BACKGROUND: Abnormal mammograms are common, and the risk of false positives is high. We surveyed women in order to understand the factors influencing the efficiency of the evaluation of an abnormal mammogram. METHODS: Women aged 40-80 years, identified from lists with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) classifications of 0, 3, 4, or 5, were surveyed. Telephone surveys asked about the process of evaluation, and medical records were reviewed for tests and timing of evaluation. RESULTS: In this study, 970 women were surveyed, and 951 had chart reviews. Overall, 36% were college graduates, 68% were members of a group model health plan, 18% were Latinas, 25% were African Americans, 15% were Asian, and 43% were white. Of the 352 women who underwent biopsies, 151 were diagnosed with cancer (93 invasive). Median time to diagnosis was 183 days for BIRADS 3 compared to 29 days for BIRADS 4/5 and 27 days for BIRADS 0. At 60 days, 84% of BIRADS 4/5 women had a diagnosis. Being African American (hazard ratio [HR] 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.97, p=0.03), income < $10,000 (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31-0.98, p<0.04), perceived discrimination (HR 0.22, 95% CI 0.09-0.52, p<0.001), not fully understanding the results of the index mammogram (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.32-0.75, p=0.001), and being notified by letter (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48-0.90, p=0.01) or telephone (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42-0.92, p=0.02) rather than in person were all associated with significant delays in diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of BIRADS 0, 4, or 5 abnormal mammograms was completed in most women within the recommended 60 days. Even within effective systems, correctible communication factors may adversely affect time to diagnosis.
BACKGROUND: Abnormal mammograms are common, and the risk of false positives is high. We surveyed women in order to understand the factors influencing the efficiency of the evaluation of an abnormal mammogram. METHODS:Women aged 40-80 years, identified from lists with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) classifications of 0, 3, 4, or 5, were surveyed. Telephone surveys asked about the process of evaluation, and medical records were reviewed for tests and timing of evaluation. RESULTS: In this study, 970 women were surveyed, and 951 had chart reviews. Overall, 36% were college graduates, 68% were members of a group model health plan, 18% were Latinas, 25% were African Americans, 15% were Asian, and 43% were white. Of the 352 women who underwent biopsies, 151 were diagnosed with cancer (93 invasive). Median time to diagnosis was 183 days for BIRADS 3 compared to 29 days for BIRADS 4/5 and 27 days for BIRADS 0. At 60 days, 84% of BIRADS 4/5 women had a diagnosis. Being African American (hazard ratio [HR] 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.97, p=0.03), income < $10,000 (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31-0.98, p<0.04), perceived discrimination (HR 0.22, 95% CI 0.09-0.52, p<0.001), not fully understanding the results of the index mammogram (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.32-0.75, p=0.001), and being notified by letter (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48-0.90, p=0.01) or telephone (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42-0.92, p=0.02) rather than in person were all associated with significant delays in diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of BIRADS 0, 4, or 5 abnormal mammograms was completed in most women within the recommended 60 days. Even within effective systems, correctible communication factors may adversely affect time to diagnosis.
Authors: Rebecca A Hubbard; Karla Kerlikowske; Chris I Flowers; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Weiwei Zhu; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Ivo A Olivotto; Asako Gomi; Christina Bancej; Jacques Brisson; Jon Tonita; Lisa Kan; Zeva Mah; Marion Harrison; Rene Shumak Journal: Cancer Date: 2002-04-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Lisa C Richardson; Janet Royalty; William Howe; William Helsel; William Kammerer; Vicki B Benard Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2009-12-17 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Tracy A Battaglia; M Christina Santana; Sharon Bak; Manjusha Gokhale; Timothy L Lash; Arlene S Ash; Richard Kalish; Stephen Tringale; James O Taylor; Karen M Freund Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-02-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Karin Gwyn; Melissa L Bondy; Deborah S Cohen; Mary Jo Lund; Jonathan M Liff; Elaine W Flagg; Louise A Brinton; J William Eley; Ralph J Coates Journal: Cancer Date: 2004-04-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Swann A Adams; Emily R Smith; James Hardin; Irene Prabhu-Das; Jeanette Fulton; James R Hebert Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-12-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Eric G Poon; Jennifer S Haas; Ann Louise Puopolo; Tejal K Gandhi; Elisabeth Burdick; David W Bates; Troyen A Brennan Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jazmine D Kenny; Leah S Karliner; Karla Kerlikowske; Celia P Kaplan; Ana Fernandez-Lamothe; Nancy J Burke Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-06-29 Impact factor: 5.128
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
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
Authors: Megan A Mullins; Lauren C Peres; Anthony J Alberg; Elisa V Bandera; Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan; Melissa L Bondy; Ellen Funkhouser; Patricia G Moorman; Edward S Peters; Paul D Terry; Ann G Schwartz; Andrew B Lawson; Joellen M Schildkraut; Michele L Cote Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-08-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Anne Marie McCarthy; Jane J Kim; Elisabeth F Beaber; Yingye Zheng; Andrea Burnett-Hartman; Jessica Chubak; Nirupa R Ghai; Dale McLerran; Nancy Breen; Emily F Conant; Berta M Geller; Beverly B Green; Carrie N Klabunde; Stephen Inrig; Celette Sugg Skinner; Virginia P Quinn; Jennifer S Haas; Mitchell Schnall; Carolyn M Rutter; William E Barlow; Douglas A Corley; Katrina Armstrong; Chyke A Doubeni Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-04-28 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Suzanne C O'Neill; Kara Grace Leventhal; Marie Scarles; Chalanda N Evans; Erini Makariou; Edward Pien; Shawna Willey Journal: Womens Health Issues Date: 2014-04-13
Authors: Elizabeth A Jacobs; Paul J Rathouz; Kelly Karavolos; Susan A Everson-Rose; Imke Janssen; Howard M Kravitz; Tené T Lewis; Lynda H Powell Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2013-11-21 Impact factor: 2.681