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.
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.
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
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
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
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