PURPOSE: We examined whether quality of mammography interpretation as performed by the original reading radiologist varied by patient sociodemographic characteristics. METHODS: For 149 patients residing in Chicago and diagnosed in 2005-2008, we obtained the original index mammogram that detected the breast cancer and at least one prior mammogram that did not detect the cancer performed within 2 years of the index mammogram. A single breast imaging specialist performed a blinded review of the prior mammogram. Potentially missed detection (PMD) was defined as an actionable lesion seen during a blinded review of the prior mammogram that was in the same quadrant as the cancer on the index mammogram. RESULTS: Of 149 prior mammograms originally read as nonmalignant, 46% (N = 68) had a potentially detectable lesion. In unadjusted analyses, PMD was greater among minority patients (54% vs. 39%, P = .07) and for patients with incomes below $30,000 (65% vs. 36%, P < .01), less education (58% vs. 39%, P = .02), and lacking private health insurance (63% vs. 40%, P = .02). Likelihood ratio tests for the inclusion of socioeconomic variables in multivariable logistic regression models were highly significant (P ≤ .02). CONCLUSIONS: Disadvantaged socioeconomic status appears to be associated with PMD of breast cancer at mammography screening.
PURPOSE: We examined whether quality of mammography interpretation as performed by the original reading radiologist varied by patient sociodemographic characteristics. METHODS: For 149 patients residing in Chicago and diagnosed in 2005-2008, we obtained the original index mammogram that detected the breast cancer and at least one prior mammogram that did not detect the cancer performed within 2 years of the index mammogram. A single breast imaging specialist performed a blinded review of the prior mammogram. Potentially missed detection (PMD) was defined as an actionable lesion seen during a blinded review of the prior mammogram that was in the same quadrant as the cancer on the index mammogram. RESULTS: Of 149 prior mammograms originally read as nonmalignant, 46% (N = 68) had a potentially detectable lesion. In unadjusted analyses, PMD was greater among minority patients (54% vs. 39%, P = .07) and for patients with incomes below $30,000 (65% vs. 36%, P < .01), less education (58% vs. 39%, P = .02), and lacking private health insurance (63% vs. 40%, P = .02). Likelihood ratio tests for the inclusion of socioeconomic variables in multivariable logistic regression models were highly significant (P ≤ .02). CONCLUSIONS: Disadvantaged socioeconomic status appears to be associated with PMD of breast cancer at mammography screening.
Authors: Laura Esserman; Helen Cowley; Carey Eberle; Alastair Kirkpatrick; Sophia Chang; Kevin Berbaum; Alastair Gale Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2002-03-06 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jessica W T Leung; Frederick R Margolin; Katherine E Dee; Richard P Jacobs; Susan R Denny; John D Schrumpf Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Garth H Rauscher; Carol Estwing Ferrans; Karen Kaiser; Richard T Campbell; Elizabeth E Calhoun; Richard B Warnecke Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-03-03 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Philip Chu; Diana L Miglioretti; Chris Quale; Robert D Rosenberg; Gary Cutter; Berta Geller; Peter Bacchetti; Edward A Sickles; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-03-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Diana L Miglioretti; Charlotte C Gard; Patricia A Carney; Tracy L Onega; Diana S M Buist; Edward A Sickles; Karla Kerlikowske; Robert D Rosenberg; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Berta M Geller; Joann G Elmore Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-09-29 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Diana L Miglioretti; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Linn Abraham; R James Brenner; Patricia A Carney; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Diana S M Buist; Joann G Elmore Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2007-12-11 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Joann G Elmore; Sara L Jackson; Linn Abraham; Diana L Miglioretti; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske; Tracy Onega; Robert D Rosenberg; Edward A Sickles; Diana S M Buist Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-10-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: David Ansell; Paula Grabler; Steven Whitman; Carol Ferrans; Jacqueline Burgess-Bishop; Linda Rae Murray; Ruta Rao; Elizabeth Marcus Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2009-08-18 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Garth H Rauscher; Abigail Silva; Heather Pauls; Jonna Frasor; Marcelo G Bonini; Kent Hoskins Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Mylove Mortel; Garth H Rauscher; Anne Marie Murphy; Kent Hoskins; Richard B Warnecke Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2015-07-21 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Garth H Rauscher; Anne Marie Murphy; Jennifer M Orsi; Danielle M Dupuy; Paula M Grabler; Christine B Weldon Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-11-21 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Garth H Rauscher; Firas Dabbous; Therese A Dolecek; Sarah M Friedewald; Katherine Tossas-Milligan; Teresita Macarol; W Thomas Summerfelt Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2017-09-20 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Theodora M Ripping; Danielle van der Waal; André L M Verbeek; Mireille J M Broeders Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 1.889
Authors: Dominique Sighoko; Anne Marie Murphy; Bethliz Irizarry; Garth Rauscher; Carol Ferrans; David Ansell Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2017-03-08 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Beti Thompson; Sarah D Hohl; Yamile Molina; Electra D Paskett; James L Fisher; Ryan D Baltic; Chasity M Washington Journal: Curr Breast Cancer Rep Date: 2018-08-29
Authors: Dominique Sighoko; Bijou R Hunt; Bethliz Irizarry; Karriem Watson; David Ansell; Anne Marie Murphy Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2018-02-22 Impact factor: 2.984