BACKGROUND: Mammography capacity in the U.S. reportedly is adequate, but has not been examined in nonmetropolitan areas. This study examined the relationships between in-county mammography facilities and rates of mammography screening and late-stage diagnosis of breast cancers. METHODS: The association between a mammography facility in the county of residence (2002-2004) and the odds of screening within 2 years were examined (in 2007) among Texas women aged >40 years who responded to the 2004 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey, using multivariate logistic regression to control for age, race, ethnicity, education, income, self-reported health, insurance, and usual source of care. Similarly, the association between an in-county mammography facility and the odds of diagnosis with locally advanced or disseminated disease was examined among Texas women aged >40 years who developed breast cancer in 2004. RESULTS: Half of the 254 counties in Texas had no mammography facility. After controlling for confounding factors, an in-county facility was associated with significantly higher odds of screening (OR=3.27; p=0.03) and lower odds of late-stage breast cancer at diagnosis (OR=0.36; 95% CI=0.26-0.51; p<0.001). The risks of late-stage diagnosis were higher for African-American women (OR=1.52; 95% CI=1.22-1.89; p<0.001) and Hispanic women (OR=1.23; 95% CI=0.99-1.53; p=0.06) than for white women. CONCLUSIONS: Although mammography capacity in the U.S. may be adequate on average, the unequal distribution of facilities results in large rural areas without facilities. Screening rates in these areas are suboptimal and are associated with late-stage diagnosis of breast cancer.
BACKGROUND: Mammography capacity in the U.S. reportedly is adequate, but has not been examined in nonmetropolitan areas. This study examined the relationships between in-county mammography facilities and rates of mammography screening and late-stage diagnosis of breast cancers. METHODS: The association between a mammography facility in the county of residence (2002-2004) and the odds of screening within 2 years were examined (in 2007) among Texas women aged >40 years who responded to the 2004 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey, using multivariate logistic regression to control for age, race, ethnicity, education, income, self-reported health, insurance, and usual source of care. Similarly, the association between an in-county mammography facility and the odds of diagnosis with locally advanced or disseminated disease was examined among Texas women aged >40 years who developed breast cancer in 2004. RESULTS: Half of the 254 counties in Texas had no mammography facility. After controlling for confounding factors, an in-county facility was associated with significantly higher odds of screening (OR=3.27; p=0.03) and lower odds of late-stage breast cancer at diagnosis (OR=0.36; 95% CI=0.26-0.51; p<0.001). The risks of late-stage diagnosis were higher for African-American women (OR=1.52; 95% CI=1.22-1.89; p<0.001) and Hispanic women (OR=1.23; 95% CI=0.99-1.53; p=0.06) than for white women. CONCLUSIONS: Although mammography capacity in the U.S. may be adequate on average, the unequal distribution of facilities results in large rural areas without facilities. Screening rates in these areas are suboptimal and are associated with late-stage diagnosis of breast cancer.
Authors: Lucy A Peipins; Jacqueline Miller; Thomas B Richards; Janet Kay Bobo; Ta Liu; Mary C White; Djenaba Joseph; Florence Tangka; Donatus U Ekwueme Journal: J Community Health Date: 2012-12
Authors: Lucy A Peipins; Shannon Graham; Randall Young; Brian Lewis; Stephanie Foster; Barry Flanagan; Andrew Dent Journal: J Community Health Date: 2011-08
Authors: Christoph I Lee; Weiwei Zhu; Tracy L Onega; Jessica Germino; Ellen S O'Meara; Constance D Lehman; Louise M Henderson; Jennifer S Haas; Karla Kerlikowske; Brian L Sprague; Garth H Rauscher; Anna N A Tosteson; Jennifer Alford-Teaster; Karen J Wernli; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2018-09-20 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Maria O Celaya; Ethan M Berke; Tracy L Onega; Jiang Gui; Bruce L Riddle; Sai S Cherala; Judy R Rees Journal: Rural Remote Health Date: 2010-04-23 Impact factor: 1.759
Authors: Elena B Elkin; Jacqueline G Snow; Nicole M Leoce; Coral L Atoria; Deborah Schrag Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2011-10-29 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Kevin A Henry; Kaila McDonald; Recinda Sherman; Anita Y Kinney; Antoinette M Stroup Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2014-05-27 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Patricia I Jewett; Ronald E Gangnon; Elena Elkin; John M Hampton; Elizabeth A Jacobs; Kristen Malecki; James LaGro; Polly A Newcomb; Amy Trentham-Dietz Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2017-12-07 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Terry C Davis; Alfred Rademaker; Charles L Bennett; Michael S Wolf; Edson Carias; Cristalyn Reynolds; Dachao Liu; Connie L Arnold Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-12-24 Impact factor: 5.128