PURPOSE: This prospective study examined the factors that predicted sustained adherence to surveillance mammography in women treated for breast cancer. METHODS: Breast cancer survivors (N = 204) who were undergoing surveillance mammography completed questionnaires assessing mammography-related anticipatory anxiety, persistent breast pain, mammography pain, and catastrophic thoughts about mammography pain. Adherence to mammography in the following year was assessed. RESULTS: In the year after study entry, 84.8% of women (n = 173) returned for a subsequent mammogram. Unadjusted associations showed that younger age, shorter period of time since surgery, and having upper extremity lymphedema were associated with lower mammography adherence. Forty percent of women reported moderate to high levels of mammography pain (score of ≥ 5 on a 0 to 10 scale). Although mammography pain was not associated with adherence, higher levels of mammography-related anxiety and pain catastrophizing were associated with not returning for a mammogram (P < .05). The impact of anxiety on mammography use was mediated by pain catastrophizing (indirect effect, P < .05). CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that women who are younger, closer to the time of surgery, or have upper extremity lymphedema may be less likely to undergo repeated mammograms. It may be important for health professionals to remind selected patients directly that some women avoid repeat mammography and to re-emphasize the value of mammography for women with a history of breast cancer. Teaching women behavioral techniques (eg, redirecting attention) or providing medication for reducing anxiety could be considered for women with high levels of anxiety or catastrophic thoughts related to mammography.
PURPOSE: This prospective study examined the factors that predicted sustained adherence to surveillance mammography in women treated for breast cancer. METHODS:Breast cancer survivors (N = 204) who were undergoing surveillance mammography completed questionnaires assessing mammography-related anticipatory anxiety, persistent breast pain, mammography pain, and catastrophic thoughts about mammography pain. Adherence to mammography in the following year was assessed. RESULTS: In the year after study entry, 84.8% of women (n = 173) returned for a subsequent mammogram. Unadjusted associations showed that younger age, shorter period of time since surgery, and having upper extremity lymphedema were associated with lower mammography adherence. Forty percent of women reported moderate to high levels of mammography pain (score of ≥ 5 on a 0 to 10 scale). Although mammography pain was not associated with adherence, higher levels of mammography-related anxiety and pain catastrophizing were associated with not returning for a mammogram (P < .05). The impact of anxiety on mammography use was mediated by pain catastrophizing (indirect effect, P < .05). CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that women who are younger, closer to the time of surgery, or have upper extremity lymphedema may be less likely to undergo repeated mammograms. It may be important for health professionals to remind selected patients directly that some women avoid repeat mammography and to re-emphasize the value of mammography for women with a history of breast cancer. Teaching women behavioral techniques (eg, redirecting attention) or providing medication for reducing anxiety could be considered for women with high levels of anxiety or catastrophic thoughts related to mammography.
Authors: T J Smith; N E Davidson; D V Schapira; E Grunfeld; H B Muss; V G Vogel; M R Somerfield Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jeanne S Mandelblatt; William F Lawrence; Jennifer Cullen; Annette L Stanton; Janice L Krupnick; Lorna Kwan; Patricia A Ganz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-01-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Nathan S Consedine; Carol Magai; Yulia S Krivoshekova; Lynn Ryzewicz; Alfred I Neugut Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Dana H Bovbjerg; Francis J Keefe; Mary S Soo; Jessica Manculich; Alyssa Van Denburg; Margarita L Zuley; Gretchen M Ahrendt; Celette S Skinner; Sara N Edmond; Rebecca A Shelby Journal: Acta Oncol Date: 2019-02-12 Impact factor: 4.089
Authors: Oluwadamilola M Fayanju; Susan Kraenzle; Bettina F Drake; Masayoshi Oka; Melody S Goodman Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2014-05-04 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Pragati S Advani; Jun Ying; Richard Theriault; Amal Melhem-Bertrand; Stacy Moulder; Isabelle Bedrosian; Welela Tereffe; Shon Black; Tunghi May Pini; Abenaa M Brewster Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-11-20 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Pragati Advani; Shailesh Advani; Pratibha Nayak; Helena M VonVille; Pamela Diamond; Jason Burnett; Abenaa M Brewster; Sally W Vernon Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2021-05-13 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Madhu Bagaria; Nicolas Wentzensen; Megan Clarke; Matthew R Hopkins; Lisa J Ahlberg; Lois J Mc Guire; Maureen A Lemens; Amy L Weaver; Ann VanOosten; Emily Shields; Shannon K Laughlin-Tommaso; Mark E Sherman; Jamie N Bakkum-Gamez Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2021-05-03 Impact factor: 5.304
Authors: Claudia M Campbell; Lea McCauley; Sara C Bounds; Vani A Mathur; Lora Conn; Mpepera Simango; Robert R Edwards; Kevin R Fontaine Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2012-10-25 Impact factor: 5.156