Search

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 (> or = 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 < .001) to receive chemotherapy. This black-white disparity was highest among patients aged 66-70 years (black patients 65.7%, white patients 86.3%, difference = 20.6%, 95% CI = 10.7% to 30.4%, P < .001) and decreased with age. The disparity among patients aged 66-70 years also remained statistically significant in the regression analysis. Overall, patient, physician, hospital, and environmental factors accounted for approximately 50% of the disparity in chemotherapy receipt among patients aged 66-70 years; surgical length of stay and neighborhood socioeconomic status accounted for approximately 27% of the disparity in this age group, and health systems factors accounted for 12%.Conclusions: Black and white Medicare-insured colon cancer patients have an equal opportunity to learn about adjuvant chemotherapy from a medical oncologist but do not receive chemotherapy equally. Little disparity was explained by health systems; more was explained by illness severity, social support, and environment. Further qualitative research is needed to understand the factors that influence the lower receipt of chemotherapy by black patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

The hypothesis that antibiotic use may increase cancer risk was first proposed several decades ago and some research suggests an increased risk of breast cancer among women with conditions likely to require long-term antibiotic use (e.g., acne, recurrent urinary-tract infections, UTI). However, this hypothesis has not been verified and the possible biological mechanisms are not entirely clear. A recent cohort study in Finland reported an increased risk of breast-cancer associated with antibiotic use for UTI. The effect of antibiotics on the ability of intestinal microflora to metabolise phytochemicals from edible plants into compounds that may protect against cancer was proposed as a potential mechanism. We extend this hypothesis by proposing that antibiotic use may be associated with breast-cancer risk through effects on immune and inflammatory factors, such as cytokines, T lymphocytes, prostaglandins, and matrix metalloproteinases, as well as disruption of phytochemical and oestrogen metabolism by intestinal microflora. We suggest that some mechanisms may increase breast-cancer risk, while others may decrease risk, depending on the antibiotic classification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

The article discusses certain implementations of U.S. Affordable Care Act. It states that the movement to accountable care organizations and patient-centred medical homes would accelerate the significance in health care teams. It mentions the teams would involve two or more people embedded in a larger social system who share common goals, interact with each other and performs tasks. It states that organizational leadership must know how to train, support and motivate team function.

PURPOSE: As the global burden of cancer rises, global knowledge sharing of effective cancer control practices will be critical. The International Cancer Screening Network (ICSN) of the US National Cancer Institute facilitates knowledge sharing to advance cancer screening research and practice. Our analysis assessed perceptions of ICSN's value and knowledge sharing in cancer screening among participants working in high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: In 2018, the National Cancer Institute fielded a self-administered, online survey to 665 ICSN participants from both HICs and LMICs. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-three individuals (36.5%) completed the full survey. LMIC participants engaged in more diverse screening activities and had fewer years of experience (13.5% with more than 20 years of experience v 31%; P =.048) in screening and were more interested in cervical cancer (76.9% v 52.6%; P =.002) than HIC participants. However, both groups spent most of their time on research (30.8% LMIC v 36.6% HIC; P =.518) and agreed that the ICSN biennial meeting enabled them to learn from the experiences of both higher-resource (88.2% v 75.7%; P =.122) and lower-resource (61.8% v 68.0%; P =.507) settings. ICSN helped them form new collaborations for research and implementation (55.1% v 58.2%; P =.063); informed advances in research/evaluation (71.4% v 68.0%; P =.695), implementation (59.2% v 47.9%; P =.259), and policies in their settings (55.1% v 48.0%; P =.425); and provided the opportunity to contribute their knowledge and expertise to assist others (67.3% v 71.1%; P =.695). CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that HIC and LMIC participants benefit from knowledge sharing at ICSN meetings although their interests, backgrounds, and needs differ. This points to the importance of international research networks that are inclusive of HIC and LMIC participants in cancer control to advance knowledge and effective practices globally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents a letter to the editor concerning breast cancer screening.

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. 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]

PURPOSE: International research networks have the potential to accelerate scientific progress via knowledge sharing and collaboration. In 2018, the US National Cancer Institute evaluated the International Cancer Screening Network (ICSN), in operation since 1988. METHODS: ICSN hosts a biennial scientific meeting and scientific working groups. A survey was fielded to 665 ICSN participants, and a bibliometric analysis was conducted for ICSN publications. RESULTS: A total of 243 individuals completed the survey (36.5%). They reported that participating in the ICSN helped advance their knowledge of cancer screening research (75.7%), policy development (56%), and implementation (47.7%). Approximately three-quarters agreed that ICSN facilitated knowledge sharing and networking among researchers and implementers (79.9%) and those working on different continents (74.0%) and cancer sites (73.7%). More than half reported that participating helped them form new collaborations in screening implementation (58.0%) or research (57.6%). Most agreed that ICSN helped to advance screening research and evaluation (75.4%), effective screening practices (71.2%), and screening policies (60.9%). Many reported that participating informed advances in their own research (68.7%) and screening implementation (50.2%) and policies (49.4%) in their settings. Approximately two-thirds agreed that ICSN helped advance career development among current experts (66.6%) and train the next generation (62.2%). Half (51.4%) reported that participating advanced their own careers. The 20 ICSN publications included 75 coauthors. They were cited in 589 publications with more than 2,000 coauthors. CONCLUSION: Findings provide evidence of the influence of ICSN on international knowledge dissemination, collaboration, and advances in cancer screening research, implementation, and policies and highlight the potential value of longstanding international research networks. [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]

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]

