Literature DB >> 26709819

Disparities in the use of screening magnetic resonance imaging of the breast in community practice by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.

Jennifer S Haas1, Deirdre A Hill2, Robert D Wellman3, Rebecca A Hubbard4, Christoph I Lee5,6, Karen J Wernli3, Natasha K Stout7, Anna N A Tosteson8, Louise M Henderson9, Jennifer A Alford-Teaster8, Tracy L Onega10.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Uptake of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) coupled with breast cancer risk assessment offers the opportunity to tailor the benefits and harms of screening strategies for women with differing cancer risks. Despite the potential benefits, there is also concern for worsening population-based health disparities.
METHODS: Among 316,172 women aged 35 to 69 years from 5 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries (2007-2012), the authors examined 617,723 negative screening mammograms and 1047 screening MRIs. They examined the relative risks (RRs) of MRI use by women with a <20% lifetime breast cancer risk and RR in the absence of MRI use by women with a ≥20% lifetime risk.
RESULTS: Among women with a <20% lifetime risk of breast cancer, non-Hispanic white women were found to be 62% more likely than nonwhite women to undergo an MRI (95% confidence interval, 1.32-1.98). Of these women, those with an educational level of some college or technical school were 43% more likely and those who had at least a college degree were 132% more likely to receive an MRI compared with those with a high school education or less. Among women with a ≥20% lifetime risk, there was no statistically significant difference noted with regard to the use of screening MRI by race or ethnicity, but high-risk women with a high school education or less were less likely to undergo screening MRI than women who had graduated from college (RR, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.63).
CONCLUSIONS: Uptake of screening MRI of the breast into clinical practice has the potential to worsen population-based health disparities. Policies beyond health insurance coverage should ensure that the use of this screening modality reflects evidence-based guidelines.
© 2015 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast cancer screening; guidelines; health disparities; primary care

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26709819      PMCID: PMC4742376          DOI: 10.1002/cncr.29805

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  30 in total

1.  A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data.

Authors:  Guangyong Zou
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2004-04-01       Impact factor: 4.897

2.  Association between mammography timing and measures of screening performance in the United States.

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

3.  Breast cancer risk reduction options: awareness, discussion, and use among women from four ethnic groups.

Authors:  Celia Patricia Kaplan; Jennifer S Haas; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable; Steven E Gregorich; Carol Somkin; Genevieve Des Jarlais; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 4.254

4.  Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database.

Authors:  R Ballard-Barbash; S H Taplin; B C Yankaskas; V L Ernster; R D Rosenberg; P A Carney; W E Barlow; B M Geller; K Kerlikowske; B K Edwards; C F Lynch; N Urban; C A Chrvala; C R Key; S P Poplack; J K Worden; L G Kessler
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Modeling the dissemination of mammography in the United States.

Authors:  Kathleen A Cronin; Binbing Yu; Martin Krapcho; Diana L Miglioretti; Michael P Fay; Grant Izmirlian; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Berta M Geller; Eric J Feuer
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 2.506

6.  Screening mammography in the American elderly.

Authors:  Christopher R Kagay; Christopher Quale; Rebecca Smith-Bindman
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 5.043

7.  Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually.

Authors:  M H Gail; L A Brinton; D P Byar; D K Corle; S B Green; C Schairer; J J Mulvihill
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1989-12-20       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Does utilization of screening mammography explain racial and ethnic differences in breast cancer?

Authors:  Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Diana L Miglioretti; Nicole Lurie; Linn Abraham; Rachel Ballard Barbash; Jodi Strzelczyk; Mark Dignan; William E Barlow; Cherry M Beasley; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2006-04-18       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition.

