BACKGROUND: Facilities serving vulnerable women have higher false-positive rates for diagnostic mammography than facilities serving nonvulnerable women. False positives lead to anxiety, unnecessary biopsies, and higher costs. OBJECTIVE: Examine whether availability of on-site breast ultrasound or biopsy services, academic medical center affiliation, or profit status explains differences in false-positive rates. DESIGN: We examined 78,733 diagnostic mammograms performed to evaluate breast problems at Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium facilities from 1999 to 2005. We used logistic-normal mixed effects regression to determine if adjusting for facility characteristics accounts for observed differences in false-positive rates. MEASURES: Facilities were characterized as serving vulnerable women based on the proportion of mammograms performed on racial/ethnic minorities, women with lower educational attainment, limited household income, or rural residence. RESULTS: Although the availability of on-site ultrasound and biopsy services was associated with greater odds of a false positive in most models [odds ratios (OR) ranging from 1.24 to 1.88; P<0.05], adjustment for these services did not attenuate the association between vulnerability and false-positive rates. Estimated ORs for the effect of vulnerability indexes on false-positive rates unadjusted for facility services were: lower educational attainment [OR 1.33; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 1.03-1.74]; racial/ethnic minority status (OR 1.33; 95% CI, 0.98-1.80); rural residence (OR 1.56; 95% CI, 1.26-1.92); limited household income (OR 1.38; 95% CI, 1.10-1.73). After adjustment, estimates remained relatively unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: On-site diagnostic service availability may contribute to unnecessary biopsies, but does not explain the higher diagnostic mammography false-positive rates at facilities serving vulnerable women.
BACKGROUND: Facilities serving vulnerable women have higher false-positive rates for diagnostic mammography than facilities serving nonvulnerable women. False positives lead to anxiety, unnecessary biopsies, and higher costs. OBJECTIVE: Examine whether availability of on-site breast ultrasound or biopsy services, academic medical center affiliation, or profit status explains differences in false-positive rates. DESIGN: We examined 78,733 diagnostic mammograms performed to evaluate breast problems at Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium facilities from 1999 to 2005. We used logistic-normal mixed effects regression to determine if adjusting for facility characteristics accounts for observed differences in false-positive rates. MEASURES: Facilities were characterized as serving vulnerable women based on the proportion of mammograms performed on racial/ethnic minorities, women with lower educational attainment, limited household income, or rural residence. RESULTS: Although the availability of on-site ultrasound and biopsy services was associated with greater odds of a false positive in most models [odds ratios (OR) ranging from 1.24 to 1.88; P<0.05], adjustment for these services did not attenuate the association between vulnerability and false-positive rates. Estimated ORs for the effect of vulnerability indexes on false-positive rates unadjusted for facility services were: lower educational attainment [OR 1.33; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 1.03-1.74]; racial/ethnic minority status (OR 1.33; 95% CI, 0.98-1.80); rural residence (OR 1.56; 95% CI, 1.26-1.92); limited household income (OR 1.38; 95% CI, 1.10-1.73). After adjustment, estimates remained relatively unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: On-site diagnostic service availability may contribute to unnecessary biopsies, but does not explain the higher diagnostic mammography false-positive rates at facilities serving vulnerable women.
Authors: Robert D Rosenberg; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Linn A Abraham; Edward A Sickles; Constance D Lehman; Berta M Geller; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Donald L Weaver; William E Barlow; Rachel Ballard-Barbash Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Diana S M Buist; Melissa L Anderson; Sebastien J P A Haneuse; Edward A Sickles; Robert A Smith; Patricia A Carney; Stephen H Taplin; Robert D Rosenberg; Berta M Geller; Tracy L Onega; Barbara S Monsees; Lawrence W Bassett; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Joann G Elmore; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-02-22 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Elliott S Fisher; David E Wennberg; Thérèse A Stukel; Daniel J Gottlieb; F L Lucas; Etoile L Pinder Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-02-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: P A Carney; B M Geller; H Moffett; M Ganger; M Sewell; W E Barlow; N Stalnaker; S H Taplin; C Sisk; V L Ernster; H A Wilkie; B Yankaskas; S P Poplack; N Urban; M M West; R D Rosenberg; S Michael; T D Mercurio; R Ballard-Barbash Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2000-08-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Edward A Sickles; Diana L Miglioretti; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Berta M Geller; Jessica W T Leung; Robert D Rosenberg; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Bonnie C Yankaskas Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 11.105
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: 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