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

Abstract: Population science and disease control researchers can benefit from a more proactive approach to applying bioinformatics tools for clinical and public health research. Bioinformatics utilizes principles of information sciences and technologies to transform vast, diverse, and complex life sciences data into a more coherent format for wider application. Bioinformatics provides the means to collect and process data, enhance data standardization and harmonization for scientific discovery, and merge disparate data sources. Achieving interoperability (i.e. the development of an informatics system that provides access to and use of data from different systems) will facilitate scientific explorations and careers and opportunities for interventions in population health. The National Cancer Institute''s (NCI''s) interoperable Cancer Biomedical Informatics Grid (caBIG®) is one of a number of illustrative tools in this report that are being mined by population scientists. Tools are not all that is needed for progress. Challenges persist, including a lack of common data standards, proprietary barriers to data access, and difficulties pooling data from studies. Population scientists and informaticists are developing promising and innovative solutions to these barriers. The purpose of this paper is to describe how the application of bioinformatics systems can accelerate population health research across the continuum from prevention to detection, diagnosis, treatment, and outcome. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

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 mammograms. The increased rate of biopsy with the use of computer-aided detection is not clearly associated with improved detection of invasive breast cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The success of fecal occult blood-based colorectal cancer screening programs is dependent on repeating screening at short intervals (ie, every 1-2 years). We conducted a literature review to assess measures that have been used to assess longitudinal adherence to fecal-based screening. Among 46 citations identified and included in this review, six broad classifications of longitudinal adherence were identified: (a) stratified single-round attendance, (b) all possible adherence permutations, (c) consistent/inconsistent/never attendance, (d) number of times attended, (e) program adherence and (f) proportion of time covered. Advantages and disadvantages of these measures are described, and recommendations on which measures to use based on data availability and scientific question are also given. Stratified single round attendance is particularly useful for describing the yield of screening, while programmatic adherence measures are best suited to evaluating screening efficacy. We recommend that screening programs collect detailed longitudinal, individual-level data, not only for the screening tests themselves but additionally for diagnostic follow-up and surveillance exams, to allow for maximum flexibility in reporting adherence patterns using the measure of choice., (© 2021 UICC.)

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

Most professional organizations, including the American College of Physicians and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, emphasize that screening for prostate cancer with the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test should only occur after a detailed discussion between the health-care provider and patient about the known risks and potential benefits of the test. In fact, guidelines strongly advise health-care providers to involve patients, particularly those at elevated risk of prostate cancer, in a "shared decision making" (SDM) process about PSA testing. We analyzed data from the National Cancer Institute's Health Information National Trends Survey 2011-2012-a nationally representative, cross-sectional survey-to examine the extent to which health professionals provided men with information critical to SDM prior to PSA testing, including (1) that patients had a choice about whether or not to undergo PSA testing, (2) that not all doctors recommend PSA testing, and (3) that no one is sure if PSA testing saves lives. Over half (55 %) of men between the ages of 50 and 74 reported ever having had a PSA test. However, only 10 % of men, regardless of screening status, reported receiving all three pieces of information: 55 % reported being informed that they could choose whether or not to undergo testing, 22 % reported being informed that some doctors recommend PSA testing and others do not, and 14 % reported being informed that no one is sure if PSA testing actually saves lives. Black men and men with lower levels of education were less likely to be provided this information. There is a need to improve patient-provider communication about the uncertainties associated with the PSA test. Interventions directed at patients, providers, and practice settings should be considered.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

Objective: United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines for certification require that radiologists interpret > or = 960 mammography examinations within each 2-year period (approximately 480 annually). The purpose of our study was to estimate per-physician annual volumes of mammography interpretation., Subjects and Methods: Our study includes 4.2 million mammography examinations performed at 196 facilities between 1998 and 2004. We calculated the annual interpretive volumes per physician, the proportion of mammography examinations interpreted by radiologists in specified volume categories, and the impact on mammography capacity if annual interpretive volume requirements increased., Results: The mean annual mammographic interpretive volume was 1,777. Approximately 31% of radiologists interpreted < 1,000 mammography examinations annually, yet these low-volume radiologists interpreted only 10% of all mammograms. The 10% of radiologists who interpreted > or = 3,000 mammography examinations annually interpreted 32% of all examinations. Rural radiologists interpreted fewer examinations annually compared with urban radiologists. If the minimum annual volume requirement were increased to 1,000 mammograms per year, only 10% of the overall U.S. mammography capacity would be affected. If the requirement were increased to 2,000 mammograms annually, 47% of capacity would be eliminated, and a major rearrangement of workload would be required because most radiologists would no longer interpret enough examinations to meet the revised standards., Conclusion: Doubling physician annual volume requirements would result in a small impact on overall mammography capacity. Increasing volume requirements to 2,000 mammography examinations annually would require a dramatic increase in the number of mammography examinations interpreted by the higher volume radiologists. Unless previously low-volume radiologists increased their volumes, raising requirements to 2,000 examinations could curtail access to mammography, particularly in rural areas.

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

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

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 (> or = 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 < .001) to receive chemotherapy. This black-white disparity was highest among patients aged 66-70 years (black patients 65.7%, white patients 86.3%, difference = 20.6%, 95% CI = 10.7% to 30.4%, P < .001) and decreased with age. The disparity among patients aged 66-70 years also remained statistically significant in the regression analysis. Overall, patient, physician, hospital, and environmental factors accounted for approximately 50% of the disparity in chemotherapy receipt among patients aged 66-70 years; surgical length of stay and neighborhood socioeconomic status accounted for approximately 27% of the disparity in this age group, and health systems factors accounted for 12%., Conclusions: Black and white Medicare-insured colon cancer patients have an equal opportunity to learn about adjuvant chemotherapy from a medical oncologist but do not receive chemotherapy equally. Little disparity was explained by health systems; more was explained by illness severity, social support, and environment. Further qualitative research is needed to understand the factors that influence the lower receipt of chemotherapy by black patients.