| Literature DB >> 26065413 |
Norhashimah Hassan1,2, Weang Kee Ho3, Shivaani Mariapun4,5, Soo Hwang Teo6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To date, because of limited budgets and lower incidence of breast cancer, the majority of Asian countries do not have population-based screening programmes, but instead offer opportunistic screening. However, there have been few studies which have assessed the motivators for women attending such programmes and the appropriateness of the programmes in terms of targeting women at risk.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26065413 PMCID: PMC4465302 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-015-1892-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Fig. 1Distribution for ten-year risk invasive breast cancer in participants of the MyMammo study. Low risk is defined by having 10-year risk of less than 2 % while high risk is defined by 2 % or greater risk of developing breast cancer in the next 10 years. The majority of women (n=1415, 97.3 %) were at low risk of breast cancer and 38 out of 1453 of women (2.7 %) is predicted to be at risk of developing invasive breast cancer in the next 10 years
Malaysian Mammographic Study cohort description by mammography history
| Variable | All women | Previous mammogram | First mammogram |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N = 1453 | N = 744 | N = 709 | |||||
| N | % | N | % | N | % | ||
|
| |||||||
| Age1a[mean, sd] | 50.0 | 7.0 | 53.0 | 7.0 | 48.0 | 7.0 | <0.001 |
| Ethnicity2a | |||||||
| Chinese | 1018 | 70.1 | 530 | 71.2 | 488 | 68.8 | 0.194 |
| Indian | 223 | 15.4 | 117 | 15.7 | 106 | ||
| Malay | 160 | 69 | 9.3 | 91 | 12.8 | ||
| Others | 52 | 3.5 | 28 | 3.8 | 24 | 3.4 | |
| Education Level2 | |||||||
| Primary | 90 | 6.2 | 34 | 4.6 | 56 | 8.1 | 0.006 |
| Secondary | 728 | 50.1 | 366 | 49.9 | 362 | 52.3 | |
| Tertiary | 608 | 41.8 | 334 | 45.5 | 274 | 39.6 | |
|
| 27 | 10 | 17 | ||||
| Monthly Income (RM)2 | |||||||
| Below 5 k | 689 | 47.4 | 325 | 44.1 | 364 | 52.1 | 0.010 |
| 5 k to 10 k | 470 | 32.4 | 260 | 35.3 | 210 | ||
| Above 10 k | 277 | 19.1 | 152 | 20.6 | 125 | 17.9 | |
|
| 20 | 10 | 10 | ||||
|
| |||||||
|
| |||||||
| Age at menarche1a[mean, sd] | 13.0 | 1.0 | 13.0 | 1.0 | 13.0 | 1.0 | 0.626 |
|
| 10 | 5 | 5 | ||||
| Menopausal status2 | |||||||
| Pre/perimenopausal | 783 | 53.9 | 299 | 40.2 | 484 | 68.6 | <0.001 |
| Post-menopausal | 667 | 45.9 | 445 | 59.8 | 222 | 31.4 | |
|
| 3 | 0 | 3 | ||||
| Parity2 | |||||||
| Nulliparous | 229 | 15.8 | 104 | 125 | 17.6 | 0.057 | |
| Parous | 1224 | 84.2 | 640 | 584 | 82.4 | ||
| Age at first live births1a[mean, sd] | 28.0 | 5.0 | 28.0 | 5.0 | 27.0 | 5.0 | 0.001 |
|
| 230 | 105 | 125 | ||||
|
| |||||||
| Oral contraceptive usage status2 | |||||||
| Never | 1004 | 69.1 | 508 | 68.5 | 496 | 70.4 | 0.435 |
| Ever used | 443 | 30.5 | 234 | 31.5 | 209 | 29.6 | |
|
| 6 | 2 | 4 | ||||
| Hormone replacement therapy | |||||||
| (HRT) status2 | |||||||
| Never | 1306 | 89.9 | 627 | 84.6 | 679 | <0.001 | |
| Ever used | 142 | 9.8 | 114 | 15.4 | 28 | ||
|
| 5 | 3 | 2 | ||||
|
| |||||||
| Family history of breast cancer2a | |||||||
| No | 1301 | 89.5 | 646 | 86.8 | 655 | 92.4 | <0.001 |
| Yes | 152 | 10.5 | 98 | 13.2 | 54 | 7.6 | |
| Previous breast biopsy status2a | |||||||
| No | 1305 | 89.8 | 676 | 91.5 | 629 | 89.6 | 0.224 |
| Yes | 136 | 9.4 | 63 | 8.5 | 73 | 10.4 | |
|
| 12 | 5 | 7 | ||||
| Gynaecological surgery2 | |||||||
| No | 1143 | 78.7 | 578 | 79.7 | 565 | 79.7 | 0.352 |
| Yes | 310 | 21.3 | 166 | 22.3 | 144 | 20.3 | |
| Sterilisation | 103 | 7.1 | 52 | 51 | 7.2 | ||
| Oopherectomy | 33 | 2.3 | 21 | 2.8 | 12 | 1.7 | |
| Hysterectomy | 82 | 5.6 | 40 | 5.4 | 42 | 5.9 | |
| Total Hysterectomy/TAHBSO | 69 | 4.8 | 37 | 32 | 4.5 | ||
| Salpingectomy/salpingostomy | 23 | 1.6 | 16 | 2.1 | 7 | ||
| Body Mass Index (BMI)2 | |||||||
| Underweight | 48 | 3.3 | 16 | 32 | 4.5 | 0.030 | |
