Anne Marie McCarthy1, Jane J Kim2, Elisabeth F Beaber3, Yingye Zheng4, Andrea Burnett-Hartman5, Jessica Chubak6, Nirupa R Ghai7, Dale McLerran3, Nancy Breen8, Emily F Conant9, Berta M Geller10, Beverly B Green6, Carrie N Klabunde11, Stephen Inrig12, Celette Sugg Skinner13, Virginia P Quinn7, Jennifer S Haas14, Mitchell Schnall9, Carolyn M Rutter15, William E Barlow16, Douglas A Corley17, Katrina Armstrong18, Chyke A Doubeni19. 1. Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: amccarthy8@partners.org. 2. Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington. 4. Department of Biostatistics, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington. 5. Division of Epidemiology, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington; Institute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Denver, Colorado. 6. Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington. 7. Department of Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, California. 8. Health Systems and Interventions Research Branch, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland. 9. Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 10. Department of Family Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont. 11. Office of Disease Prevention, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland. 12. Department of Health Policy and History of Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas; Department of Health Policy and Management, Mount Saint Mary's University, Los Angeles, California. 13. Department of Clinical Science and Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. 14. Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 15. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California. 16. Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 17. Department of Gastroenterology, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California. 18. Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 19. Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Timely follow-up of abnormal tests is critical to the effectiveness of cancer screening, but may vary by screening test, healthcare system, and sociodemographic group. METHODS: Timely follow-up of abnormal mammogram and fecal occult blood testing or fecal immunochemical tests (FOBT/FIT) were compared by race/ethnicity using Population-Based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens consortium data. Participants were women with an abnormal mammogram (aged 40-75 years) or FOBT/FIT (aged 50-75 years) in 2010-2012. Analyses were performed in 2015. Timely follow-up was defined as colonoscopy ≤3 months following positive FOBT/FIT; additional imaging or biopsy ≤3 months following Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Category 0, 4, or 5 mammograms; or ≤9 months following Category 3 mammograms. Logistic regression was used to model receipt of timely follow-up adjusting for study site, age, year, insurance, and income. RESULTS: Among 166,602 mammograms, 10.7% were abnormal; among 566,781 FOBT/FITs, 4.3% were abnormal. Nearly 96% of patients with abnormal mammograms received timely follow-up versus 68% with abnormal FOBT/FIT. There was greater variability in receipt of follow-up across healthcare systems for positive FOBT/FIT than for abnormal mammograms. For mammography, black women were less likely than whites to receive timely follow-up (91.8% vs 96.0%, OR=0.71, 95% CI=0.51, 0.97). For FOBT/FIT, Hispanics were more likely than whites to receive timely follow-up than whites (70.0% vs 67.6%, OR=1.12, 95% CI=1.04, 1.21). CONCLUSIONS: Timely follow-up among women was more likely for abnormal mammograms than FOBT/FITs, with small variations in follow-up rates by race/ethnicity and larger variation across healthcare systems.
INTRODUCTION: Timely follow-up of abnormal tests is critical to the effectiveness of cancer screening, but may vary by screening test, healthcare system, and sociodemographic group. METHODS: Timely follow-up of abnormal mammogram and fecal occult blood testing or fecal immunochemical tests (FOBT/FIT) were compared by race/ethnicity using Population-Based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens consortium data. Participants were women with an abnormal mammogram (aged 40-75 years) or FOBT/FIT (aged 50-75 years) in 2010-2012. Analyses were performed in 2015. Timely follow-up was defined as colonoscopy ≤3 months following positive FOBT/FIT; additional imaging or biopsy ≤3 months following Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Category 0, 4, or 5 mammograms; or ≤9 months following Category 3 mammograms. Logistic regression was used to model receipt of timely follow-up adjusting for study site, age, year, insurance, and income. RESULTS: Among 166,602 mammograms, 10.7% were abnormal; among 566,781 FOBT/FITs, 4.3% were abnormal. Nearly 96% of patients with abnormal mammograms received timely follow-up versus 68% with abnormal FOBT/FIT. There was greater variability in receipt of follow-up across healthcare systems for positive FOBT/FIT than for abnormal mammograms. For mammography, black women were less likely than whites to receive timely follow-up (91.8% vs 96.0%, OR=0.71, 95% CI=0.51, 0.97). For FOBT/FIT, Hispanics were more likely than whites to receive timely follow-up than whites (70.0% vs 67.6%, OR=1.12, 95% CI=1.04, 1.21). CONCLUSIONS: Timely follow-up among women was more likely for abnormal mammograms than FOBT/FITs, with small variations in follow-up rates by race/ethnicity and larger variation across healthcare systems.
