Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 2.0cm (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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. Cancer 2011;. © 2011 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

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 [Cl] = 5.5% to 7.4%; sensitivity = 73.5%, 95% Cl = 67.1% to 79.9%; and PPV2 = 33.8%, 95% Cl = 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% Cl = 1.09 to 2.01) and a non- statistically significantly higher sensitivity (OR = 1.74, 95% Cl = 0.94 to 3.23). Facilities offering specialized interventional services had a non-statistically significantly higher false-positive rate (OR = 1.97, 95% Cl = 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: We used secondary data from a prospective randomized mammography recruitment trial to examine whether attitudinal and facilitating characteristics mediate the observed relationship between annual household income and mammogram receipt among women in an integrated health plan. Methods: We compared 1419 women due for a screening mammogram based on the 1995 annual household income poverty definition for a family of four (<$15,000 vs. >$15,000). A telephone survey was used to collect information on household income, demographics, health behavior, attitudinal and facilitating variables. Administrative databases were used to document mammography receipt. We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate the hazards ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of subsequent mammography use separately for women with and without a prior mammogram. Results: Several variables, including employment, living alone, believing that mammograms are unnecessary, having friends supportive of mammography, and ease of arranging transportation, completely mediated the effect of income on mammography use. In multivariable models, the direct predictive effect of income on mammography was reduced to nonsignificance (HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.82-1.54 in women with previous mammogram and HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.41-2.00 in women without previous mammogram). Conclusions: Providing insurance does not ensure low-income populations will seek screening mammography. Efficacious interventions that address attitudes and facilitating conditions may motivate mammography use among low-income women with insurance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines whether rates of using mammography to identify breast cancer have decreased in the U.S. Mammography rates from 1987 through 2005 were assessed. The 2000 and 2005 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) estimates were used to characterize trends and current patterns in mammography use in the country. The researchers discovered that estimates from the 2005 NHIS showed a decline compared with 2000.

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 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 (≤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), alter 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 ≥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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Younger women (40–49 years) have lower mammographic sensitivity (i.e., greater proportion of cancers detected after a negative mammogram) than older women (≥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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. 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 (over- weight 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). Obese women had more than a 20% in- creased 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Examines the detection of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in women undergoing screening mammography in the U.S. Total number of identified cases of breast cancer; Decrease in the percentage of screen-detected DCIS breast cancers; Increase in the incidence rates of DCIS of the breast.

Compares the performance of screening mammography in women with a first-degree family history of breast cancer and women with similar age without the history in the U.S. Risk factors for breast cancer; Positive predictive value and sensitivity of screening mammography; Rate of cancer; Breast biopsies.

Presents information on a study which examined the effect of telephone calls compared with reminder postcards among women who failed to schedule a mammography examination months after a mailed recommendation. Statistical methods used in the study; Implementation and effect of the intervention; Discussion of the results of the study.

Examines the effects of false-positive mammograms on interval breast cancer screening in a health maintenance organization. Lack of adverse effect on screening behavior in the next recommended interval; Likelihood of women with false-positive mammograms to return for the next scheduled screening.

Evaluates the impact of community organization strategies to promote breast cancer screening ordering by primary care physicians in Washington State. Intervention activities; Increase in number of physicians who order regular mammography.

Objectives. In a health maintenance organization that mails letters to women recommending that they schedule mammograms, we conducted a randomized trial to evaluate simple methods of increasing the use of screening mammography. Methods. Using a 2 × 2 factorial design, we tested the effects of (1) mailing the recommendation letter from each woman's primary care physician rather than from the program director and (2) sending a subsequent reminder postcard. Results. Sending a reminder postcard nearly doubled the odds that women would get mammograms within 1 year (participate). The letter from the woman's personal physician had no effect. Attending a clinic more than 45 minutes from the screening center, being a current smoker, or being in fair or poor health were negatively associated with subsequently obtaining a mammogram. The odds of participation doubled if women had previous mammograms. Conclusions. When preceded by written recommendations to schedule mammograms, reminder postcards effectively increased participation. Future randomized trials to promote use of screening mammography should compare interventions with a reminder condition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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<.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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses articles in the issue on topics including breast cancer, women's health, and mammogram.

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 &y& Elsevier]

Introduction: Appreciating the accuracy and value of cancer screening is essential to informed decision making about screening. This study's objectives were to (1) examine people's beliefs about the accuracy and value of cancer screening, and (2) determine whether sociodemographics, cancer beliefs, and shared decision making are associated with these beliefs.Methods: Data from the National Cancer Institute's Health Information National Trends Survey (cycle 4, August-November 2014) were used. Respondents were non-institutionalized adults (aged ≥18 years, n=3,677). Weighted generalized linear modeling was used to examine bivariate and multivariate associations between key covariates and beliefs about cancer screening (assessed by four-item scale and independently). Secondary analyses examined whether these beliefs were associated with self-reported cancer screening. Data were analyzed between 2016 and 2017.Results: Only 5.6% (n=189) of respondents answered all four cancer screening items correctly. Men, racial/ethnic minorities, and those with lower education and higher cancer fatalism were less likely to have accurate beliefs about cancer screening. However, those who reported shared decision making for colorectal cancer screening were more likely to know that "when a test finds something abnormal, more tests are needed to know if it is cancer" and "when a test finds something abnormal, it is [not] very likely to be cancer" (adjusted risk ratio=1.13, p<0.01, adjusted risk ratio=1.25, p<0.01). Beliefs were not associated with likelihood of past mammography or Pap testing.Conclusions: Educators, researchers, and clinicians should consider opportunities (e.g., through shared decision making) to improve the accuracy of individuals' beliefs about cancer screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]