Chiang-Hua Chang1, Julie P W Bynum1,2, Tracy Onega1,3, Carrie H Colla1,3, Jon D Lurie1,2, Anna N A Tosteson1,2,3. 1. 1 The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice , Geisel School of Medicine, Lebanon , New Hampshire. 2. 2 Department of Medicine, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center , Lebanon , New Hampshire. 3. 3 Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center , Lebanon , New Hampshire.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is uncertain how changes in the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force breast cancer screening recommendations (from annual to biennial mammography screening in women aged 50-74 and grading the evidence as insufficient for screening in women aged 75 and older) have affected mammography use among Medicare beneficiaries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cohort study of 12 million Medicare fee-for-service women aged 65-74 and 75 and older to measure changes in 3-year screening use, 2007-2009 (before) and 2010-2012 (after), defined by two measures-proportion screened and frequency of screening by age, race/ethnicity, and hospital referral region. RESULTS: Fewer women were screened, but with similar frequency after 2009 for both age groups (after vs. before: age 65-74: 60.1% vs. 60.8% screened, 2.1 vs. 2.1 mammograms per screened woman; age 75 and older: 31.7% vs. 33.6% screened, 1.9 vs. 1.9 mammograms per screened woman; all p < 0.05). Black women were the only subgroup with an increase in screening use, and for both age groups (after vs. before: age 65-74: 55.4% vs. 54.0% screened and 2.0 vs. 1.9 mammograms per screened woman; age 75 and older: 28.5% vs. 27.9% screened and 1.8 vs. 1.8 mammograms per screened woman; all p < 0.05). Regional change patterns in screening were more similar between age groups (Pearson correlation r = 0.781 for proportion screened; r = 0.840 for frequency of screening) than between black versus nonblack women (Pearson correlation r = 0.221 for proportion screened; r = 0.212 for frequency of screening). CONCLUSIONS: Changes in screening mammography use for Medicare women are not fully aligned with the 2009 recommendations.
BACKGROUND: It is uncertain how changes in the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force breast cancer screening recommendations (from annual to biennial mammography screening in women aged 50-74 and grading the evidence as insufficient for screening in women aged 75 and older) have affected mammography use among Medicare beneficiaries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cohort study of 12 million Medicare fee-for-service women aged 65-74 and 75 and older to measure changes in 3-year screening use, 2007-2009 (before) and 2010-2012 (after), defined by two measures-proportion screened and frequency of screening by age, race/ethnicity, and hospital referral region. RESULTS: Fewer women were screened, but with similar frequency after 2009 for both age groups (after vs. before: age 65-74: 60.1% vs. 60.8% screened, 2.1 vs. 2.1 mammograms per screened woman; age 75 and older: 31.7% vs. 33.6% screened, 1.9 vs. 1.9 mammograms per screened woman; all p < 0.05). Black women were the only subgroup with an increase in screening use, and for both age groups (after vs. before: age 65-74: 55.4% vs. 54.0% screened and 2.0 vs. 1.9 mammograms per screened woman; age 75 and older: 28.5% vs. 27.9% screened and 1.8 vs. 1.8 mammograms per screened woman; all p < 0.05). Regional change patterns in screening were more similar between age groups (Pearson correlation r = 0.781 for proportion screened; r = 0.840 for frequency of screening) than between black versus nonblack women (Pearson correlation r = 0.221 for proportion screened; r = 0.212 for frequency of screening). CONCLUSIONS: Changes in screening mammography use for Medicare women are not fully aligned with the 2009 recommendations.
Authors: Ramzi G Salloum; Racquel E Kohler; Gail A Jensen; Stacey L Sheridan; William R Carpenter; Andrea K Biddle Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2013-11-06 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Erica B Friedman; Jennifer Chun; Freya Schnabel; Shira Schwartz; Sidney Law; Jessica Billig; Erin Ivanoff; Linda Moy; Deborah Axelrod; Amber Guth Journal: Int J Breast Cancer Date: 2013-09-18
Authors: Amy T Wang; Jiaquan Fan; Holly K Van Houten; Jon C Tilburt; Natasha K Stout; Victor M Montori; Nilay D Shah Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-03-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Nancy L Schoenborn; Jin Huang; Orla C Sheehan; Jennifer L Wolff; David L Roth; Cynthia M Boyd Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-11-06 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Tracy Onega; Tor D Tosteson; Julie Weiss; Jennifer S Haas; Martha Goodrich; Roberta DiFlorio; Charles Brackett; Cheryl Clark; Kimberly Harris; Anna N A Tosteson Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-08-03 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Emily Grayek; Yanran Yang; Baruch Fischhoff; Karen E Schifferdecker; Steven Woloshin; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti; Anna N A Tosteson Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2022-01-22 Impact factor: 2.749