Literature DB >> 15207985

Likelihood of additional work-up among women undergoing routine screening mammography: the impact of age, breast density, and hormone therapy use.

Patricia A Carney1, Claudia J Kasales, Anna N A Tosteson, Julia E Weiss, Martha E Goodrich, Steven P Poplack, Wendy S Wells, Linda Titus-Ernstoff.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mammography screening can involve subsequent work-up to determine a final screening outcome. Understanding the likelihood of different events that follow initial screening is important if women and their health care providers are to be accurately informed about the screening process.
METHODS: We conducted an analysis of additional work-up following screening mammography to characterize use of supplemental imaging and recommendations for biopsy and/or surgical consultation and the factors associated with their use. We included all events following screening mammography performed between 1/1/1998 and 12/31/1999 on a population-based sample of 37,632 New Hampshire women. We calculated adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for supplemental imaging and recommended biopsy and/or surgical consultation as function of age, menopausal status and HRT use, breast density, and family history of breast cancer.
RESULTS: Ninety-one percent of women (n = 34,445) did not require supplemental imaging. Among those who did (n = 3187), 84% had additional views, 9% ultrasound, and 7% received both. Supplemental imaging was affected by age (OR 0.84; 95% CI = 0.76-0.94 for 50-59; OR = 0.66; 95% CI = 0.58-0.75 for > or = 60 versus < 50), menopausal status, and HRT use (OR = 1.33; 95% CI = 1.21-1.47 for peri- or post-menopausal HRT users; OR = 1.14; 95% CI = 1.01-1.29 for premenopausal versus peri- or post-menopausal non-HRT users), breast density (OR = 1.43; 95% CI = 1.33-1.55 for dense versus fatty breasts) and family history (OR = 1.15; 95% CI = 1.06-1.25 for any versus none). In women with supplemental imaging, age (OR = 1.80; 95% CI = 1.11-2.90 for > or = 60, relative to <50) and imaging type (OR = 3.23; 95% CI = 2.38-4.38 for ultrasound with or without additional views versus additional views only) were significantly associated with biopsy and/or surgical consultation recommendation. In those with no supplemental imaging, breast density was associated with recommended biopsy and/or surgical consultation (OR = 1.53; 95% CI = 1.13-2.07 for dense versus fatty breasts).
CONCLUSIONS: Breast density and HRT use are both independent predictors of use of supplemental imaging in women. With advancing age (age 60 and older), women were less likely to require follow-up imaging but more likely to receive a recommendation for biopsy and/or surgical consultation. This information should be used to inform women about the likelihood of services received as part of the screening work-up. Copyright 2004 The Institute for Cancer Prevention and Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15207985     DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.02.025

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prev Med        ISSN: 0091-7435            Impact factor:   4.018


  7 in total

1.  Using semi-Markov processes to study timeliness and tests used in the diagnostic evaluation of suspected breast cancer.

Authors:  R A Hubbard; J Lange; Y Zhang; B A Salim; J R Stroud; L Y T Inoue
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2016-07-21       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 2.  Advances in optical spectroscopy and imaging of breast lesions.

Authors:  Stavros G Demos; Abby J Vogel; Amir H Gandjbakhche
Journal:  J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 2.673

3.  Feasibility and satisfaction with a tailored web-based audit intervention for recalibrating radiologists' thresholds for conducting additional work-up.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Edward A Sickles; Diana L Miglioretti; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Linn Abraham; Stephen A Feig; David Brown; Andrea J Cook; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2010-12-30       Impact factor: 3.173

4.  Prediagnostic use of hormone therapy and mortality after breast cancer.

Authors:  Polly A Newcomb; Kathleen M Egan; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Linda Titus-Ernstoff; John A Baron; John M Hampton; Meir J Stampfer; Walter C Willett
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2008-04-01       Impact factor: 4.254

5.  Diagnostic imaging and biopsy pathways following abnormal screen-film and digital screening mammography.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Weiwei Zhu; Ruslan Horblyuk; Leah Karliner; Brian L Sprague; Louise Henderson; David Lee; Tracy Onega; Diana S M Buist; Alison Sweet
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2013-03-08       Impact factor: 4.872

6.  Correlations between female breast density and biochemical markers.

Authors:  Ji-Hye Kim; Hae-Kag Lee; Jae-Hwan Cho; Hyong-Keun Park; Han-Jun Yang
Journal:  J Phys Ther Sci       Date:  2015-07-22

7.  Spectrum of spontaneous photon emission as a promising biophysical indicator for breast cancer research.

Authors:  Xiaolei Zhao; Meina Yang; Yong Wang; Jingxiang Pang; Eduard Van Wijk; Yanli Liu; Hua Fan; Liewei Zhang; Jinxiang Han
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-10-12       Impact factor: 4.379

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.