Literature DB >> 27665586

Breast cancer screening initiation after turning 40 years of age within the PROSPR consortium.

Elisabeth F Beaber1, Anna N A Tosteson2, Jennifer S Haas3, Tracy Onega2,4, Brian L Sprague5, Donald L Weaver6, Anne Marie McCarthy7, Chyke A Doubeni8, Virginia P Quinn9, Celette Sugg Skinner10, Ann G Zauber11, William E Barlow12.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Although United States clinical guidelines differ, the earliest recommended age for average risk breast cancer screening is 40 years. Little is known about factors influencing screening initiation.
METHODS: We conducted a cohort study within the National Cancer Institute-funded Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium. We identified 3413 women on their 40th birthday in primary care networks at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth (DH) and Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) during 2011-2013 with no prior breast imaging or breast cancer. Cumulative incidence curves and Cox modeling were used to determine time from the 40th birthday to first breast cancer screening, cohort exit, or 42nd birthday. We calculated hazards ratios and 95 % confidence intervals from multivariable Cox proportional hazards models.
RESULTS: Breast cancer screening cumulative incidence by the 42nd birthday was 62.9 % (BWH) and 39.8 % (DH). Factors associated with screening initiation were: a primary care visit within a year (HR 4.99, 95 % CI 4.23-5.89), an increasing number of primary care visits within a year (p for trend <0.0001), ZIP code of residence annual median household income ≤$52,000 (HR 0.79, 95 % CI 0.68-0.92), and health insurance type (Medicaid HR 0.72, 95 % CI 0.58-0.88; Medicare HR 0.55, 95 % CI 0.39-0.77; uninsured HR 0.37, 95 % CI 0.25-0.57).
CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer screening uptake after the 40th birthday varies by health system, primary care visits, median household income, and health insurance type, suggesting the need for further exploration. Future research should evaluate screening performance metrics after initiation and consider cumulative benefits and risks associated with breast cancer screening over time.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast neoplasms; Early detection of cancer; Mammography; Mass screening; Prevention & control; Primary health care

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27665586      PMCID: PMC5576986          DOI: 10.1007/s10549-016-3990-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.872


  20 in total

Review 1.  Overdiagnosis in cancer.

Authors:  H Gilbert Welch; William C Black
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-04-22       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Trends in Breast Cancer Screening: Impact of U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations.

Authors:  Soudabeh Fazeli Dehkordy; Kelli S Hall; Allison L Roach; Edward D Rothman; Vanessa K Dalton; Ruth C Carlos
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2015-04-01       Impact factor: 5.043

3.  Factors Associated With Rates of False-Positive and False-Negative Results From Digital Mammography Screening: An Analysis of Registry Data.

Authors:  Heidi D Nelson; Ellen S O'Meara; Karla Kerlikowske; Steven Balch; Diana Miglioretti
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 4.  Predictors of screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostatic cancer among community-based primary care practices.

Authors:  M T Ruffin; D W Gorenflo; B Woodman
Journal:  J Am Board Fam Pract       Date:  2000 Jan-Feb

5.  A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation.

Authors:  M E Charlson; P Pompei; K L Ales; C R MacKenzie
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1987

6.  Delivery of cancer screening: how important is the preventive health examination?

Authors:  Joshua J Fenton; Yong Cai; Noel S Weiss; Joann G Elmore; Roy E Pardee; Robert J Reid; Laura-Mae Baldwin
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2007-03-26

7.  Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data.

Authors:  Hude Quan; Vijaya Sundararajan; Patricia Halfon; Andrew Fong; Bernard Burnand; Jean-Christophe Luthi; L Duncan Saunders; Cynthia A Beck; Thomas E Feasby; William A Ghali
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 2.983

8.  The age at which women begin mammographic screening.

Authors:  James A Colbert; Emily M Kaine; Judyann Bigby; Darrell N Smith; Richard H Moore; Elizabeth Rafferty; Diane Georgian-Smith; Helen Anne D'Alessandro; Eren Yeh; Daniel B Kopans; Elkan F Halpern; Kevin Hughes; Barbara L Smith; Kenneth K Tanabe; James S Michaelson
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2004-10-15       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Toward the 'tipping point': decision aids and informed patient choice.

Authors:  Annette M O'Connor; John E Wennberg; France Legare; Hilary A Llewellyn-Thomas; Benjamin W Moulton; Karen R Sepucha; Andrea G Sodano; Jaime S King
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2007 May-Jun       Impact factor: 6.301

10.  Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 25.391

View more
  2 in total

1.  Evaluating Screening Participation, Follow-up, and Outcomes for Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer in the PROSPR Consortium.

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

2.  Effects of different reminder strategies on first-time mammography screening among women in Taiwan.

Authors:  Miao-Ling Lin; Joh-Jong Huang; Shu-Hua Li; Fang-Hsin Lee; Ming-Feng Hou; Hsiu-Hung Wang
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2020-02-12       Impact factor: 2.655

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.