Xinhua Yu1, A Marshall McBean, Beth A Virnig. 1. Division of Health Policy and Management, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, MMC 97, 420 Delaware St., S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. xinhuayu@umn.edu
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Over a million Americans have survived colorectal cancer. This study examined physician visit patterns, patient comorbidities, and mammography use among colorectal cancer survivors based on the competing demands model. METHODS: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked data (2003 merge), study cohorts included female colorectal cancer patients who were diagnosed from 1973 through 1994 and had survived five or more years after the cancer diagnosis (n = 12,681), and a non-cancer comparison population who had no history of cancer and resided in the SEER areas during the study period. RESULTS: Cancer survivors had a significant 6% higher mammography rate during 2000 to 2001 than matched women with no history of cancer (50 vs 47 per 100 persons, respectively). Among cancer survivors, there was a significant and positive association between the number of physician visits for evaluation and management (E&M) and mammography rates. More physician visits for E&M reduced the differences of mammography rates between those with and without additional comorbidities. Cancer survivors who visited gynecologists for E&M were 45% more likely to receive mammograms than those who visited only primary care physicians (multivariate adjusted rate ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.38-1.53). CONCLUSIONS: Elderly female colorectal cancer survivors were more likely to receive mammograms than matched women with no history of cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Patients with multiple comorbidities might receive more mammograms by increasing the number of office visits for E&M and by visiting gynecologists. Primary care physicians should increase the priority for recommending mammograms among cancer survivors.
INTRODUCTION: Over a million Americans have survived colorectal cancer. This study examined physician visit patterns, patient comorbidities, and mammography use among colorectal cancer survivors based on the competing demands model. METHODS: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked data (2003 merge), study cohorts included female colorectal cancerpatients who were diagnosed from 1973 through 1994 and had survived five or more years after the cancer diagnosis (n = 12,681), and a non-cancer comparison population who had no history of cancer and resided in the SEER areas during the study period. RESULTS:Cancer survivors had a significant 6% higher mammography rate during 2000 to 2001 than matched women with no history of cancer (50 vs 47 per 100 persons, respectively). Among cancer survivors, there was a significant and positive association between the number of physician visits for evaluation and management (E&M) and mammography rates. More physician visits for E&M reduced the differences of mammography rates between those with and without additional comorbidities. Cancer survivors who visited gynecologists for E&M were 45% more likely to receive mammograms than those who visited only primary care physicians (multivariate adjusted rate ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.38-1.53). CONCLUSIONS: Elderly female colorectal cancer survivors were more likely to receive mammograms than matched women with no history of cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Patients with multiple comorbidities might receive more mammograms by increasing the number of office visits for E&M and by visiting gynecologists. Primary care physicians should increase the priority for recommending mammograms among cancer survivors.
Authors: Lois B Travis; Sophie D Fosså; Sara J Schonfeld; Mary L McMaster; Charles F Lynch; Hans Storm; Per Hall; Eric Holowaty; Aage Andersen; Eero Pukkala; Michael Andersson; Magnus Kaijser; Mary Gospodarowicz; Timo Joensuu; Randi J Cohen; John D Boice; Graça M Dores; Ethel S Gilbert Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-09-21 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Tomas Kirchhoff; Jaya M Satagopan; Noah D Kauff; Helen Huang; Prema Kolachana; Crystal Palmer; Hannah Rapaport; Khedoudja Nafa; Nathan A Ellis; Kenneth Offit Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2004-01-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jeanne Mandelblatt; Somnath Saha; Steven Teutsch; Tom Hoerger; Albert L Siu; David Atkins; Jonathan Klein; Mark Helfand Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-11-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Richard G Roetzheim; Ji-Hyun Lee; Jeanne M Ferrante; Eduardo C Gonzalez; Ren Chen; Kate J Fisher; Kymia Love-Jackson; Ellen P McCarthy Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2013 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Lacey Loomer; Kevin C Ward; Evelyn A Reynolds; Silke A von Esenwein; Joseph Lipscomb Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2019-06-06 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Kate J Fisher; Ji-Hyun Lee; Jeanne M Ferrante; Ellen P McCarthy; Eduardo C Gonzalez; Ren Chen; Kymia Love-Jackson; Richard G Roetzheim Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-05-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Richard G Roetzheim; Jeanne M Ferrante; Ji-Hyun Lee; Ren Chen; Kymia M Love-Jackson; Eduardo C Gonzalez; Kate J Fisher; Ellen P McCarthy Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2012 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.166