Literature DB >> 10764189

Factors associated with adequacy of diagnostic workup after abnormal breast cancer screening results.

M Schootman1, J Myers-Geadelmann, L Fuortes.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Women with certain characteristics, such as those residing in rural areas, are less likely screened for breast cancer. To enhance detection of early breast cancer, it is imperative that all women who have abnormal screening results receive appropriate diagnostic procedures. This study reports differences in receipt of diagnostic services following abnormal screening results.
METHODS: Screening and diagnostic data were collected as part of a breast and cervical cancer early detection program aimed at reaching women of lower socioeconomic status. Women with completed diagnostic information after having abnormal screening results were included. We based adequacy of diagnostic services on guidelines from the Society for Surgical Oncology, The Commission on Cancer of the American College of Surgeons, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Several factors were assessed for their association with adequacy of diagnostic follow-up: income, age, race, education, health insurance status, rural-urban residence, reported breast lump, family history of breast cancer, and clinical beast examination or mammogram results.
RESULTS: Overall, 14.1% of the 351 abnormal findings were considered inadequately followed up based on the algorithm used. Eighty percent involved an abnormal finding on a clinical breast examination regardless of the mammogram results. Rural women, those with abnormal clinical breast examination findings but normal or equivocal findings on mammograms, and those who self-discovered a mass were less likely to receive adequate follow-up than were their counterparts in multivariate analysis. Rural women were less likely to receive a biopsy or fine-needle aspiration, although it was indicated. One facility accounted for most of the inadequate follow-up screenings among urban women.
CONCLUSIONS: Women who have specific demographic and clinical characteristics were less likely to have received adequate diagnostic services. Breast cancers could have been missed initially as a result of inappropriate follow-up. Further investigation of the clinical scenarios using chart reviews is warranted.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10764189     DOI: 10.3122/15572625-13-2-94

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Board Fam Pract        ISSN: 0893-8652


  8 in total

1.  Effect of screening result on waiting times to assessment and breast cancer diagnosis: results from the Ontario Breast Screening Program.

Authors:  Anna M Chiarelli; Verna Mai; Erika E Halapy; Rene S Shumak; Frances P O'Malley; Neil S Klar
Journal:  Can J Public Health       Date:  2005 Jul-Aug

2.  Diagnostic resolution of cancer screening abnormalities at community health centers.

Authors:  Richard G Roetzheim; Ji-Hyun Lee; Ercilia R Calcano; Cathy D Meade; William J Fulp; Kristen J Wells
Journal:  J Health Care Poor Underserved       Date:  2012-08

3.  Delay in diagnostic testing after abnormal mammography in low-income women.

Authors:  Debra Wujcik; Yu Shyr; Ming Li; Margaret F Clayton; Lee Ellington; Usha Menon; Kathi Mooney
Journal:  Oncol Nurs Forum       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 2.172

4.  Patient and process factors associated with late-stage breast cancer diagnosis in Safety-Net patients: a pilot prospective study.

Authors:  Oluwadamilola M Fayanju; Donna B Jeffe; Leisha Elmore; Deborah N Ksiazek; Julie A Margenthaler
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2012-10-16       Impact factor: 5.344

5.  Provider Perspectives of the Complexities of Follow-Up of Abnormal Mammographic Findings.

Authors:  Alecia M Fair; Asher E Beckwitt; Debra Wujcik; Consuelo H Wilkins; Ursula Halmon; Anthony Disher; Victoria L Champion
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2017-05-31       Impact factor: 5.532

6.  Time to follow-up of an abnormal mammogram in women with diabetes: a population-based study.

Authors:  Syed Yaser Habeeb; Kinwah Fung; Hadas D Fischer; Peter C Austin; Lawrence Paszat; Lorraine L Lipscombe
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2016-10-06       Impact factor: 4.452

7.  The Impact of Rurality and Disadvantage on the Diagnostic Interval for Breast Cancer in a Large Population-Based Study of 3202 Women in Queensland, Australia.

Authors:  Philippa H Youl; Joanne F Aitken; Gavin Turrell; Suzanne K Chambers; Jeffrey Dunn; Christopher Pyke; Peter D Baade
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2016-11-19       Impact factor: 3.390

8.  Delayed or failure to follow-up abnormal breast cancer screening mammograms in primary care: a systematic review.

Authors:  Jeanette C Reece; Eleanor F G Neal; Peter Nguyen; Jennifer G McIntosh; Jon D Emery
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2021-04-07       Impact factor: 4.430

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.