Literature DB >> 24072778

Registry-based study of trends in breast cancer screening mammography before and after the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations.

Brian L Sprague1, Kenyon C Bolton, John L Mace, Sally D Herschorn, Ted A James, Pamela M Vacek, Donald L Weaver, Berta M Geller.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine whether the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines for breast cancer mammography screening were followed by changes in screening utilization in the state of Vermont.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was HIPAA compliant and approved by the institutional review board, with waiver of informed consent. Trends in screening mammography utilization during 1997-2011 were examined among approximately 150,000 women aged 40 years and older in the state of Vermont using statewide mammography registry data.
RESULTS: The percentage of Vermont women aged 40 years and older screened in the past year declined from 45.3% in 2009% to 41.6% in 2011 (an absolute decrease of -3.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.3, -4.1). The largest decline in utilization was among women aged 40-49 years (-4.8 percentage points; 95% CI: -4.1, -5.4), although substantial declines were also observed among women aged 50-74 years (-3.0 percentage points; 95% CI: -2.6, -3.5) and women aged 75 years and older (-3.1 percentage points; 95% CI: -2.3, -4.0). The percentage of women aged 50-74 years screened within the past 2 years declined by -3.4 percentage points (95% CI: -3.0, -3.9) from 65.4% in 2009 to 61.9% in 2011.
CONCLUSION: After years of increasing screening mammography utilization in Vermont, there was a decline in screening, which coincided with the release of the 2009 USPSTF recommendations. The age-specific patterns in utilization were generally consistent with the USPSTF recommendations, although there was also evidence that the percentage of women aged 50-74 years screened in the past 2 years declined since 2009. © RSNA, 2013.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24072778      PMCID: PMC4118300          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13131063

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  23 in total

1.  Permutation tests for joinpoint regression with applications to cancer rates.

Authors:  H J Kim; M P Fay; E J Feuer; D N Midthune
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2000-02-15       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 2.  The accuracy of self-reported health behaviors and risk factors relating to cancer and cardiovascular disease in the general population: a critical review.

Authors:  S A Newell; A Girgis; R W Sanson-Fisher; N J Savolainen
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 5.043

3.  Utilization of screening mammography in New Hampshire: a population-based assessment.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Martha E Goodrich; Todd Mackenzie; Julia E Weiss; Steven P Poplack; Wendy S Wells; Linda Titus-Ernstoff
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2005-10-15       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Health service areas for the United States.

Authors:  D M Makuc; B Haglund; D D Ingram; J C Kleinman; J J Feldman
Journal:  Vital Health Stat 2       Date:  1991-11

5.  Bias associated with self-report of prior screening mammography.

Authors:  Kathleen A Cronin; Diana L Miglioretti; Martin Krapcho; Binbing Yu; Berta M Geller; Patricia A Carney; Tracy Onega; Eric J Feuer; Nancy Breen; Rachel Ballard-Barbash
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 6.  Accuracy of self-reported cancer-screening histories: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Garth H Rauscher; Timothy P Johnson; Young Ik Cho; Jennifer A Walk
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2008-04-01       Impact factor: 4.254

7.  Mammography screening: after the storm, calls for more personalized approaches.

Authors:  Judy Peres
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2009-12-18       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 8.  Factors associated with mammography utilization: a systematic quantitative review of the literature.

Authors:  Kristin M Schueler; Philip W Chu; Rebecca Smith-Bindman
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 2.681

9.  Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 10.  Overdiagnosis in publicly organised mammography screening programmes: systematic review of incidence trends.

Authors:  Karsten Juhl Jørgensen; Peter C Gøtzsche
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-07-09
View more
  21 in total

1.  Improving the Utilization of Human Papillomavirus and Cervical Cytology Co-testing for Cervical Cancer Screening in an Obstetrics and Gynecology Resident Clinic.

Authors:  Kurt Yoshino; Maxine Karimoto; Christina Marzo; Bliss Kaneshiro; Mark Hiraoka
Journal:  Hawaii J Med Public Health       Date:  2015-08

2.  Breast Cancer Incidence by Stage Before and After Change in Screening Guidelines.

Authors:  Fangjian Guo; Yong-Fang Kuo; Abbey B Berenson
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 5.043

3.  Changes in breast cancer risk distribution among Vermont women using screening mammography.

Authors:  Kenyon C Bolton; John L Mace; Pamela M Vacek; Sally D Herschorn; Ted A James; Jeffrey A Tice; Karla Kerlikowske; Berta M Geller; Donald L Weaver; Brian L Sprague
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-06-23       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Trends in Breast Cancer Screening: Impact of U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations.

Authors:  Soudabeh Fazeli Dehkordy; Kelli S Hall; Allison L Roach; Edward D Rothman; Vanessa K Dalton; Ruth C Carlos
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2015-04-01       Impact factor: 5.043

5.  Capsule Commentary on Haas et al., Primary Care Providers' Beliefs and Recommendations and Use of Screening Mammography by their Patients.

Authors:  Daniel Meyer
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Primary Care Providers' Beliefs and Recommendations and Use of Screening Mammography by their Patients.

Authors:  Jennifer S Haas; William E Barlow; Marilyn M Schapira; Charles D MacLean; Carrie N Klabunde; Brian L Sprague; Elisabeth F Beaber; Jane S Chen; Asaf Bitton; Tracy Onega; Kimberly Harris; Anna N A Tosteson
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2017-01-09       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Breast cancer screening outreach effectiveness: Mammogram-specific reminders vs. comprehensive preventive services birthday letters.

Authors:  Diana S M Buist; Hongyuan Gao; Melissa L Anderson; Tracy Onega; Susan Brandzel; Melissa A Rabelhofer; Susan Carol Bradford; Erin J Aiello Bowles
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2017-06-24       Impact factor: 4.018

8.  Racial/Ethnic Differences Affecting Adherence to Cancer Screening Guidelines Among Women.

Authors:  Jacqueline M Hirth; Tabassum Haque Laz; Mahbubur Rahman; Abbey B Berenson
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2015-11-18       Impact factor: 2.681

9.  Time-varying risks of second events following a DCIS diagnosis in the population-based Vermont DCIS cohort.

Authors:  Brian L Sprague; Pamela M Vacek; Sally D Herschorn; Ted A James; Berta M Geller; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Janet L Stein; Donald L Weaver
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2018-11-17       Impact factor: 4.872

10.  Knowledge of and Attitudes Toward Evidence-Based Guidelines for and Against Clinical Preventive Services: Results from a National Survey.

Authors:  Paula M Lantz; W Douglas Evans; Holly Mead; Carmen Alvarez; Lisa Stewart
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 4.911

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.