Literature DB >> 21900620

Timeliness of follow-up after abnormal screening mammogram: variability of facilities.

Robert D Rosenberg1, Sebastien J P A Haneuse, Berta M Geller, Diana S M Buist, Diana L Miglioretti, R James Brenner, Rebecca Smith-Bindman, Stephen H Taplin.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To describe the timeliness of follow-up care in community-based settings among women who receive a recommendation for immediate follow-up during the screening mammography process and how follow-up timeliness varies according to facility and facility-level characteristics.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an institutional review board-approved and HIPAA-compliant study. Screening mammograms obtained from 1996 to 2007 in women 40-80 years old in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium were examined. Inclusion criteria were a recommendation for immediate follow-up at screening, or subsequent imaging, and observed follow-up within 180 days of the recommendation. Recommendations for additional imaging (AI) and biopsy or surgical consultation (BSC) were analyzed separately. The distribution of time to follow-up care was estimated by using the Kaplan-Meier estimator.
RESULTS: Data were available on 214,897 AI recommendations from 118 facilities and 35,622 BSC recommendations from 101 facilities. The median time to subsequent follow-up care after recommendation was 14 days for AI and 16 days for BSC. Approximately 90% of AI follow-up and 81% of BSC follow-up occurred within 30 days. Facilities with higher recall rates tended to have longer AI follow-up times (P < .001). Over the study period, BSC follow-up rates at 15 and 30 days improved (P < .001). Follow-up times varied substantially across facilities. Timely follow-up was associated with larger volumes of the recommended procedures but not notably associated with facility type nor observed facility-level characteristics.
CONCLUSION: Most patients with follow-up returned within 3 weeks of the recommendation. RSNA, 2011

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21900620      PMCID: PMC3198220          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.11102472

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  22 in total

1.  Influence of direct referrals on time to diagnosis after an abnormal breast screening result.

Authors:  Kathleen M Decker; Marion Harrison; Daniel Chateau
Journal:  Cancer Detect Prev       Date:  2004

2.  Effect of advanced imaging technology on how biopsies are done and who does them.

Authors:  Sharon W Kwan; Mythreyi Bhargavan; Robert K Kerlan; Jonathan H Sunshine
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-06-29       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Association between mammography timing and measures of screening performance in the United States.

Authors:  Bonnie C Yankaskas; Stephen H Taplin; Laura Ichikawa; Berta M Geller; Robert D Rosenberg; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Gary R Cutter; William E Barlow
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Effect of screening result on waiting times to assessment and breast cancer diagnosis: results from the Ontario Breast Screening Program.

Authors:  Anna M Chiarelli; Verna Mai; Erika E Halapy; Rene S Shumak; Frances P O'Malley; Neil S Klar
Journal:  Can J Public Health       Date:  2005 Jul-Aug

5.  Timely follow-up among multicultural women with abnormal mammograms.

Authors:  Pamela Arnsberger; Patrick Fox; Priscilla Ryder; Brenda Nussey; Xiulan Zhang; Regina Otero-Sabogal
Journal:  Am J Health Behav       Date:  2006 Jan-Feb

6.  Concordance of breast imaging reporting and data system assessments and management recommendations in screening mammography.

Authors:  Stephen H Taplin; Laura E Ichikawa; Karla Kerlikowske; Virginia L Ernster; Robert D Rosenberg; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Nicole Urban; Mark B Dignan; William E Barlow; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Edward A Sickles
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Timeliness of follow-up after abnormal screening mammography.

Authors:  K Kerlikowske
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 4.872

8.  Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database.

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

9.  Quality assurance audits of community screening mammography practices: availability of active follow-up for data collection and outcome assessment.

Authors:  M L Brown; F Houn
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Racial differences in timeliness of follow-up after abnormal screening mammography.

Authors:  S W Chang; K Kerlikowske; A Nápoles-Springer; S F Posner; E A Sickles; E J Pérez-Stable
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1996-10-01       Impact factor: 6.860

View more
  14 in total

1.  Variation in Screening Abnormality Rates and Follow-Up of Breast, Cervical and Colorectal Cancer Screening within the PROSPR Consortium.

Authors:  Anna N A Tosteson; Elisabeth F Beaber; Jasmin Tiro; Jane Kim; Anne Marie McCarthy; Virginia P Quinn; V Paul Doria-Rose; Cosette M Wheeler; William E Barlow; Mackenzie Bronson; Michael Garcia; Douglas A Corley; Jennifer S Haas; Ethan A Halm; Aruna Kamineni; Carolyn M Rutter; Tor D Tosteson; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Donald L Weaver
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Effect of radiologists' diagnostic work-up volume on interpretive performance.

Authors:  Diana S M Buist; Melissa L Anderson; Robert A Smith; Patricia A Carney; Diana L Miglioretti; Barbara S Monsees; Edward A Sickles; Stephen H Taplin; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Tracy L Onega
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-06-24       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Clinic type and patient characteristics affecting time to resolution after an abnormal cancer-screening exam.

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

4.  Communication Practices of Mammography Facilities and Timely Follow-up of a Screening Mammogram with a BI-RADS 0 Assessment.

Authors:  Marilyn M Schapira; William E Barlow; Emily F Conant; Brian L Sprague; Anna N A Tosteson; Jennifer S Haas; Tracy Onega; Elisabeth F Beaber; Martha Goodrich; Anne Marie McCarthy; Sally D Herschorn; Celette Sugg Skinner; Tory O Harrington; Berta Geller
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2018-02-09       Impact factor: 3.173

5.  Availability of Advanced Breast Imaging at Screening Facilities Serving Vulnerable Populations.

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

6.  Breast cancer detection with short-interval follow-up compared with return to annual screening in patients with benign stereotactic or US-guided breast biopsy results.

Authors:  Jason M Johnson; Alisa K Johnson; Ellen S O'Meara; Diana L Miglioretti; Berta M Geller; Elise N Hotaling; Sally D Herschorn
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-11-25       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Insurance-Based Differences in Time to Diagnostic Follow-up after Positive Screening Mammography.

Authors:  Danielle D Durham; Whitney R Robinson; Sheila S Lee; Stephanie B Wheeler; Katherine E Reeder-Hayes; J Michael Bowling; Andrew F Olshan; Louise M Henderson
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 4.254

8.  Diagnostic imaging and biopsy pathways following abnormal screen-film and digital screening mammography.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Weiwei Zhu; Ruslan Horblyuk; Leah Karliner; Brian L Sprague; Louise Henderson; David Lee; Tracy Onega; Diana S M Buist; Alison Sweet
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2013-03-08       Impact factor: 4.872

9.  Timeliness of abnormal screening and diagnostic mammography follow-up at facilities serving vulnerable women.

Authors:  L Elizabeth Goldman; Rod Walker; Rebecca Hubbard; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  A multilevel research perspective on cancer care delivery: the example of follow-up to an abnormal mammogram.

Authors:  Stephen H Taplin; K Robin Yabroff; Jane Zapka
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2012-08-21       Impact factor: 4.254

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.