Search

Importance: Approximately 24 million US individuals receive care at federally qualified health centers, which historically have low rates of colorectal cancer screening. The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends routine colorectal cancer screening for individuals aged 50 to 75 years., Objective: To determine the effectiveness of an electronic health record (EHR)-embedded mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) outreach program implemented in health centers as part of standard care., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cluster randomized pragmatic clinical trial was conducted in 26 federally qualified health center clinics, representing 8 health centers in Oregon and California, randomized to intervention (n = 13) or usual care (n = 13). All participants were overdue for colorectal cancer screening during the accrual interval (February 4, 2014 to February 3, 2015)., Interventions: Electronic health record-embedded tools to identify eligible adults and to facilitate implementation of a stepwise mailed intervention involving (1) an introductory letter, (2) a mailed FIT, and (3) a reminder letter; training, collaborative learning, and facilitation through a practice improvement process., Main Outcomes and Measures: Effectiveness was measured as clinic-level proportions of adults who completed a FIT, and secondarily, any colorectal cancer screening within 12 months of accrual or by August 3, 2015. Implementation was measured as clinic-level proportions of adults who were mailed an introductory letter and ordered a FIT., Results: Twenty-six clinics with 41 193 adults (mean [SD] age, 58.5 [6.3] years; 22 994 women) were randomized to receive the direct mail colorectal screening intervention (13 clinics; 21 134 patients) or usual care (13 clinics; 20 059 patients). Compared with usual care clinics, intervention clinics had significantly higher adjusted clinic-level proportion of participants who completed a FIT (13.9% vs 10.4%; difference, 3.4 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.1%-6.8%) and any colorectal cancer screening (18.3% vs 14.5%; difference, 3.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.6%-7.0%). We observed large variation across health centers in effectiveness (FIT completion differences range, -7.4 percentage points to 17.6 percentage points) and implementation (proportion who were mailed a FIT range, 6.5% to 68.2%). The number needed to mail to achieve a completed FIT was 4.8 overall, and 4.0 in clinics that mailed a FIT reminder., Conclusions and Relevance: An EHR-embedded mailed FIT outreach intervention significantly improved rates of FIT completion and rates of any colorectal cancer screening. Higher rates of colorectal cancer screening occurred in clinics that successfully implemented the mailed outreach program., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01742065.

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.

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: 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.

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.

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.

Background: The population served by Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) has lower levels of cancer screening compared with the general population and suffers a disproportionate cancer burden. To address these disparities, 3 federal agencies and a primary care association established and tested the feasibility of a Regional Cancer Collaborative (RCC) in 2005., Methods: RCC faculty implemented a learning model to improve cancer screening across 4 FQHCs that met explicit organizational readiness criteria. Regional faculty trained "care process leaders," who worked with primary care teams to plan and implement practice changes. FQHCs monitored progress across the following measures of screening implementation: self-management goal-setting; number and percent screened for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer; percent timely results notification; and percent abnormal screens evaluated within 90 days. Progress and plans were reviewed in regular teleconferences. FQHCs were encouraged to create local communities of practice (LCOP) involving community resources to support cancer screening and to participate in a monthly teleconference that linked the LCOPs into a regional community of practice. Summary reports and administrative data facilitated a process evaluation of the RCC. chi test and test of trends compared baseline and follow-up screening rates., Results: The RCC taught the collaborative process using process leader training, teleconferences, 2 regional meetings, and local process improvement efforts. All organizations created clinical tracking capabilities and 3 of the 4 established LCOPs, which met monthly in an regional community of practice. Screening documentation increased for all 3 cancers from 2005 to 2007. Colorectal cancer screening increased from 8.6% to 21.2%., Conclusions: A regional plan to enable collaborative learning for cancer screening implementation is feasible, and improvements in screening rates can occur among carefully selected organizations.

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.

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: 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.

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.

