Literature DB >> 23350859

Factors influencing time to diagnosis after abnormal mammography in diverse women.

Eliseo J Pérez-Stable1, Aimee Afable-Munsuz, Celia Patricia Kaplan, Lydia Pace, Cathy Samayoa, Carol Somkin, Dana Nickleach, Marion Lee, Leticia Márquez-Magaña, Teresa Juarbe, Rena J Pasick.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23350859      PMCID: PMC3573728          DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2012.3646

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)        ISSN: 1540-9996            Impact factor:   2.681


  29 in total

1.  Time to diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer: results from the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, 1991-1995.

Authors:  L S Caplan; D S May; L C Richardson
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 9.308

2.  Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: a cohort study.

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

3.  Language barriers and patient-centered breast cancer care.

Authors:  Leah S Karliner; E Shelley Hwang; Dana Nickleach; Celia P Kaplan
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2010-08-03

4.  Influence of delay to diagnosis on prognostic indicators of screen-detected breast carcinoma.

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

5.  Vital signs: breast cancer screening among women aged 50-74 years - United States, 2008.

Authors: 
Journal:  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep       Date:  2010-07-09       Impact factor: 17.586

6.  Timeliness of breast cancer diagnosis and initiation of treatment in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, 1996-2005.

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

7.  Predictors of timely follow-up after abnormal cancer screening among women seeking care at urban community health centers.

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

8.  Racial differences in diagnosis, treatment, and clinical delays in a population-based study of patients with newly diagnosed breast carcinoma.

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

9.  Racial differences in follow-up of abnormal mammography findings among economically disadvantaged women.

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

10.  Communication factors in the follow-up of abnormal mammograms.

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

View more
  19 in total

1.  Conversations about Abnormal Mammograms on Distress and Timely Follow-up Across Ethnicity.

Authors:  Yamile Molina; Shirley A A Beresford; Tara Hayes Constant; Beti Thompson
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 2.037

2.  Organization Communication Factors and Abnormal Mammogram Follow-up: a Qualitative Study Among Ethnically Diverse Women Across Three Healthcare Systems.

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

3.  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

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.  Perceived discrimination, trust in physicians, and prolonged symptom duration before ovarian cancer diagnosis in the African American Cancer Epidemiology Study.

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

6.  Disparities in abnormal mammogram follow-up time for Asian women compared with non-Hispanic white women and between Asian ethnic groups.

Authors:  Kim H Nguyen; Rena J Pasick; Susan L Stewart; Karla Kerlikowske; Leah S Karliner
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2017-06-12       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Follow-Up of Abnormal Breast and Colorectal Cancer Screening by Race/Ethnicity.

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

Review 8.  Impact of Age and Comorbidity on Cervical and Breast Cancer Literacy of African Americans, Latina, and Arab Women.

Authors:  Costellia H Talley; Karen Patricia Williams
Journal:  Nurs Clin North Am       Date:  2015-07-16       Impact factor: 1.208

9.  Mammographic breast density as a risk factor for breast cancer: awareness in a recently screened clinical sample.

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

10.  Perceived discrimination is associated with reduced breast and cervical cancer screening: the Study of Women's Health Across the Nation (SWAN).

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.