BACKGROUND: Breast cancer missed on diagnostic mammography may contribute to delayed diagnoses, whereas false-positive results may lead to unnecessary invasive procedures. Whether accuracy of diagnostic mammography at facilities serving vulnerable women differs from other facilities is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To compare the interpretive performance of diagnostic mammography at facilities serving vulnerable women to those serving nonvulnerable women. DESIGN: We examined 168,251 diagnostic mammograms performed at Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium facilities from 1999 to 2005. We used hierarchical logistic regression to compare sensitivity, false positive rates, and cancer detection rates. SUBJECTS: Women aged between 40 and 80 years underwent diagnostic mammography to evaluate an abnormal screening mammogram or breast problem. MEASURES: Facilities were assigned vulnerability indices according to the populations served based on the proportion of mammograms performed on women with lower educational attainment, racial/ethnic minority status, limited household income, or rural residences. RESULTS: Sensitivity of diagnostic mammography did not vary significantly across vulnerability indices adjusted for patient-level characteristics, but false-positive rates for diagnostic mammography examinations to evaluate a breast problem were higher at facilities serving vulnerable women defined as those with lower educational attainment (odds ratio [OR], 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.08, 1.79); racial/ethnic minorities (OR, 1.32; 95% CI: 0.98, 1.76); limited income (OR, 1.34; 95% CI: 1.08, 1.66); and rural residence (OR, 1.55; 95% CI: 1.27, 1.88). CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic mammography to evaluate a breast problem at facilities serving vulnerable women had higher false positive rates than at facilities serving nonvulnerable women. This may reflect concerns that vulnerable populations may be less likely to follow-up after abnormal diagnostic mammography or concerns that such populations have higher cancer prevalence.
BACKGROUND:Breast cancer missed on diagnostic mammography may contribute to delayed diagnoses, whereas false-positive results may lead to unnecessary invasive procedures. Whether accuracy of diagnostic mammography at facilities serving vulnerable women differs from other facilities is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To compare the interpretive performance of diagnostic mammography at facilities serving vulnerable women to those serving nonvulnerable women. DESIGN: We examined 168,251 diagnostic mammograms performed at Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium facilities from 1999 to 2005. We used hierarchical logistic regression to compare sensitivity, false positive rates, and cancer detection rates. SUBJECTS:Women aged between 40 and 80 years underwent diagnostic mammography to evaluate an abnormal screening mammogram or breast problem. MEASURES: Facilities were assigned vulnerability indices according to the populations served based on the proportion of mammograms performed on women with lower educational attainment, racial/ethnic minority status, limited household income, or rural residences. RESULTS: Sensitivity of diagnostic mammography did not vary significantly across vulnerability indices adjusted for patient-level characteristics, but false-positive rates for diagnostic mammography examinations to evaluate a breast problem were higher at facilities serving vulnerable women defined as those with lower educational attainment (odds ratio [OR], 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.08, 1.79); racial/ethnic minorities (OR, 1.32; 95% CI: 0.98, 1.76); limited income (OR, 1.34; 95% CI: 1.08, 1.66); and rural residence (OR, 1.55; 95% CI: 1.27, 1.88). CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic mammography to evaluate a breast problem at facilities serving vulnerable women had higher false positive rates than at facilities serving nonvulnerable women. This may reflect concerns that vulnerable populations may be less likely to follow-up after abnormal diagnostic mammography or concerns that such populations have higher cancer prevalence.
Authors: William E Barlow; Constance D Lehman; Yingye Zheng; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Gary R Cutter; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Robert Rosenberg; Karla Kerlikowske; Donald L Weaver; Stephen H Taplin Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2002-08-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Philip Chu; Diana L Miglioretti; Chris Quale; Robert D Rosenberg; Gary Cutter; Berta Geller; Peter Bacchetti; Edward A Sickles; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-03-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Fritz K W Schaefer; A Waldmann; A Katalinic; C Wefelnberg; M Heller; W Jonat; I Schreer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-11-05 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Sara L Jackson; Stephen H Taplin; Edward A Sickles; Linn Abraham; William E Barlow; Patricia A Carney; Berta Geller; Eric A Berns; Gary R Cutter; Joann G Elmore Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2009-05-26 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Diana L Miglioretti; Carolyn M Rutter; Berta M Geller; Gary Cutter; William E Barlow; Robert Rosenberg; Donald L Weaver; Stephen H Taplin; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Patricia A Carney; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-01-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Sebastien Haneuse; Diana S M Buist; Diana L Miglioretti; Melissa L Anderson; Patricia A Carney; Tracy Onega; Berta M Geller; Karla Kerlikowske; Robert D Rosenberg; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Joann G Elmore; Stephen H Taplin; Robert A Smith; Edward A Sickles Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-11-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jessica L Krok-Schoen; Michelle L Kurta; Rory C Weier; Greg S Young; Autumn B Carey; Cathy M Tatum; Electra D Paskett Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-10-13 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: L Elizabeth Goldman; Rod Walker; Diana L Miglioretti; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; And Karla Kerlikowske Journal: Med Care Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Christoph I Lee; Andy Bogart; Jessica C Germino; L Elizabeth Goldman; Rebecca A Hubbard; Jennifer S Haas; Deirdre A Hill; Anna Na Tosteson; Jennifer A Alford-Teaster; Wendy B DeMartini; Constance D Lehman; Tracy L Onega Journal: J Med Screen Date: 2015-06-15 Impact factor: 2.136
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
Authors: Louise M Henderson; Thad Benefield; J Michael Bowling; Danielle D Durham; Mary W Marsh; Bruce F Schroeder; Bonnie C Yankaskas Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Julia E McGuinness; William Ueng; Meghna S Trivedi; Hae Seung Yi; Raven David; Alejandro Vanegas; Jennifer Vargas; Rossy Sandoval; Rita Kukafka; Katherine D Crew Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2018-01-30 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Ellen S O'Meara; Weiwei Zhu; Rebecca A Hubbard; Dejana Braithwaite; Karla Kerlikowske; Kim L Dittus; Berta Geller; Karen J Wernli; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-08-26 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Brian L Sprague; Thomas P Ahern; Sally D Herschorn; Michelle Sowden; Donald L Weaver; Marie E Wood Journal: Prev Med Date: 2021-07-22 Impact factor: 4.018