Literature DB >> 23132199

Effects of digital mammography uptake on downstream breast-related care among older women.

Rebecca A Hubbard1, Weiwei Zhu, Tracy L Onega, Paul Fishman, Louise M Henderson, Anna N A Tosteson, Diana S M Buist.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Digital mammography is the dominant modality for breast cancer screening in the United States. No previous studies have investigated as to how introducing digital mammography affects downstream breast-related care.
OBJECTIVE: Compare breast-related health care use after a screening mammogram before and after introduction of digital mammography. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
SUBJECTS: Longitudinal study of screening mammograms from 14 radiology facilities contributing data to the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium performed 1 year before and 4 years after each facility introduced digital mammography, along with linked Medicare claims. We included 30,211 mammograms for women aged 66 years and older without breast cancer. MEASURES: Rates of false-positive recall and short-interval follow-up were based on radiologists' assessments and recommendations; rates of follow-up mammography, ultrasound, and breast biopsy use were based on Medicare claims.
RESULTS: False-positive recall rates increased after the introduction of digital mammography. Follow-up mammography use was significantly higher across all 4 years after a facility began using digital mammography compared with the year before [year 1 odds ratio (OR) = 1.7, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.4-2.1]. Among women with false-positive mammography results, use of ultrasound decreased significantly in the second through fourth years after digital mammography began (year 2 OR = 0.4, 95% CI, 0.3-0.6).
CONCLUSIONS: Introduction of a new technology led to changes in health care use that persisted for at least 4 years. Comparative effectiveness research on new technologies should consider not only diagnostic performance but also downstream utilization attributable to this apparent learning curve.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23132199      PMCID: PMC3494765          DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e318269e9c2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  14 in total

1.  Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Rebecca A Hubbard; Diana L Miglioretti; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Constance D Lehman; Stephen H Taplin; Edward A Sickles
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Anna N A Tosteson; Natasha K Stout; Dennis G Fryback; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Benjamin A Herman; Lucy G Hannah; Etta D Pisano
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-01-01       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  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

4.  Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-09-16       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Quantitative assessment of percent breast density: analog versus digital acquisition.

Authors:  Jennifer A Harvey
Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2004-12

6.  Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography.

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

7.  Comparison of digital mammography and screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening: a review in the Irish breast screening program.

Authors:  Niamh M Hambly; Michelle M McNicholas; Niall Phelan; Gormlaith C Hargaden; Ann O'Doherty; Fidelma L Flanagan
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a population-based screening program.

Authors:  Nico Karssemeijer; Adriana M Bluekens; David Beijerinck; Jan J Deurenberg; Matthijs Beekman; Roelant Visser; Ruben van Engen; Annemieke Bartels-Kortland; Mireille J Broeders
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-07-31       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 9.  Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK breast screening program and systematic review of published data.

Authors:  Sarah Vinnicombe; Snehal M Pinto Pereira; Valerie A McCormack; Susan Shiel; Nick Perry; Isabel M Dos Santos Silva
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Diana L Miglioretti; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske; Robert Rosenberg; Carolyn M Rutter; Berta M Geller; Linn A Abraham; Steven H Taplin; Mark Dignan; Gary Cutter; Rachel Ballard-Barbash
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2003-02-04       Impact factor: 25.391

View more
  5 in total

1.  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

2.  Racial differences in false-positive mammogram rates: results from the ACRIN Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST).

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

Review 3.  Modern Diagnostic Imaging Technique Applications and Risk Factors in the Medical Field: A Review.

Authors:  Shah Hussain; Iqra Mubeen; Niamat Ullah; Syed Shahab Ud Din Shah; Bakhtawar Abduljalil Khan; Muhammad Zahoor; Riaz Ullah; Farhat Ali Khan; Mujeeb A Sultan
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2022-06-06       Impact factor: 3.246

4.  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

5.  Benefits, harms, and costs for breast cancer screening after US implementation of digital mammography.

Authors:  Natasha K Stout; Sandra J Lee; Clyde B Schechter; Karla Kerlikowske; Oguzhan Alagoz; Donald Berry; Diana S M Buist; Mucahit Cevik; Gary Chisholm; Harry J de Koning; Hui Huang; Rebecca A Hubbard; Diana L Miglioretti; Mark F Munsell; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Anna N A Tosteson; Jeanne S Mandelblatt
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-05-28       Impact factor: 13.506

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.