Background: To describe when women diagnosed with breast cancer return for their first mammography, and to identify factors predictive of women returning for mammographic surveillance., Methods: Women who underwent mammography at facilities participating in the National Cancer Institute's Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) during 1996 and who were subsequently diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive breast cancer were included in this study. Data from seven mammography registries were linked to population-based cancer and pathology registries. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to depict the number of months from the breast cancer diagnosis to the first mammogram within the defined follow-up period. Demographic, disease and treatment variables were included in univariate and multivariate analyses to identify factors predictive of women returning for mammography., Results: Of the 2503 women diagnosed with breast cancer, 78.1% returned for mammography examination between 7 and 30 months following the diagnosis. Mammography facilities indicated that 66.8% of mammography examinations were classified as screening. Multivariate analyses found that women were most likely to undergo surveillance mammography if they were diagnosed at ages 60-69 with Stage 0, I or II breast cancer and had received radiation therapy in addition to surgery., Conclusions: While the majority of women return for mammographic surveillance following breast cancer, some important subgroups of women at higher risk for recurrence are less likely to return. Research is needed to determine why some women are not undergoing mammography surveillance after a breast cancer diagnosis and whether surveillance increases the chance of detecting tumors with a good prognosis.

Background: The Cochrane Collaborative, a respected independent review body, recently published a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of screening mammography in decreasing breast cancer mortality. Based on the results of two controlled trials they judged to be of medium validity, they concluded that screening mammography was unjustified. In contrast, the US Preventive Services Task Force recently updated their screening recommendations, and based on a meta-analysis of the same randomized controlled trials, they recommended screening mammography for all women starting at age 40 years. Additionally the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care no longer recommends breast self-examination (BSE). This article reviews the controversies regarding breast cancer screening., Methods: We performed a systematic review of the literature using keywords and cross-referencing articles. We also used automated data from the Breast Cancer Screening Program at Group Health Cooperative to determine the sensitivity of the clinical breast examination (CBE) at our institution. For the latter we included all cancers diagnosed within 1 year of a screening examination and then determined which of those had been found by CBE., Results: Although most screening studies have shown that mammography decreases breast cancer death, there are controversies about the validity of some of the randomized controlled screening mammography trials. These controversies have led to different conclusions about the efficacy of screening mammography. Evidence is limited about the optimal interval for screening mammography. No studies have directly tested the efficacy of the CBE in decreasing breast cancer mortality. At Group Health Cooperative, 8% of all diagnosed breast cancers were found by the CBE alone (negative mammogram). Whether this 8% incremental increase in case finding leads to decreased breast cancer deaths is unknown. There is good evidence that training women to perform BSE does not increase breast cancer diagnoses or decrease breast cancer deaths., Conclusion: There are limitations to randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses. The balance of the evidence still favors screening mammography in women aged 40 years and older at least every 2 years. The independent incremental benefit of the CBE, when added to mammography, in decreasing breast cancer mortality is unknown. Population-based education and training to do BSE are unlikely to lead to decreased breast cancer deaths. Many women find their own breast cancers, so women need to pay attention to symptoms or changes in their breasts.

This commentary presents a conceptual framework, Quality in the Continuum of Cancer Care (QCCC), for quality improvement studies and research. Data sources include review of relevant literature (cancer care, quality improvement, organizational behavior, health services evaluation, and research). The Detecting Early Tumors Enables Cancer Therapy (DETECT) project is used to apply the QCCC model to evaluate the quality of secondary prevention. Cancer care includes risk assessment, primary prevention, screening, detection, diagnosis, treatment, recurrence surveillance, and end-of-life care. The QCCC model represents a systematic approach for assessing factors that influence types of cancer care and the transitions between them, the factors at several levels (community, plan and practice setting) that potentially impact access and quality, and the strategies groups and organizations can consider to reduce potential failures. Focusing on the steps and transitions in care where failures can occur can facilitate more organized systems and medical practices that improve care, establish meaningful measures of quality that promote improved outcomes, and enhance interdisciplinary research.

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 mammographically detected cancers that are DCIS and the rate of DCIS per 1000 mammograms., Methods: We analyzed data on 653 833 mammograms from 540 738 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.