Literature DB >> 23453384

Potentially missed detection with screening mammography: does the quality of radiologist's interpretation vary by patient socioeconomic advantage/disadvantage?

Garth H Rauscher1, Jenna A Khan, Michael L Berbaum, Emily F Conant.   

Abstract

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.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23453384      PMCID: PMC3633590          DOI: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2013.01.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Epidemiol        ISSN: 1047-2797            Impact factor:   3.797


  14 in total

1.  Improving the accuracy of mammography: volume and outcome relationships.

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

2.  Association of volume and volume-independent factors with accuracy in screening mammogram interpretation.

Authors:  Craig A Beam; Emily F Conant; Edward A Sickles
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2003-02-19       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography in a community practice: are there differences between specialists and general radiologists?

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

4.  Disparities in screening mammography services by race/ethnicity and health insurance.

Authors:  Garth H Rauscher; Kristi L Allgood; Steve Whitman; Emily Conant
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2011-09-23       Impact factor: 2.681

5.  Misconceptions about breast lumps and delayed medical presentation in urban breast cancer patients.

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

6.  Physician predictors of mammographic accuracy.

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

7.  When radiologists perform best: the learning curve in screening mammogram interpretation.

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

8.  Radiologist characteristics associated with interpretive performance of diagnostic mammography.

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

9.  Variability in interpretive performance at screening mammography and radiologists' characteristics associated with accuracy.

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

10.  A community effort to reduce the black/white breast cancer mortality disparity in Chicago.

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

View more
  12 in total

1.  Potential Biases in Machine Learning Algorithms Using Electronic Health Record Data.

Authors:  Milena A Gianfrancesco; Suzanne Tamang; Jinoos Yazdany; Gabriela Schmajuk
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2018-11-01       Impact factor: 21.873

2.  Racial disparity in survival from estrogen and progesterone receptor-positive breast cancer: implications for reducing breast cancer mortality disparities.

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

3.  Racial and Ethnic Disparity in Symptomatic Breast Cancer Awareness despite a Recent Screen: The Role of Tumor Biology and Mammography Facility Characteristics.

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

4.  Breast cancer delay in Latinas: the role of cultural beliefs and acculturation.

Authors:  Silvia Tejeda; Rani I Gallardo; Carol Estwing Ferrans; Garth H Rauscher
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2016-08-29

5.  Beyond the mammography quality standards act: measuring the quality of breast cancer screening programs.

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

6.  Absence of an anticipated racial disparity in interval breast cancer within a large health care organization.

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

7.  The relative effect of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality by socioeconomic status.

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

8.  Changes in the racial disparity in breast cancer mortality in the ten US cities with the largest African American populations from 1999 to 2013: The reduction in breast cancer mortality disparity in Chicago.

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

9.  Breast Cancer Disparities Among Women in Underserved Communities in the USA.

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

10.  Disparity in breast cancer mortality by age and geography in 10 racially diverse US cities.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.