Literature DB >> 20204501

Are there racial/ethnic disparities among women younger than 40 undergoing mammography?

Julie M Kapp1, Rod Walker, Sebastien Haneuse, Diana S M Buist, Bonnie C Yankaskas.   

Abstract

While the probability of a woman developing invasive breast cancer at age <40 is low (<1%), mammography use reported among younger women (age <40) is substantial, and varies by race/ethnicity. Little detail is known about mammography use among women aged <40, particularly by race/ethnicity. We describe racial/ethnic differences in: (1) mammography indication after considering underlying risk factors (breast symptoms and family history); (2) follow-up recommendations, and (3) mammography outcomes for first mammograms in women aged <40. These 1996-2005 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium data are prospectively pooled from seven U.S. mammography registries. Our community-based sample included 99,615 women aged 18-39 who self-reported race/ethnicity and presented for a first mammogram (screening or diagnostic) with no history of breast cancer. Multivariable analyses controlled for registry site, age, family history of breast cancer, symptoms, and exam year. Overall, 73.6% of the women in our sample were seen for a screening mammogram. Following screening mammography, African American (AA) women were more likely than white women to be recommended for additional workup [relative risk (RR): 1.15 (95% CI: 1.07-1.23)]. Following diagnostic mammography, AA [RR: 1.30 (95% CI: 1.17-1.44)] and Asian [RR: 1.44 (95% CI: 1.26-1.64)] women were more likely to be recommended for biopsy, fine-needle aspiration, or surgical consultation. Depending on race/ethnicity, and considering the rate of true positive to total first screening mammograms of younger women, a women has a likelihood of a true positive of 1 in 363-1,122; she has a likelihood of a false positive of 1 in 7-10. This study of community-based practice found racial/ethnic variability in mammography indication, recommendations, and outcomes among women undergoing first mammography before 40. These findings highlight important areas for future research to understand the motivating factors for these practice patterns and the implications of early mammography use.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20204501      PMCID: PMC2927744          DOI: 10.1007/s10549-010-0812-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.872


  31 in total

1.  Are mammography recommendations in women younger than 40 related to increased risk?

Authors:  Julie M Kapp; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Michael L LeFevre
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2009-01-16       Impact factor: 4.872

2.  Lying for patients: physician deception of third-party payers.

Authors:  V G Freeman; S S Rathore; K P Weinfurt; K A Schulman; D P Sulmasy
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1999-10-25

3.  Estimated risk of radiation-induced breast cancer from mammographic screening for young BRCA mutation carriers.

Authors:  Amy Berrington de Gonzalez; Christine D Berg; Kala Visvanathan; Mark Robson
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2009-01-27       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Analysis of benign breast lesions in blacks.

Authors:  S F Oluwole; H P Freeman
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1979-06       Impact factor: 2.565

5.  The diagnosis of breast cancer in women younger than 40.

Authors:  L M Foxcroft; E B Evans; A J Porter
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 4.380

Review 6.  Physicians' interactions with third-party payers: is deception necessary?

Authors:  Sidney T Bogardus; David E Geist; Elizabeth H Bradley
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2004-09-27

7.  Fibroadenoma of the female breast: a critical clinical assessment.

Authors:  C H Organ; B C Organ
Journal:  J Natl Med Assoc       Date:  1983-07       Impact factor: 1.798

8.  Elevated breast cancer mortality in women younger than age 40 years compared with older women is attributed to poorer survival in early-stage disease.

Authors:  Jennifer L Gnerlich; Anjali D Deshpande; Donna B Jeffe; Allison Sweet; Nick White; Julie A Margenthaler
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2009-01-21       Impact factor: 6.113

9.  Cancer statistics, 2009.

Authors:  Ahmedin Jemal; Rebecca Siegel; Elizabeth Ward; Yongping Hao; Jiaquan Xu; Michael J Thun
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2009-05-27       Impact factor: 508.702

10.  Screening mammography performance and cancer detection among black women and white women in community practice.

Authors:  Karminder S Gill; Bonnie C Yankaskas
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2004-01-01       Impact factor: 6.860

View more
  5 in total

1.  Racial differences in false-positive mammogram rates: results from the ACRIN Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST).

Authors:  Anne Marie McCarthy; Philip Yamartino; Jianing Yang; Mirar Bristol; Emily F Conant; Katrina Armstrong
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Expression of urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA), its receptor (uPAR), and inhibitor (PAI-1) in human breast carcinomas and their clinical relevance.

Authors:  Sarah A Andres; Angelena B Edwards; James L Wittliff
Journal:  J Clin Lab Anal       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 2.352

3.  Cancer screening and prevention in low-resource settings.

Authors:  Aditi Shastri; Surendra Srinivas Shastri
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2014-10-30       Impact factor: 60.716

4.  A prospective assessment of racial/ethnic differences in future mammography behavior among women who had early mammography.

Authors:  Julie M Kapp; Rod Walker; Sebastien Haneuse; Bonnie C Yankaskas
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2011-01-17       Impact factor: 4.254

5.  Towards a common lexicon for equity, diversity, and inclusion work in academic medicine.

Authors:  José E Rodríguez; Edgar Figueroa; Kendall M Campbell; Judy C Washington; Octavia Amaechi; Tanya Anim; Kari-Claudia Allen; Krys E Foster; Maia Hightower; Yury Parra; Maria H Wusu; William A Smith; Mary Ann Villarreal; Linda H Pololi
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2022-10-04       Impact factor: 3.263

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.