective randomized trials have demonstrated that motivational telephone calls increase adherence to screening mammography. To better understand the effects of motivational calls and to maximize adherence, we conducted a randomized trial among women aged 50-79 years. Methods: We created a stratified random sample of 5062 women due for mammograms within the Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, including 4099 women with prior mammography and 963 without it. We recruited and surveyed 3743 (74%) of the women before mailing a recommendation. After 2 months, 1765 (47%) of the 3743 women had not scheduled a mammogram and were randomly assigned to one of three intervention groups: a reminder postcard group (n = 590), a reminder telephone call group (n = 585), and a motivational telephone call addressing barriers group (n = 590). The telephone callers could schedule mammography. We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for documented mammography use by 1 year. Results: Women who received reminder calls were more likely to get mammograms (HR = 1.9; 95% CI = 1.6-2.4) than women who were mailed postcards. The motivational and reminder calls (average length, 8.5 and 3.1 minutes, respectively) had equivalent effects (HR = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.8-1.2). After we controlled for the intervention effect, women with prior mammography (n = 1277) were much more likely to get a mammogram (HR = 3.4; 95% CI = 2.7-4.3) than women without prior use (n = 488). Higher income, but not race or more education, was associated with higher adherence. Conclusions: Reminding women to schedule an appointment was as efficacious as addressing barriers. Simple intervention groups should be included as comparison groups in randomized trials so that we better understand more complex intervention effects. [J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92: 233-42]

Background: Despite the mortality benefits of breast cancer screening, not all women receive regular mammography. Such factors as age, socioeconomic status, and physician recommendation have been associated with greater use of screening. However, we do not know whether having an abnormal mammogram affects future screening. Objective: To examine the effect of a false-positive mammogram on adherence to the next recommended screening mammogram. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: The breast cancer screening program at Group Health Cooperative, a health maintenance organization in Washington state. Patients: 5059 women 40 years of age or older with no history of breast cancer or breast surgery who had false-positive (n = 813) or true-negative (n = 4246) index screening mammograms between 1 August 1990 and 31 July 1992. Measurements: Screening rates and odds ratios for recommended interval screening up to 42 months after the index mammogram. Results: After adjustment for differences in age; previous use of mammography; family history of breast cancer; exogenous hormone use; and age at menarche, first child-birth, and menopause, women with false-positive index mammograms were more likely than those with true-negative index mammograms to obtain their next recommended screening mammogram (odds ratio, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.45]). The relation between a false-positive mammogram and the likelihood of adherence to screening in the next recommended interval was strongest among women who had not previously undergone mammography (odds ratio, 1.66 [CI, 1.26 to 2.17]). Conclusions: Having a false-positive mammogram did not adversely affect screening behavior in the next recommended interval. Women with false-positive mammograms, especially those without previous mammography, were more likely to return for the next scheduled screening. Ann Intern Med. 1999;131:1-6., Women who have had a false-positive mammogram did not become alienated from regular screening, but in fact were more likely to return for the next scheduled screening than others. Of 5,059 women over 40 years of age with no history of breast cancer or breast surgery, 813 had false-positive results. Following up intermittently for up to 42 months, and after adjusting for differences in age, previous mammograms, family histories, and such, the women who had false-positives were more likely to return for the next screening by a ratio of 1.21 to 1.00. Those for whom this was the first mammogram returned at a rate of 1.66 to 1.00

The Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound is the largest health maintenance organization in the US which is governed by consumers. Since 1985 the Cooperative has had a screening program for breast cancer. However, unlike programs which recommend screening simply on the basis of age, the Cooperative recommends screening based on the calculated risk of the individual woman. Such a method dramatically reduces the cost of the program. Among women over 50, those without any risk factors are encouraged to have mammography every three years. Those with a first degree relative, i.e. mother, sister, or daughter, with breast cancer or with two minor risk factors are urged to have mammography every two years. Women with two first degree relatives with breast cancer, or a personal history of breast cancer, or abnormal breast tissue, should have mammography on a yearly basis. The recommendations for women between 40 and 50 are similar; they are urged to have a yearly mammogram if they have major risk factors. A single first degree relative with breast cancer is an indication for biannual mammography, and minor factors are an indication for mammography every three years. Women under 40 without any major or minor risk factors should receive mammography only on referral by their physician. For the purposes of breast screening, minor risk factors have been defined as a more distant relative with breast cancer, menarche before 11 or menopause after 54, first child after 30 or no children, or a previous breast biopsy. Using this risk-based method has resulted in about 10 early case findings per 1,000 women, which is nearly double the rate of programs without patient pre-selection based on risk. Although this is indicative of risk concentration, much more time will be needed before a comparison of breast cancer incidence in all the risk groups can be analyzed for cancer staging (which reflects severity) at diagnosis and mortality rate. (Consumer Summary produced by Reliance Medical Information, Inc.)