Authors: Beth A Jones; Amy Dailey; Lisa Calvocoressi; Kam Reams; Stanislav V Kasl; Carol Lee; Helen Hsu Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Robert A Smith; Deana Manassaram-Baptiste; Durado Brooks; Mary Doroshenk; Stacey Fedewa; Debbie Saslow; Otis W Brawley; Richard Wender Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2015-01-08 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Elisabeth F Beaber; Jane J Kim; Marilyn M Schapira; Anna N A Tosteson; Ann G Zauber; Ann M Geiger; Aruna Kamineni; Donald L Weaver; Jasmin A Tiro Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-05-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: K Robin Yabroff; Kathleen Shakira Washington; Amy Leader; Elizabeth Neilson; Jeanne Mandelblatt Journal: Med Care Res Rev Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 3.929
Authors: Jasmin A Tiro; Aruna Kamineni; Theodore R Levin; Yingye Zheng; Joanne S Schottinger; Carolyn M Rutter; Douglas A Corley; Celette S Skinner; Jessica Chubak; Chyke A Doubeni; Ethan A Halm; Samir Gupta; Karen J Wernli; Carrie Klabunde Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-06-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Amelie G Ramirez; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable; Gregory A Talavera; Frank J Penedo; J Emilio Carrillo; Maria E Fernandez; Edgar Muñoz; Dorothy Long Parma; Alan Ec Holden; Sandra San Miguel de Majors; Anna Nápoles; Sheila F Castañeda; Kipling J Gallion Journal: Springerplus Date: 2013-03-05
Authors: William E Barlow; Elisabeth F Beaber; Berta M Geller; Aruna Kamineni; Yingye Zheng; Jennifer S Haas; Chun R Chao; Carolyn M Rutter; Ann G Zauber; Brian L Sprague; Ethan A Halm; Donald L Weaver; Jessica Chubak; V Paul Doria-Rose; Sarah Kobrin; Tracy Onega; Virginia P Quinn; Marilyn M Schapira; Anna N A Tosteson; Douglas A Corley; Celette Sugg Skinner; Mitchell D Schnall; Katrina Armstrong; Cosette M Wheeler; Michael J Silverberg; Bijal A Balasubramanian; Chyke A Doubeni; Dale McLerran; Jasmin A Tiro Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-03-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Marilyn M Schapira; William E Barlow; Emily F Conant; Brian L Sprague; Anna N A Tosteson; Jennifer S Haas; Tracy Onega; Elisabeth F Beaber; Martha Goodrich; Anne Marie McCarthy; Sally D Herschorn; Celette Sugg Skinner; Tory O Harrington; Berta Geller Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2018-02-09 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Balambal Bharti; Folasade Fola Popoola May; Jesse Nodora; María Elena Martínez; Karina Moyano; Shauntay L Davis; Christian B Ramers; Felipe Garcia-Bigley; Shawne O'Connell; Kevin Ronan; Melissa Barajas; Sheree Gordon; Giselle Diaz; Evelyn Ceja; Meghan Powers; Elva M Arredondo; Samir Gupta Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-09-03 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Kevin Selby; Christine Baumgartner; Theodore R Levin; Chyke A Doubeni; Ann G Zauber; Joanne Schottinger; Christopher D Jensen; Jeffrey K Lee; Douglas A Corley Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Jennifer L Schneider; Heather Spencer Feigelson; Virginia P Quinn; Carmit McMullen; Pamela A Pawloski; John D Powers; Andrew T Sterrett; David Arterburn; Douglas A Corley Journal: Perm J Date: 2020
Authors: Chyke A Doubeni; Nicole B Gabler; Cosette M Wheeler; Anne Marie McCarthy; Philip E Castle; Ethan A Halm; Mitchell D Schnall; Celette S Skinner; Anna N A Tosteson; Donald L Weaver; Anil Vachani; Shivan J Mehta; Katharine A Rendle; Stacey A Fedewa; Douglas A Corley; Katrina Armstrong Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2018-03-30 Impact factor: 508.702