Authors:  Mieke Kriege; Cecile T M Brekelmans; Carla Boetes; Peter E Besnard; Harmine M Zonderland; Inge Marie Obdeijn; Radu A Manoliu; Theo Kok; Hans Peterse; Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst; Sara H Muller; Sybren Meijer; Jan C Oosterwijk; Louk V A M Beex; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Harry J de Koning; Emiel J T Rutgers; Jan G M Klijn
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-07-29       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Effect of breast augmentation on the accuracy of mammography and cancer characteristics.

Authors:  Diana L Miglioretti; Carolyn M Rutter; Berta M Geller; Gary Cutter; William E Barlow; Robert Rosenberg; Donald L Weaver; Stephen H Taplin; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Patricia A Carney; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-01-28       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  19 in total

Review 1.  Factors Influencing Overuse of Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Ritu Sharma; Jean Pannikottu; Yunwen Xu; Monica Tung; Stephanie Nothelle; Allison H Oakes; Jodi B Segal
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2018-04-30       Impact factor: 2.681

2.  Breast Biopsy Intensity and Findings Following Breast Cancer Screening in Women With and Without a Personal History of Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Diana S M Buist; Linn Abraham; Christoph I Lee; Janie M Lee; Constance Lehman; Ellen S O'Meara; Natasha K Stout; Louise M Henderson; Deirdre Hill; Karen J Wernli; Jennifer S Haas; Anna N A Tosteson; Karla Kerlikowske; Tracy Onega
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2018-04-01       Impact factor: 21.873

3.  Treating health disparities with artificial intelligence.

Authors:  Irene Y Chen; Shalmali Joshi; Marzyeh Ghassemi
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 53.440

4.  Performance Benchmarks for Screening Breast MR Imaging in Community Practice.

Authors:  Janie M Lee; Laura Ichikawa; Elizabeth Valencia; Diana L Miglioretti; Karen Wernli; Diana S M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Louise M Henderson; Brian L Sprague; Tracy Onega; Garth H Rauscher; Constance D Lehman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-06-05       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Relationship between body mass index and malignancy rates of MRI-guided breast biopsies: impact of clinicodemographic factors.

Authors:  Annie Tang; Caitlin M Cohan; Keith S Hansen; Genna Beattie; Heather I Greenwood; Rita A Mukhtar
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2021-03-27       Impact factor: 4.872

6.  Breast cancer incidence trends in Asian women aged 20 or older as compared to other ethnic women in the United States from 2000 to 2018 by time period, age and tumor stage.

Authors:  Xianglin L Du; Lulu Song
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol       Date:  2021-11-30       Impact factor: 2.984

7.  Underutilization of Supplemental Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening Among Patients at High Breast Cancer Risk.

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

8.  Impact of Genetic Testing on Risk-Management Behavior of Black Breast Cancer Survivors: A Longitudinal, Observational Study.

Authors:  Claire C Conley; Monica L Kasting; Bianca M Augusto; Jennifer D Garcia; Deborah Cragun; Brian D Gonzalez; Jongphil Kim; Kimlin Tam Ashing; Cheryl L Knott; Chanita Hughes-Halbert; Tuya Pal; Susan T Vadaparampil
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2019-11-01       Impact factor: 5.344

9.  Uptake of cancer risk management strategies among women who undergo cascade genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility genes.

Authors:  Sukh Makhnoon; Grace Tran; Brooke Levin; Kristin D Mattie; Brian Dreyer; Robert J Volk; Generosa Grana; Banu K Arun; Susan K Peterson
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2021-06-22       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  Prospective multicenter assessment of patient preferences for properties of gadolinium-based contrast media and their potential socioeconomic impact in a screening breast MRI setting.

Authors:  Sean A Woolen; Jonathan P Troost; Shokoufeh Khalatbari; Akshat C Pujara; Jennifer S McDonald; Robert J McDonald; Prasad Shankar; Alana A Lewin; Amy N Melsaether; Steven M Westphal; Katherine H Patterson; Ashley Nettles; John P Welby; Parth Pradip Patel; Neud Kiros; Lisa Piccoli; Matthew S Davenport
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-05-28       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.