Christoph I Lee1, Andy Bogart2, Rebecca A Hubbard2, Eniola T Obadina3, Deirdre A Hill4, Jennifer S Haas5, Anna N A Tosteson6, Jennifer A Alford-Teaster7, Brian L Sprague8, Wendy B DeMartini9, Constance D Lehman3, Tracy L Onega7. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, 825 Eastlake Ave East, Seattle, WA 98109; Department of Health Services, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Washington. Electronic address: stophlee@uw.edu. 2. Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, 825 Eastlake Ave East, Seattle, WA 98109. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Cancer Research and Treatment Center, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 5. Division of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Dana Farber Harvard Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Department of Medicine, Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine, Lebanon, New Hampshire. 7. Department of Medicine, Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine, Lebanon, New Hampshire; Department of Community and Family Medicine, Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine, Lebanon, New Hampshire. 8. Department of Surgery and Office of Health Promotion Research, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont. 9. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To determine the relationship between screening mammography facility characteristics and on-site availability of advanced breast imaging services required for supplemental screening and the diagnostic evaluation of abnormal screening findings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed data from all active imaging facilities across six regional registries of the National Cancer Institute-funded Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium offering screening mammography in calendar years 2011-2012 (n = 105). We used generalized estimating equations regression models to identify associations between facility characteristics (eg, academic affiliation, practice type) and availability of on-site advanced breast imaging (eg, ultrasound [US], magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) and image-guided biopsy services. RESULTS: Breast MRI was not available at any nonradiology or breast imaging-only facilities. A combination of breast US, breast MRI, and imaging-guided breast biopsy services was available at 76.0% of multispecialty breast centers compared to 22.2% of full diagnostic radiology practices (P = .0047) and 75.0% of facilities with academic affiliations compared to 29.0% of those without academic affiliations (P = .04). Both supplemental screening breast US and screening breast MRI were available at 28.0% of multispecialty breast centers compared to 4.7% of full diagnostic radiology practices (P < .01) and 25.0% of academic facilities compared to 8.5% of nonacademic facilities (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Screening facility characteristics are strongly associated with the availability of on-site advanced breast imaging and image-guided biopsy service. Therefore, the type of imaging facility a woman attends for screening may have important implications on her timely access to supplemental screening and diagnostic breast imaging services.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To determine the relationship between screening mammography facility characteristics and on-site availability of advanced breast imaging services required for supplemental screening and the diagnostic evaluation of abnormal screening findings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed data from all active imaging facilities across six regional registries of the National Cancer Institute-funded Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium offering screening mammography in calendar years 2011-2012 (n = 105). We used generalized estimating equations regression models to identify associations between facility characteristics (eg, academic affiliation, practice type) and availability of on-site advanced breast imaging (eg, ultrasound [US], magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) and image-guided biopsy services. RESULTS: Breast MRI was not available at any nonradiology or breast imaging-only facilities. A combination of breast US, breast MRI, and imaging-guided breast biopsy services was available at 76.0% of multispecialty breast centers compared to 22.2% of full diagnostic radiology practices (P = .0047) and 75.0% of facilities with academic affiliations compared to 29.0% of those without academic affiliations (P = .04). Both supplemental screening breast US and screening breast MRI were available at 28.0% of multispecialty breast centers compared to 4.7% of full diagnostic radiology practices (P < .01) and 25.0% of academic facilities compared to 8.5% of nonacademic facilities (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Screening facility characteristics are strongly associated with the availability of on-site advanced breast imaging and image-guided biopsy service. Therefore, the type of imaging facility a woman attends for screening may have important implications on her timely access to supplemental screening and diagnostic breast imaging services.
Authors: Sylvia K Plevritis; Allison W Kurian; Bronislava M Sigal; Bruce L Daniel; Debra M Ikeda; Frank E Stockdale; Alan M Garber Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-05-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Patricia A Carney; Linn A Abraham; Diana L Miglioretti; K Robin Yabroff; Edward A Sickles; Diana S M Buist; Claudia J Kasales; Berta M Geller; Robert D Rosenberg; Mark B Dignan; Donald L Weaver; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Edward A Sickles; Diana L Miglioretti; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Berta M Geller; Jessica W T Leung; Robert D Rosenberg; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Bonnie C Yankaskas Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-06 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: Wendie A Berg; Jeffrey D Blume; Jean B Cormack; Ellen B Mendelson; Daniel Lehrer; Marcela Böhm-Vélez; Etta D Pisano; Roberta A Jong; W Phil Evans; Marilyn J Morton; Mary C Mahoney; Linda Hovanessian Larsen; Richard G Barr; Dione M Farria; Helga S Marques; Karan Boparai Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-05-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Christoph I Lee; Weiwei Zhu; Tracy L Onega; Jessica Germino; Ellen S O'Meara; Constance D Lehman; Louise M Henderson; Jennifer S Haas; Karla Kerlikowske; Brian L Sprague; Garth H Rauscher; Anna N A Tosteson; Jennifer Alford-Teaster; Karen J Wernli; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2018-09-20 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Randy Miles; Fei Wan; Tracy L Onega; Amanda Lenderink-Carpenter; Ellen S O'Meara; Weiwei Zhu; Louise M Henderson; Jennifer S Haas; Deirdre A Hill; Anna N A Tosteson; Karen J Wernli; Jennifer Alford-Teaster; Janie M Lee; Constance D Lehman; Christoph I Lee Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2018-01-17 Impact factor: 2.681