Literature DB >> 19339648

Comprehensive diagnostic program for medically underserved women with abnormal breast screening evaluations in an urban population.

Frances M Palmieri1, Elizabeth R DePeri, Betty A Mincey, Judith A Smith, Lonnie K Wen, Deborah M Chewar, Reza Abaya, Gerardo Colon-Otero, Edith A Perez.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To institute a patient navigator program for underinsured women to eliminate delays in diagnostic resolution of abnormal screening mammograms, provide services for abnormalities noted during breast cancer screening, describe demographic and clinical characteristics of enrollees, and assess postscreening follow-up care. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Coordinators from area health departments worked with a navigator nurse at Mayo Clinic Cancer Center in Jacksonville, FL, to refer patients for additional diagnostic services, including diagnostic mammography, ultrasonography, ultrasonography-guided biopsy, stereotactic biopsy, breast magnetic resonance imaging, and biopsy guided by magnetic resonance imaging. Women with abnormal screening mammograms (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [BI-RADS] category 4 or 5) or palpable suspect breast masses were eligible. Data were extracted from clinical service records. Timeliness of postscreening follow-up was assessed.
RESULTS: The study enrolled 447 women from June 30, 2000, to December 29, 2006. Data on the time from screening to diagnosis were available for 399 women, and median time from detection of screening abnormality to diagnosis was 37 days. Time between screening and diagnosis was 60 days or less for 325 (81%) of the 399 women for whom data were available and for 60 (82%) of the 73 women with BI-RADS category 4 or 5 assessments. Both of these percentages exceeded the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention quality benchmark of 75%. Mean time from study enrollment to diagnosis was 2 days for women with BI-RADS category 3 or 4 assessments and 7 days for women with BI-RADS category 5 assessments.
CONCLUSION: This program demonstrated a successful collaboration between an academic medical center and community health centers. Most women with BI-RADS category 4 or 5 assessments received a diagnosis within 60 days of screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19339648      PMCID: PMC2665975          DOI: 10.1016/S0025-6196(11)60539-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc        ISSN: 0025-6196            Impact factor:   7.616


  17 in total

1.  BI-RADS classification for management of abnormal mammograms.

Authors:  Margaret M Eberl; Chester H Fox; Stephen B Edge; Cathleen A Carter; Martin C Mahoney
Journal:  J Am Board Fam Med       Date:  2006 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.657

2.  Using navigators to improve care of underserved patients: current practices and approaches.

Authors:  Daniel Dohan; Deborah Schrag
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2005-08-15       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  Insurance status and access to urgent ambulatory care follow-up appointments.

Authors:  Brent R Asplin; Karin V Rhodes; Helen Levy; Nicole Lurie; A Lauren Crain; Bradley P Carlin; Arthur L Kellermann
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2005-09-14       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Improving follow-up to abnormal breast cancer screening in an urban population. A patient navigation intervention.

Authors:  Tracy A Battaglia; Kathryn Roloff; Michael A Posner; Karen M Freund
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2007-01-15       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 5.  Is the promise of cancer-screening programs being compromised? Quality of follow-up care after abnormal screening results.

Authors:  K Robin Yabroff; Kathleen Shakira Washington; Amy Leader; Elizabeth Neilson; Jeanne Mandelblatt
Journal:  Med Care Res Rev       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 3.929

6.  Expanding access to cancer screening and clinical follow-up among the medically underserved.

Authors:  H P Freeman; B J Muth; J F Kerner
Journal:  Cancer Pract       Date:  1995 Jan-Feb

7.  Factors affecting delay in diagnosis of breast cancer: relationship of delay to stage of disease.

Authors:  E Robinson; J Mohilever; R Borovik
Journal:  Isr J Med Sci       Date:  1986-05

8.  Insurance status and stage of cancer at diagnosis among women with breast cancer.

Authors:  Michael T Halpern; John Bian; Elizabeth M Ward; Nicole M Schrag; Amy Y Chen
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2007-07-15       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Breast cancer screening practices among women in the United States, 2000.

Authors:  Steven S Coughlin; Robert J Uhler; Janet K Bobo; Lee Caplan
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 2.506

10.  Reducing diagnostic delay in breast cancer. Possible therapeutic implications. GIVIO (Interdisciplinary Group for Cancer Care Evaluation) Italy.

Authors: 
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1986-10-15       Impact factor: 6.860

View more
  13 in total

Review 1.  Factors in quality care--the case of follow-up to abnormal cancer screening tests--problems in the steps and interfaces of care.

Authors:  Jane Zapka; Stephen H Taplin; Rebecca Anhang Price; Caroline Cranos; Robin Yabroff
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2010

Review 2.  Patient navigation: an update on the state of the science.

Authors:  Electra D Paskett; J Phil Harrop; Kristen J Wells
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2011-06-09       Impact factor: 508.702

3.  Navigating Latinas with breast screen abnormalities to diagnosis: the Six Cities Study.

Authors:  Amelie G Ramirez; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable; Frank J Penedo; Gregory A Talavera; J Emilio Carrillo; Maria E Fernandez; Alan E C Holden; Edgar Munoz; Sandra San Miguel; Kip Gallion
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2012-12-10       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Timely care after an abnormal mammogram among low-income women in a public breast cancer screening program.

Authors:  Rebecca Lobb; Jennifer D Allen; Karen M Emmons; John Z Ayanian
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2010-03-16

5.  Patient perspectives of clinical care and patient navigation in follow-up of abnormal mammography.

Authors:  Karen Donelan; Johanna R Mailhot; David Dutwin; Kristen Barnicle; Sarah Abernethy Oo; Karin Hobrecker; Sanja Percac-Lima; Bruce A Chabner
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2010-07-07       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 6.  Assessing the impact of patient navigation: prevention and early detection metrics.

Authors:  Tracy A Battaglia; Linda Burhansstipanov; Samantha S Murrell; Andrea J Dwyer; Sarah E Caron
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  How do breast imaging centers communicate results to women with limited English proficiency and other barriers to care?

Authors:  Erin N Marcus; Tulay Koru-Sengul; Feng Miao; Monica Yepes; Lee Sanders
Journal:  J Immigr Minor Health       Date:  2014-06

8.  Impact of patient navigation on timely cancer care: the Patient Navigation Research Program.

Authors:  Karen M Freund; Tracy A Battaglia; Elizabeth Calhoun; Julie S Darnell; Donald J Dudley; Kevin Fiscella; Martha L Hare; Nancy LaVerda; Ji-Hyun Lee; Paul Levine; David M Murray; Steven R Patierno; Peter C Raich; Richard G Roetzheim; Melissa Simon; Frederick R Snyder; Victoria Warren-Mears; Elizabeth M Whitley; Paul Winters; Gregory S Young; Electra D Paskett
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-06-17       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Factors influencing time to diagnosis after abnormal mammography in diverse women.

Authors:  Eliseo J Pérez-Stable; Aimee Afable-Munsuz; Celia Patricia Kaplan; Lydia Pace; Cathy Samayoa; Carol Somkin; Dana Nickleach; Marion Lee; Leticia Márquez-Magaña; Teresa Juarbe; Rena J Pasick
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2013-01-25       Impact factor: 2.681

10.  Breast cancer detection method, diagnostic interval and use of specialized diagnostic assessment units across Ontario, Canada.

Authors:  Li Jiang; Julie Gilbert; Hugh Langley; Rahim Moineddin; Patti A Groome
Journal:  Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.