Literature DB >> 16157830

Differences in screening mammography outcomes among White, Chinese, and Filipino women.

Karla Kerlikowske1, Jennifer Creasman, Jessica W T Leung, Rebecca Smith-Bindman, Virginia L Ernster.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The accuracy of screening mammography among Asian women in the United States has received little attention. We determined whether the accuracy of screening mammography for Chinese and Filipino women differs from that of white women.
METHODS: We examined a cohort of white, Chinese, and Filipino women 40 years and older who underwent 200,402, 72,604, and 19,087 screening examinations, respectively, between January 1986 and December 2001 in San Francisco County, California, of whom 2177 were diagnosed with breast cancer within 12 months of a screening examination. By linking screening examinations to the regional Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results program and the California Cancer Registry, we identified the occurrence of any invasive cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ and then calculated the rate of cancer per 1000 screenings and the sensitivity of mammography.
RESULTS: The rate of invasive breast cancer per 1000 screenings was 45% lower for Chinese than for white women aged 50 to 69 years (3.8 vs 6.9; P<.001) and 29% lower for Filipino than for white women (4.9 vs 6.9; P = .03). Rates of ductal carcinoma in situ were similar across all ethnic groups (1.6-1.7 per 1000 screenings; P>or=.60). The sensitivity of mammography was similar for white, Chinese, and Filipino women (81.6%-84.3%; P>.30).
CONCLUSIONS: Screening mammography has similar accuracy among white, Chinese, and Filipino women, although the absolute benefit of screening, in terms of breast cancer deaths averted, is likely to be less among Asian women because the rates of invasive cancer are lower compared with white women of similar age. Overdiagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ with screening mammography among Asian women is likely to be comparable to that of white women because the rate of ductal carcinoma in situ was similar in all the examined ethnic groups.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16157830     DOI: 10.1001/archinte.165.16.1862

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-9926


  7 in total

1.  Facility characteristics do not explain higher false-positive rates in diagnostic mammography at facilities serving vulnerable women.

Authors:  L Elizabeth Goldman; Rod Walker; Diana L Miglioretti; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; And Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Accuracy of diagnostic mammography at facilities serving vulnerable women.

Authors:  L Elizabeth Goldman; Rod Walker; Diana L Miglioretti; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 3.  Epidemiology of ductal carcinoma in situ.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2010

4.  An assessment of the quality of mammography care at facilities treating medically vulnerable populations.

Authors:  L Elizabeth Goldman; Sebastien J-P A Haneuse; Diana L Miglioretti; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Bonnie Yankaskas; Rebecca Smith-Bindman
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  Knowledge, cultural, and attitudinal barriers to mammography screening among nonadherent immigrant Chinese women: ever versus never screened status.

Authors:  Judy H Wang; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Wenchi Liang; Bin Yi; I-Jung Ma; Marc D Schwartz
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2009-10-15       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Mammographic screening interval in relation to tumor characteristics and false-positive risk by race/ethnicity and age.

Authors:  Ellen S O'Meara; Weiwei Zhu; Rebecca A Hubbard; Dejana Braithwaite; Karla Kerlikowske; Kim L Dittus; Berta Geller; Karen J Wernli; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2013-08-26       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Then and now: comparison of baseline breast cancer screening rates at 2 time intervals.

Authors:  Georgia Robins Sadler; Jenny Hung; Paula R Beerman; Mary Chen; Janice Chow; Nancy Chan
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 2.037

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.