Literature DB >> 16050876

Evaluation and outcomes of women with a breast lump and a normal mammogram result.

Jennifer S Haas1, Celia P Kaplan, Phyllis Brawarsky, Karla Kerlikowske.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Many women experience a breast lump. Clinical guidelines suggest that a normal mammogram result alone is not adequate to exclude a diagnosis of cancer.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the characteristics of women with a breast lump and a normal mammogram that were associated with receiving further evaluation, and to examine cancer outcomes.
DESIGN: Observational cohort. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged 35 to 70 years who participated in a population-based mammography registry and who did not have a history of breast cancer noted at the time of their mammogram that they had a breast lump, and had a "normal" (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 1 or 2) mammogram result (n=771). MEASUREMENTS: Telephone survey performed 6 months after the mammogram to ascertain information about evaluation. Cancer outcomes within 12 months of the index mammogram were confirmed through linkage with a cancer registry.
RESULTS: Only 56.9% of women reported receiving an adequate evaluation for their breast lump, including a subsequent clinical breast exam, a visit to a breast specialist, an ultrasound, a biopsy, or aspiration. Latinas were less likely than white women to have received adequate evaluation, as were obese women compared with normal-weight women, and uninsured women compared with women with insurance. Among women with at least 12 months of follow-up, 1.4% were diagnosed with cancer.
CONCLUSIONS: Many women do not receive adequate evaluation for a recent breast lump. Interventions should be designed to improve the follow-up of women with this common clinical problem.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16050876      PMCID: PMC1490178          DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.0149.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  24 in total

1.  Breast cancer stage at diagnosis: Caucasians versus Hispanics.

Authors:  A J Zaloznik
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 4.872

2.  Effects of health insurance and race on early detection of cancer.

Authors:  R G Roetzheim; N Pal; C Tennant; L Voti; J Z Ayanian; A Schwabe; J P Krischer
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1999-08-18       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Effect of obesity on screening mammography: outcomes analysis of 88,346 consecutive examinations.

Authors:  K A Hunt; E A Sickles
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Breast Cancer Litigation: An Update with Practice Guidelines.

Authors:  Troy H. Guthrie
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 2.431

5.  Performance of diagnostic mammography for women with signs or symptoms of breast cancer.

Authors:  William E Barlow; Constance D Lehman; Yingye Zheng; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Gary R Cutter; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Robert Rosenberg; Karla Kerlikowske; Donald L Weaver; Stephen H Taplin
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2002-08-07       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  Responses of primary health care professionals to UK national guidelines on the management and referral of women with breast conditions.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 2.431

7.  Racial differences in diagnosis, treatment, and clinical delays in a population-based study of patients with newly diagnosed breast carcinoma.

Authors:  Karin Gwyn; Melissa L Bondy; Deborah S Cohen; Mary Jo Lund; Jonathan M Liff; Elaine W Flagg; Louise A Brinton; J William Eley; Ralph J Coates
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2004-04-15       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 8.  Evaluation of abnormal mammography results and palpable breast abnormalities.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Britt-Marie Ljung; Deborah Grady
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2003-08-19       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Obesity and breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Christina C Wee; Ellen P McCarthy; Roger B Davis; Russell S Phillips
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 5.128

10.  The association between obesity and screening mammography accuracy.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Patricia A Carney; Linn A Abraham; William E Barlow; Joseph R Egger; Jessica S Fosse; Gary R Cutter; R Edward Hendrick; Carl J D'Orsi; Prashni Paliwal; Stephen H Taplin
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2004-05-24
View more
  2 in total

1.  What influences diagnostic delay in low-income women with breast cancer?

Authors:  Rose C Maly; Barbara Leake; Cynthia M Mojica; Yihang Liu; Allison L Diamant; Amardeep Thind
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2011-04-12       Impact factor: 2.681

2.  Communication outcomes of critical imaging results in a computerized notification system.

Authors:  Hardeep Singh; Harvinder S Arora; Meena S Vij; Raghuram Rao; Myrna M Khan; Laura A Petersen
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2007-04-25       Impact factor: 4.497

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.