Literature DB >> 16049808

Geographic association between mammography use and mortality reduction in the US.

Barnali Das1, Eric J Feuer, Angela Mariotto.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer mortality rates in women have been declining at the same time as breast cancer incidence rates, mammography rates and use of effective adjuvant therapy have been increasing. The objective of this study was to examine population data on breast cancer screening and breast cancer mortality to see if there is any geographic association between mammographic screening and breast cancer mortality reduction in the US, after adjusting for therapy use.
METHODS: Regression analysis of the estimated annual percent reduction of breast cancer mortality was performed on mammography use from the Behavioral Risk Factors Surveillance System (BRFSS) at state level. A secondary regression analysis on the SEER-11 region, at an aggregated Health Services Area (HSA) level, was carried out to adjust for use of adjuvant therapy. The annual percent change in the incidence of early stage cancer, calculated from SEER cancer data was used as a surrogate for mammography use. Adjuvant therapy use was estimated from SEER data and adjusted using the Patterns of Care data. All the analyses showed a small but significant negative correlation between mammography usage and mortality reduction (correlation of -0.285, p-value 0.045) in breast cancer (state level) and change in "early" stage breast cancer and mortality reduction (at HSA level) unadjusted (correlation of -0.307, p-value 0.065) and adjusted (partial correlation of -0.337, p-value 0.044) for adjuvant therapy use. DISCUSSION: The results of the two analyses appear to show a moderate effect of mammography usage on decreasing breast cancer mortality in the US, which seems to support the conclusions of randomized mammographic screening trials. While randomized controlled trials are certainly the gold standard in appraising the efficacy of new screening or treatment modalities, such trials are conducted under standardized conditions and do not always reflect the effect of these interventions at population level. This paper attempts to examine population level effects through ecologic analyses. Results, however, need to be interpreted cautiously owing to the limitations and biases inherent in such analyses.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16049808     DOI: 10.1007/s10552-005-1991-x

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


  7 in total

Review 1.  Designs for the combination of group- and individual-level data.

Authors:  Sebastien Haneuse; Scott Bartell
Journal:  Epidemiology       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 4.822

Review 2.  Missteps in Current Estimates of Cancer Overdiagnosis.

Authors:  Christoph I Lee; Ruth Etzioni
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2016-11-25       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  Medical barriers to mammography screening of African American women in a high cancer mortality area: implications for cancer educators and health providers.

Authors:  Rosalie F Young; Kendra Schwartz; Jason Booza
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 2.037

4.  Characteristics of mammography facility locations and stage of breast cancer at diagnosis in Chicago.

Authors:  Elizabeth Tarlov; Shannon N Zenk; Richard T Campbell; Richard B Warnecke; Richard Block
Journal:  J Urban Health       Date:  2008-10-30       Impact factor: 3.671

5.  Urban/Rural Differences in Breast and Cervical Cancer Incidence: The Mediating Roles of Socioeconomic Status and Provider Density.

Authors:  Jennifer L Moss; Benmei Liu; Eric J Feuer
Journal:  Womens Health Issues       Date:  2017-11-03

6.  Association of Community Economic Distress and Breast and Colorectal Cancer Screening, Incidence, and Mortality Rates Among US Counties.

Authors:  Chelsea Herbert; Alessandro Paro; Adrian Diaz; Timothy M Pawlik
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-09-28       Impact factor: 5.344

7.  Using small-area estimation to describe county-level disparities in mammography.

Authors:  Karen L Schneider; Kate L Lapane; Melissa A Clark; William Rakowski
Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis       Date:  2009-09-15       Impact factor: 2.830

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.