Louise M Henderson1,2, Thad Benefield3, Sarah J Nyante3, Mary W Marsh3, Mikael Anne Greenwood-Hickman3, Bruce F Schroeder3,4,5. 1. Department of Radiology, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. Louise_Henderson@med.unc.edu. 2. Department of Epidemiology, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. Louise_Henderson@med.unc.edu. 3. Department of Radiology, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 4. Carolina Breast Imaging Specialists, Greenville, NC, USA. 5. Departments of Radiology and Oncology, The Brody School of Medicine at East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: There is scarce information on whether digital screening mammography performance differs between black and white women. METHODS: We examined 256,470 digital screening mammograms performed from 2005 to 2010 among 31,654 black and 133,152 white Carolina Mammography Registry participants aged ≥40 years. We compared recall rate, sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV1) between black and white women, adjusting for potential confounders using random effects logistic regression. RESULTS: Breast cancer was diagnosed in 276 black and 1,095 white women. Recall rates were similar for blacks and whites (8.6 vs. 8.5 %), as were sensitivity (83.7 vs. 82.4 %), specificity (91.8 vs. 91.9 %), and PPV1 (4.8 vs. 5.3 %) (all p values >0.05). Stratified and adjusted models showed similar results. Despite comparable mammography performance, tumors diagnosed in black women were more commonly poorly differentiated and hormone receptor negative. CONCLUSION: Equivalent performance of digital screening mammography by race suggests that efforts to understand tumor disparities should focus on etiologic factors that influence tumor biology.
PURPOSE: There is scarce information on whether digital screening mammography performance differs between black and white women. METHODS: We examined 256,470 digital screening mammograms performed from 2005 to 2010 among 31,654 black and 133,152 white Carolina Mammography Registry participants aged ≥40 years. We compared recall rate, sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV1) between black and white women, adjusting for potential confounders using random effects logistic regression. RESULTS:Breast cancer was diagnosed in 276 black and 1,095 white women. Recall rates were similar for blacks and whites (8.6 vs. 8.5 %), as were sensitivity (83.7 vs. 82.4 %), specificity (91.8 vs. 91.9 %), and PPV1 (4.8 vs. 5.3 %) (all p values >0.05). Stratified and adjusted models showed similar results. Despite comparable mammography performance, tumors diagnosed in black women were more commonly poorly differentiated and hormone receptor negative. CONCLUSION: Equivalent performance of digital screening mammography by race suggests that efforts to understand tumor disparities should focus on etiologic factors that influence tumor biology.
Authors: Karla Kerlikowske; Rebecca A Hubbard; Diana L Miglioretti; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Constance D Lehman; Stephen H Taplin; Edward A Sickles Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Bonnie C Yankaskas; Stephen H Taplin; Laura Ichikawa; Berta M Geller; Robert D Rosenberg; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Gary R Cutter; William E Barlow Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Shannon M Conroy; Lesley M Butler; Danielle Harvey; Ellen B Gold; Barbara Sternfeld; Nina Oestreicher; Gail A Greendale; Laurel A Habel Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2010-03-30 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Edward Hendrick; Martin Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence Bassett; Carl D'Orsi; Roberta Jong; Murray Rebner Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-09-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Laurel A Habel; Angela M Capra; Nina Oestreicher; Gail A Greendale; Jane A Cauley; Joyce Bromberger; Carolyn J Crandall; Ellen B Gold; Francesmary Modugno; Martine Salane; Charles Quesenberry; Barbara Sternfeld Journal: Menopause Date: 2007 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Samantha Puvanesarajah; Sarah J Nyante; Cherie M Kuzmiak; Mengjie Chen; Chiu-Kit Tse; Xuezheng Sun; Emma H Allott; Erin L Kirk; Lisa A Carey; Charles M Perou; Andrew F Olshan; Louise M Henderson; Melissa A Troester Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2018-04-05
Authors: Karla Kerlikowske; Christopher G Scott; Amir P Mahmoudzadeh; Lin Ma; Stacey Winham; Matthew R Jensen; Fang Fang Wu; Serghei Malkov; V Shane Pankratz; Steven R Cummings; John A Shepherd; Kathleen R Brandt; Diana L Miglioretti; Celine M Vachon Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Johanna O P Wanders; Katharina Holland; Wouter B Veldhuis; Ritse M Mann; Ruud M Pijnappel; Petra H M Peeters; Carla H van Gils; Nico Karssemeijer Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-12-23 Impact factor: 4.872