Literature DB >> 19224371

Screening mammography rate and predictors following treatment for colorectal cancer.

A Marshall McBean1, Xinhua Yu, Beth A Virnig.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer survivors remain at risk for breast cancer. Thus, it is important to determine if screening mammography rates are reduced by the diagnosis and treatment of incident colorectal cancer.
METHODS: Mammography rates among 7,666 67-79 year-old stage 0-III colorectal cancer survivors were compared with rates among 36,433 age-, race/ethnicity-, SEER area-matched women controlling for pre-diagnosis mammography, stage, chemotherapy, income, co-morbidities, treatment in teaching hospital, number of physician visits, and gynecologist visits.
RESULTS: In the first 2 years after diagnosis, the survivors' rate (49.7/100) was 4.2% higher than the controls' (47.6/100), p < 0.001. It was 7.5% higher in the next 2 years, 54.5/100 versus 49.7/100, p < 0.001. The higher rates resulted from significantly greater rates among survivors without prior mammography, 30.9/100, compared with their controls (25.3/100) in the first 2 years, for example (O.R. = 1.23, 95% C.I. = 1.15-1.32). The strongest predictors of post-diagnosis mammography were pre-diagnosis mammography (O.R. = 5.76, 95% C.I. = 5.19-6.38), visiting a gynecologist (O.R. = 1.83, 95% C.I. = 1.55-2.16), chemotherapy (O.R. = 1.61, 95% C.I. = 1.40-1.86), and more than nine physician visits. Increasing Charlson scores and cancer stage were associated with lower mammography rates. DISCUSSION/
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the competing demands of cancer diagnosis and treatment did not reduce mammography rates, and these events were associated with increased rates among previous non-users. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The low mammography rate among survivors with no history of a prior mammogram means that the physicians treating these women must emphasize the need for such care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19224371     DOI: 10.1007/s11764-009-0080-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cancer Surviv        ISSN: 1932-2259            Impact factor:   4.442


  27 in total

1.  Overview of the SEER-Medicare data: content, research applications, and generalizability to the United States elderly population.

Authors:  Joan L Warren; Carrie N Klabunde; Deborah Schrag; Peter B Bach; Gerald F Riley
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Data sources for measuring comorbidity: a comparison of hospital records and medicare claims for cancer patients.

Authors:  Carrie N Klabunde; Linda C Harlan; Joan L Warren
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  Trends in follow-up and preventive care for colorectal cancer survivors.

Authors:  Claire F Snyder; Craig C Earle; Robert J Herbert; Bridget A Neville; Amanda L Blackford; Kevin D Frick
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2008-01-16       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation.

Authors:  M E Charlson; P Pompei; K L Ales; C R MacKenzie
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1987

5.  Associations in breast and colon cancer screening behavior in women.

Authors:  Ruth C Carlos; A Mark Fendrick; Stephanie K Patterson; Steven J Bernstein
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 3.173

6.  Risk for colorectal cancer after gynecologic cancer.

Authors:  D S Weinberg; C J Newschaffer; A Topham
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1999-08-03       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Comparison of 2 methods for calculating adjusted survival curves from proportional hazards models.

Authors:  W A Ghali; H Quan; R Brant; G van Melle; C M Norris; P D Faris; P D Galbraith; M L Knudtson
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001-09-26       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 8.  Screening for colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer in the elderly: a review of the evidence.

Authors:  Louise C Walter; Carmen L Lewis; Mary B Barton
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 4.965

9.  The underuse of screening services among elderly women with diabetes.

Authors:  A Marshall McBean; Xinhua Yu
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2007-03-10       Impact factor: 19.112

10.  Recent trends in mammography utilization in the Medicare population: is there a cause for concern?

Authors:  Vijay M Rao; David C Levin; Laurence Parker; Andrea J Frangos
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 5.532

View more
  4 in total

1.  Multimodal intervention to improve osteoporosis care in home health settings: results from a cluster randomized trial.

Authors:  M L Kilgore; R Outman; J L Locher; J J Allison; A Mudano; B Kitchin; K G Saag; J R Curtis
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2013-03-28       Impact factor: 4.507

2.  The role of the breast radiologist in evaluation of breast incidentalomas detected on 18-fludeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/CT.

Authors:  R M Dunne; D O'Mahony; G Wilson; R McDermott; S A O'Keeffe
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2013-04-08       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Breast and cervical cancer screening behaviours among colorectal cancer survivors in Nova Scotia.

Authors:  M Corkum; R Urquhart; G Kephart; J A Hayden; G Porter
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 3.677

Review 4.  Screening for new primary cancers in cancer survivors compared to non-cancer controls: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Mark Corkum; Jill A Hayden; George Kephart; Robin Urquhart; Coralynne Schlievert; Geoffrey Porter
Journal:  J Cancer Surviv       Date:  2013-05-05       Impact factor: 4.442

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.