| Normal weight | 812 | 55.9 | 425 | 57.1 | 387 | ||
| Overweight | 576 | 39.6 | 292 | 284 | 40.0 | ||
|
| 17 | 11 | 6 | ||||
| Diabetes status2 | |||||||
| No | 1335 | 91.9 | 673 | 91.1 | 662 | 93.8 | 0.050 |
| Yes | 110 | 7.6 | 66 | 8.9 | 44 | 6.2 | |
|
| 8 | 5 | 3 | ||||
| Smoking status2 | |||||||
| Never | 1312 | 90.3 | 671 | 90.2 | 641 | 90.4 | 0.887 |
| Ever smoked | 141 | 9.7 | 73 | 9.8 | 68 | 9.6 | |
aIndicates variables in the Gail Model
1Indicates continuous variable
2Indicates categorical variable
T-test was used for continuous variables and chi-square test for categorical variables
Summary for two-step cluster analysis
| Model | Exclusiona | Number of Clusters | Schwarz's Bayesian Criterion (BIC) | Cluster quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full model | None | 4 | 18827.990 | Poor |
| Model 1 | Exclude smoking status | 2 | 18959.512 | Fair |
| Model 2 | Exclude age at menarche | 5 | 16456.869 | Poor |
| Model 3 | Exclude oral contraceptive status | 2 | 16212.759 | Fair |
| Model 4 | Exclude Gynaecology surgery status | 2 | 15089.163 | Fair |
| Model 5 | Exclude ethnicity | 3 | 12973.058 | Fair |
| Model 6 | Exclude parity status | 2 | 13416.631 | Fair |
| Model 7 | Exclude menopausal status include parity | 3 | 13372.869 | Fair |
| Model 8 | Exclude menopausal status | 3 | 13453.375 | Fair |
aFull model consists of all variables in Table 1, mammography history, age at first screening and motivators for attending screening. Model 1 – Model 8: sequentially excluding variables with least association with mammography history
Groups of asymptomatic healthy women attending Malaysian Mammographic study using the cluster analysis (N = 989)
| Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | Cluster 3 |
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N = 451 | N = 262 | N = 276 | |||||
| Mean | sd | Mean | sd | Mean | sd | ||
| Age (years)a | 52 | 6.0 | 45 | 5.0 | 51 | 8.0 | <0.001 |
| Age at first mammogram (years)a | 44 | 6.0 | 45 | 5.0 | 50 | 7.0 | <0.001 |
| Age at first live birth (years)a | 28 | 4.0 | 29 | 4.0 | 25 | 5.0 | <0.001 |
| N | % | N | % | N | % | ||
| Previous mammogram statusb | |||||||
| Never had a mammogram before | 0 | 0.0 | 258 | 98.5 | 259 | 93.8 | <0.001 |
| Have had a mammogram before | 451 | 100.0 | 4 | 1.5 | 17 | 6.2 | |
| Education levelb | |||||||
| Primary | 9 | 2.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 54 | 19.6 | <0.001 |
| Secondary | 222 | 49.2 | 66 | 25.2 | 219 | 79.3 | |
| Tertiary | 220 | 48.8 | 196 | 74.8 | 3 | 1.1 | |
| Monthly income (RM)b | |||||||
| Below 5 k | 180 | 39.9 | 36 | 13.7 | 236 | 85.5 | <0.001 |
| 5 k to 10 k | 164 | 36.4 | 127 | 48.5 | 37 | 13.4 | |
| Above 10 k | 107 | 23.7 | 99 | 37.8 | 3 | 1.1 | |
| Family history of breast cancerb | |||||||
| None | 392 | 86.9 | 237 | 90.5 | 261 | 94.6 | 0.009 |
| 1 affected individuals | 54 | 12.0 | 25 | 9.5 | 14 | 5.1 | |
| 2 affected individuals | 5 | 1.1 | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 0.4 | |
| HRT Usageb | |||||||
| Never | 384 | 85.1 | 255 | 97.3 | 259 | 93.8 | <0.001 |
| Ever used | 67 | 14.9 | 7 | 2.7 | 17 | 6.2 | |
| BMIb | |||||||
| Underweight | 8 | 1.8 | 6 | 2.3 | 6 | 2.2 | 0.001 |
| Normal weight | 264 | 58.5 | 162 | 61.8 | 126 | 45.7 | |
| Overweight | 179 | 39.7 | 94 | 35.9 | 144 | 52.2 | |
| Diabetes statusb | |||||||
| Unaffected | 420 | 93.1 | 255 | 97.3 | 235 | 85.1 | <0.001 |
| Affected | 31 | 6.9 | 7 | 2.7 | 41 | 14.9 | |
| Motivators for first mammogramb | |||||||
| Family & Friends | 147 | 32.6 | 52 | 19.8 | 25 | 9.1 | <0.001 |
| Doctor | 92 | 20.4 | 75 | 28.6 | 119 | 43.1 | |
| Myself | 67 | 14.9 | 16 | 6.1 | 23 | 8.3 | |
| Public campaign | 60 | 13.3 | 34 | 13.0 | 14 | 5.1 | |
| More than 1 motivators | 37 | 8.2 | 23 | 8.8 | 17 | 6.2 | |
| No motivators | 48 | 10.6 | 62 | 23.7 | 78 | 28.3 | |
aIndicates continuous variable
bIndicates categorical variable