Literature DB >> 27026577

Travel Burden to Breast MRI and Utilization: Are Risk and Sociodemographics Related?

Tracy Onega1, Christoph I Lee2, David Benkeser3, Jennifer Alford-Teaster4, Jennifer S Haas5, Anna N A Tosteson6, Deirdre Hill7, Xun Shi8, Louise M Henderson9, Rebecca A Hubbard10.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Mammography, unlike MRI, is relatively geographically accessible. Additional travel time is often required to access breast MRI. However, the amount of additional travel time and whether it varies on the basis of sociodemographic or breast cancer risk factors is unknown.
METHODS: The investigators examined screening mammography and MRI between 2005 and 2012 in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium by (1) travel time to the closest and actual mammography facility used and the difference between the two, (2) women's breast cancer risk factors, and (3) sociodemographic characteristics. Logistic regression was used to examine the odds of traveling farther than the closest facility in relation to women's characteristics.
RESULTS: Among 821,683 screening mammographic examinations, 76.6% occurred at the closest facility, compared with 51.9% of screening MRI studies (n = 3,687). The median differential travel time among women not using the closest facility for mammography was 14 min (interquartile range, 8-25 min) versus 20 min (interquartile range, 11-40 min) for breast MRI. Differential travel time for both imaging modalities did not vary notably by breast cancer risk factors but was significantly longer for nonurban residents. For non-Hispanic black compared with non-Hispanic white women, the adjusted odds of traveling farther than the closest facility were 9% lower for mammography (odds ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-0.95) but more than two times higher for MRI (odds ratio, 2.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-5.13).
CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer risk factors were not related to excess travel time for screening MRI, but sociodemographic factors were, suggesting the possibility that geographic distribution of advanced imaging may exacerbated disparities for some vulnerable populations.
Copyright © 2016 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast imaging; GIS; Geographic Information Systems; MRI; proximity to care; travel time

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27026577      PMCID: PMC5016195          DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2016.01.022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol        ISSN: 1546-1440            Impact factor:   5.532


  18 in total

1.  Characteristics of US counties with no mammography capacity.

Authors:  Lucy A Peipins; Jacqueline Miller; Thomas B Richards; Janet Kay Bobo; Ta Liu; Mary C White; Djenaba Joseph; Florence Tangka; Donatus U Ekwueme
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2012-12

2.  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

3.  The influence of travel time on breast cancer characteristics, receipt of primary therapy, and surveillance mammography.

Authors:  Tracy Onega; Andrea Cook; Beth Kirlin; Xun Shi; Jennifer Alford-Teaster; Leah Tuzzio; Diana S M Buist
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2011-05-07       Impact factor: 4.872

4.  Five-year and lifetime risk of breast cancer among U.S. subpopulations: implications for magnetic resonance imaging screening.

Authors:  Barry I Graubard; Andrew N Freedman; Mitchell H Gail
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2010-09-14       Impact factor: 4.254

5.  Geographic access and the use of screening mammography.

Authors:  Elena B Elkin; Nicole M Ishill; Jacqueline G Snow; Katherine S Panageas; Peter B Bach; Laura Liberman; Fahui Wang; Deborah Schrag
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  Mammography facilities are accessible, so why is utilization so low?

Authors:  Lee R Mobley; Tzy-Mey May Kuo; Laurel J Clayton; W Douglas Evans
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2009-02-11       Impact factor: 2.506

7.  Geographical and seasonal barriers to mammography services and breast cancer stage at diagnosis.

Authors:  Adedayo A Onitilo; Hong Liang; Rachel V Stankowski; Jessica M Engel; Michael Broton; Suhail A Doi; Douglas A Miskowiak
Journal:  Rural Remote Health       Date:  2014-07-14       Impact factor: 1.759

8.  Geographic access to breast imaging for US women.

Authors:  Tracy Onega; Rebecca Hubbard; Deirdre Hill; Christoph I Lee; Jennifer S Haas; Heather A Carlos; Jennifer Alford-Teaster; Andy Bogart; Wendy B DeMartini; Karla Kerlikowske; Beth A Virnig; Diana S M Buist; Louise Henderson; Anna N A Tosteson
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2014-06-02       Impact factor: 5.532

9.  Geographic access to cancer care in the U.S.

Authors:  Tracy Onega; Eric J Duell; Xun Shi; Dongmei Wang; Eugene Demidenko; David Goodman
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2008-02-15       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  Patterns of breast magnetic resonance imaging use in community practice.

Authors:  Karen J Wernli; Wendy B DeMartini; Laura Ichikawa; Constance D Lehman; Tracy Onega; Karla Kerlikowske; Louise M Henderson; Berta M Geller; Mike Hofmann; Bonnie C Yankaskas
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 21.873

View more
  9 in total

1.  Racial Differences in Geographic Access to Medical Care as Measured by Patient Report and Geographic Information Systems.

Authors:  Michelle S Wong; David T Grande; Nandita Mitra; Archana Radhakrishnan; Charles C Branas; Katelyn R Ward; Craig E Pollack
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Optimizing Travel Time to Outpatient Interventional Radiology Procedures in a Multi-Site Hospital System Using a Google Maps Application.

Authors:  Jacob E Mandel; Louis Morel-Ovalle; Franz E Boas; Etay Ziv; Hooman Yarmohammadi; Amy Deipolyi; Heeralall R Mohabir; Joseph P Erinjeri
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  Geospatial Approaches to Cancer Control and Population Sciences.

Authors:  Mario Schootman; Scarlett Lin Gomez; Kevin A Henry; Electra D Paskett; Gary L Ellison; April Oh; Stephen H Taplin; Zaria Tatalovich; David A Berrigan
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2017-03-21       Impact factor: 4.254

4.  Influence of geographic access and socioeconomic characteristics on breast cancer outcomes: A systematic review.

Authors:  Benoit Conti; Audrey Bochaton; Hélène Charreire; Hélène Kitzis-Bonsang; Caroline Desprès; Sandrine Baffert; Charlotte Ngô
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-07-19       Impact factor: 3.752

Review 5.  Addressing Disparities Related to Access of Multimodality Breast Imaging Services Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Authors:  Derek L Nguyen; Emily B Ambinder; Kelly S Myers; Eniola Oluyemi
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2022-03-25       Impact factor: 5.482

6.  Optimal Screening in Breast Cancer Survivors With Dense Breasts on Mammography.

Authors:  Habib Rahbar; Janie M Lee; Christoph I Lee
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-07-24       Impact factor: 50.717

7.  Comparative Access to and Use of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening by Women's Race/Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Status.

Authors:  Christoph I Lee; Weiwei Zhu; Tracy Onega; Louise M Henderson; Karla Kerlikowske; Brian L Sprague; Garth H Rauscher; Ellen S O'Meara; Anna N A Tosteson; Jennifer S Haas; Roberta diFlorio-Alexander; Celia Kaplan; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-02-01

8.  Identifying key barriers to effective breast cancer control in rural settings.

Authors:  Brian L Sprague; Thomas P Ahern; Sally D Herschorn; Michelle Sowden; Donald L Weaver; Marie E Wood
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2021-07-22       Impact factor: 4.018

9.  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

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.