Literature DB >> 14973097

Evaluating organized breast cancer screening implementation: the prevention of late-stage disease?

Stephen H Taplin1, Laura Ichikawa, Diana S M Buist, Deborah Seger, Emily White.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14973097     DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-03-0206

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  40 in total

1.  Significance of increasing poverty levels for determining late-stage breast cancer diagnosis in 1990 and 2000.

Authors:  Janis Barry; Nancy Breen; Michael Barrett
Journal:  J Urban Health       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 3.671

Review 2.  Toward improving the quality of cancer care: addressing the interfaces of primary and oncology-related subspecialty care.

Authors:  Stephen Hunt Taplin; Anne Brown Rodgers
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2010

3.  Associations between polymorphisms in glucuronidation and sulfation enzymes and sex steroid concentrations in premenopausal women in the United States.

Authors:  Mellissa Yong; Stephen M Schwartz; Charlotte Atkinson; Karen W Makar; Sushma S Thomas; Frank Z Stanczyk; Kim C Westerlind; Katherine M Newton; Victoria L Holt; Wendy M Leisenring; Johanna W Lampe
Journal:  J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol       Date:  2010-12-28       Impact factor: 4.292

4.  Screening mammography use among current, former, and never hormone therapy users may not explain recent declines in breast cancer incidence.

Authors:  Diana S M Buist; Rod Walker; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Patricia A Carney; Stephen H Taplin; Tracy Onega; Karla Kerlikowske; Walter Clinton; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2012-02-01       Impact factor: 4.254

5.  Concordance of population-based estimates of mammography screening.

Authors:  Denise M Boudreau; Casey L Luce; Evette Ludman; Amy E Bonomi; Paul A Fishman
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2007-07-17       Impact factor: 4.018

6.  Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and change in mammographic density: a cohort study using pharmacy records on over 29,000 postmenopausal women.

Authors:  Mary Beth Terry; Diana S M Buist; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Tamarra M James-Todd; Yuyan Liao
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 4.254

7.  Multilevel factors affecting quality: examples from the cancer care continuum.

Authors:  Jane Zapka; Stephen H Taplin; Patricia Ganz; Eva Grunfeld; Katherine Sterba
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2012-05

8.  Fertility drug use and mammographic breast density in a mammography screening cohort of premenopausal women.

Authors:  Brian L Sprague; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Mary Beth Terry; Hazel B Nichols; Andrew J Bersch; Diana S M Buist
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  Associations between endogenous sex hormone levels and mammographic and bone densities in premenopausal women.

Authors:  Mellissa Yong; Charlotte Atkinson; Katherine M Newton; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Frank Z Stanczyk; Kim C Westerlind; Victoria L Holt; Stephen M Schwartz; Wendy M Leisenring; Johanna W Lampe
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2009-03-12       Impact factor: 2.506

10.  Statin use and female reproductive organ cancer risk in a large population-based setting.

Authors:  Onchee Yu; Denise M Boudreau; Diana S M Buist; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2008-11-30       Impact factor: 2.506

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.