Literature DB >> 15947876

Are risk factors for breast cancer associated with follow-up procedures in diverse women with abnormal mammography?

Teresa C Juarbe1, Celia Patricia Kaplan, Carol P Somkin, Rena Pasick, Ginny Gildengorin, Eliseo J Pérez-Stable.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the association of risk factors for breast cancer with reported follow-up procedures after abnormal mammography among diverse women.
METHODS: Women ages 40--80 years were recruited from four clinical sites after receiving a screening mammography result that was classified as abnormal but probably benign, suspicious or highly suspicious, or indeterminate using standard criteria. A telephone-administered survey asked about breast cancer risk factors (family history, estrogen use, physical inactivity, age of menarche, age at birth of first child, parity, alcohol use), and self-reported use of diagnostic tests (follow-up mammogram, breast ultrasound, or biopsy).
RESULTS: Nine hundred and seventy women completed the interview, mean age was 56, 42% were White, 19% Latina, 25% African American, and 15% Asian. White women were more likely to have a positive family history (20%), use estrogen (32%), be nulliparous (17%) and drink alcohol (62%). Latinas were more likely to be physically inactive (93%), African Americans to have early onset of menarche (53%) and Asians first child after age 30 (21%). White women were more likely to have suspicious mammograms (40%) and to undergo biopsy (45%). In multivariate models, Latinas were more likely to report breast ultrasound, physical inactive women reported fewer follow-up mammograms, and care outside the academic health center was associated with fewer biopsies. Indeterminate and suspicious mammography interpretations were significantly associated with more biopsy procedures (OR=8.4; 95% CI=3.8-18.5 and OR=59; 95% CI=35-100, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Demographic profile and breast cancer risk factors have little effect on self-reported use of diagnostic procedures following an abnormal mammography examination. Level of mammography abnormality determines diagnostic evaluation but variance by site of care was observed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15947876      PMCID: PMC2936818          DOI: 10.1007/s10552-004-4028-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Causes Control        ISSN: 0957-5243            Impact factor:   2.506


  39 in total

1.  Race and differences in breast cancer survival in a managed care population.

Authors:  M U Yood; C C Johnson; A Blount; J Abrams; E Wolman; B D McCarthy; U Raju; D S Nathanson; M Worsham; S R Wolman
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1999-09-01       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Use of cancer screening practices by Hispanic women: analyses by subgroup.

Authors:  R E Zambrana; N Breen; S A Fox; M L Gutierrez-Mohamed
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 4.018

Review 3.  Assessing the risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  K Armstrong; A Eisen; B Weber
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2000-02-24       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  The association of race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and physician recommendation for mammography: who gets the message about breast cancer screening?

Authors:  M S O'Malley; J A Earp; S T Hawley; M J Schell; H F Mathews; J Mitchell
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 9.308

5.  Low income, race, and the use of mammography.

Authors:  D M Makuc; N Breen; V Freid
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 3.402

6.  Time to diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer: results from the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, 1991-1995.

Authors:  L S Caplan; D S May; L C Richardson
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 9.308

7.  Continuing screening mammography in women aged 70 to 79 years: impact on life expectancy and cost-effectiveness.

Authors:  K Kerlikowske; P Salzmann; K A Phillips; J A Cauley; S R Cummings
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-12-08       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Acculturation and breast cancer screening among Hispanic women in New York City.

Authors:  A S O'Malley; J Kerner; A E Johnson; J Mandelblatt
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 9.308

9.  Community-based cancer screening for underserved women: design and baseline findings from the Breast and Cervical Cancer Intervention Study.

Authors:  R A Hiatt; R J Pasick; S Stewart; J Bloom; P Davis; P Gardiner; M Johnston; J Luce; K Schorr; W Brunner; F Stroud
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 4.018

10.  Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System.

Authors:  K Kerlikowske; D Grady; J Barclay; S D Frankel; S H Ominsky; E A Sickles; V Ernster
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1998-12-02       Impact factor: 13.506

View more
  6 in total

1.  Comparison of mammography sensitivity after reduction mammoplasty targeting the glandular and fat tissue.

Authors:  Murat Çakır; Tevfik Küçükkartallar; Ahmet Tekin; Nebil Selimoğlu; Necdet Poyraz; Mehmet Metin Belviranlı; Adil Kartal
Journal:  Ulus Cerrahi Derg       Date:  2015-06-01

2.  Timing of follow-up after abnormal screening and diagnostic mammograms.

Authors:  Karen J Wernli; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Sebastien Haneuse; Joanne G Elmore; Diana S M Buist
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 2.229

3.  Low to moderate alcohol intake is not associated with increased mortality after breast cancer.

Authors:  Shirley W Flatt; Cynthia A Thomson; Ellen B Gold; Loki Natarajan; Cheryl L Rock; Wael K Al-Delaimy; Ruth E Patterson; Nazmus Saquib; Bette J Caan; John P Pierce
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2010-02-16       Impact factor: 4.254

4.  Factors influencing time to diagnosis after abnormal mammography in diverse women.

Authors:  Eliseo J Pérez-Stable; Aimee Afable-Munsuz; Celia Patricia Kaplan; Lydia Pace; Cathy Samayoa; Carol Somkin; Dana Nickleach; Marion Lee; Leticia Márquez-Magaña; Teresa Juarbe; Rena J Pasick
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2013-01-25       Impact factor: 2.681

5.  Predisposing and enabling factors associated with mammography use among Hispanic and non-Hispanic white women living in a rural area.

Authors:  Silvia Tejeda; Beti Thompson; Gloria D Coronado; Diane P Martin; Patrick J Heagerty
Journal:  J Rural Health       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 4.333

6.  Poor patient comprehension of abnormal mammography results.

Authors:  Leah S Karliner; Celia Patricia Kaplan; Teresa Juarbe; Rena Pasick; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 5.128

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.