Julie M Kapp1, Rod Walker, Sebastien Haneuse, Bonnie C Yankaskas. 1. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Missouri, MA306 Medical Sciences Bldg, 1 Hospital Drive, Columbia, MO 65212, USA. kappj@health.missouri.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Twenty-nine percent of women, aged 30 to 39, report having had a mammogram, though sensitivity and specificity are low. We investigate racial/ethnic differences in future mammography behavior among women who had a baseline screening mammogram prior to age 40. METHODS: Using 1994-2008 data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC), we identified 29,390 women aged 35 to 39 with a baseline screening mammogram. We followed this cohort for 2 outcomes: (i) future BCSC mammography between ages 40 and 45; and (2) among those, delay in screening mammography until ages 43 to 45 compared with ages 40 to 42. Using adjusted log-linear models, we estimated the relative risk (RR) of these outcomes by race/ethnicity, while also considering the impact of false-positive/true-negative (FP/TN) baseline mammography results on these outcomes. RESULTS: Relative to non-Hispanic white women, Hispanic women had an increased risk of no future BCSC mammography (RR: 1.21, 95% CI: 1.13-1.30); Asian women had a decreased risk (RR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.61-0.74). Women with a FP result, compared with a TN result, had a decreased risk of no future BCSC mammography (RR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.85-0.95). Among those with future BCSC screening mammography, African American women were more likely to delay the timing (RR: 1.26, 95% CI: 1.09-1.45). The interaction between race/ethnicity and FP/TN baseline results was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Race/ethnicity is differentially associated with future BCSC mammography and the timing of screening mammography after age 40. IMPACT: These findings introduce the need for research that examines disparities in lifetime mammography use patterns from the initiation of mammography screening.
BACKGROUND: Twenty-nine percent of women, aged 30 to 39, report having had a mammogram, though sensitivity and specificity are low. We investigate racial/ethnic differences in future mammography behavior among women who had a baseline screening mammogram prior to age 40. METHODS: Using 1994-2008 data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC), we identified 29,390 women aged 35 to 39 with a baseline screening mammogram. We followed this cohort for 2 outcomes: (i) future BCSC mammography between ages 40 and 45; and (2) among those, delay in screening mammography until ages 43 to 45 compared with ages 40 to 42. Using adjusted log-linear models, we estimated the relative risk (RR) of these outcomes by race/ethnicity, while also considering the impact of false-positive/true-negative (FP/TN) baseline mammography results on these outcomes. RESULTS: Relative to non-Hispanic white women, Hispanic women had an increased risk of no future BCSC mammography (RR: 1.21, 95% CI: 1.13-1.30); Asian women had a decreased risk (RR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.61-0.74). Women with a FP result, compared with a TN result, had a decreased risk of no future BCSC mammography (RR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.85-0.95). Among those with future BCSC screening mammography, African American women were more likely to delay the timing (RR: 1.26, 95% CI: 1.09-1.45). The interaction between race/ethnicity and FP/TN baseline results was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Race/ethnicity is differentially associated with future BCSC mammography and the timing of screening mammography after age 40. IMPACT: These findings introduce the need for research that examines disparities in lifetime mammography use patterns from the initiation of mammography screening.
Authors: Julie M Kapp; Rod Walker; Sebastien Haneuse; Diana S M Buist; Bonnie C Yankaskas Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2010-03-04 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: R Ballard-Barbash; S H Taplin; B C Yankaskas; V L Ernster; R D Rosenberg; P A Carney; W E Barlow; B M Geller; K Kerlikowske; B K Edwards; C F Lynch; N Urban; C A Chrvala; C R Key; S P Poplack; J K Worden; L G Kessler Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1997-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: John R Scheel; Yamile Molina; Gloria Coronado; Sonia Bishop; Sarah Doty; Ricardo Jimenez; Beti Thompson; Constance D Lehman; Shirley A A Beresford Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2017-01-01 Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Jill K Schinkel; Shelia Hoar Zahm; Ismail Jatoi; Katherine A McGlynn; Christopher Gallagher; Catherine Schairer; Craig D Shriver; Kangmin Zhu Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2014-05-17 Impact factor: 2.506