Literature DB >> 32004483

Facility Variability in Examination Indication Among Women With Prior Breast Cancer: Implications and the Need for Standardization.

Diana S M Buist1, Laura Ichikawa2, Karen J Wernli2, Christoph I Lee3, Louise M Henderson4, Karla Kerlikowske5, Erin J A Bowles2, Diana L Miglioretti6, Jennifer Specht7, Garth H Rauscher8, Brian L Sprague9, Tracy Onega10, Janie M Lee3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify and characterize examinations in women with a personal history of breast cancer likely performed for asymptomatic surveillance.
METHODS: We included surveillance mammograms (1997-2017) in asymptomatic women with a personal history of breast cancer diagnosed at age ≥18 years (1996-2016) from 103 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium facilities. We examined facility-level variability in examination indication. We modeled the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) at the examination level of a (1) nonscreening indication and (2) surveillance interval ≤9 months using Poisson regression with fixed effects for facility, stage, diagnosis age, surgery, examination year, and time since diagnosis.
RESULTS: Among 244,855 surveillance mammograms, 69.5% were coded with a screening indication, 12.7% short-interval follow-up, and 15.3% as evaluation of a breast problem. Within a facility, the proportion of examinations with a screening indication ranged from 6% to 100% (median 86%, interquartile range 79%-92%). Facilities varied the most for examinations in the first 5 years after diagnosis, with 39.4% of surveillance mammograms having a nonscreening indication. Within a facility, breast conserving surgery compared with mastectomy (RR = 1.64; 95% CI = 1.60-1.68) and less time since diagnosis (1 year versus 5 years; RR = 1.69; 95% CI = 1.66-1.72; 3 years versus 5 years = 1.20; 95% CI = 1.18-1.23) were strongly associated with a nonscreening indication with similar results for ≤9-month surveillance interval. Screening indication and >9-month surveillance intervals were more common in more recent years.
CONCLUSION: Variability in surveillance indications across facilities in the United States supports including indications beyond screening in studies evaluating surveillance mammography effectiveness and demonstrates the need for standardization.
Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium; Breast cancer screening; breast cancer surveillance; breast carcinoma; mammography indication

Year:  2020        PMID: 32004483      PMCID: PMC7275918          DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2019.12.020

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


  18 in total

1.  Challenges With Identifying Indication for Examination in Breast Imaging as a Key Clinical Attribute in Practice, Research, and Policy.

Authors:  Julie E Weiss; Martha Goodrich; Kimberly A Harris; Rachael E Chicoine; Marie B Synnestvedt; Steve J Pyle; Jane S Chen; Sally D Herschorn; Elisabeth F Beaber; Jennifer S Haas; Anna N A Tosteson; Tracy Onega
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2016-10-13       Impact factor: 5.532

2.  Accuracy and outcomes of screening mammography in women with a personal history of early-stage breast cancer.

Authors:  Nehmat Houssami; Linn A Abraham; Diana L Miglioretti; Edward A Sickles; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Berta M Geller; Hyman B Muss; Les Irwig
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2011-02-23       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 3.  Mammographic surveillance in women with a personal history of breast cancer: how accurate? How effective?

Authors:  Nehmat Houssami; Stefano Ciatto
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2010-06-12       Impact factor: 4.380

4.  Patterns of Breast Imaging Use Among Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Louise M Henderson; Laura Ichikawa; Diana S M Buist; Janie M Lee; Mary Bush; Dianne Johnson; Tracy Onega; Larissa Nekhlyudov; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti; Brian L Sprague; Karen J Wernli
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2019-08-13       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Breast Cancer Screening in Women at Higher-Than-Average Risk: Recommendations From the ACR.

Authors:  Debra L Monticciolo; Mary S Newell; Linda Moy; Bethany Niell; Barbara Monsees; Edward A Sickles
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2018-01-19       Impact factor: 5.532

6.  Impact on survival of early detection of isolated breast recurrences after the primary treatment for breast cancer: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  W L Lu; L Jansen; W J Post; J Bonnema; J C Van de Velde; G H De Bock
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2008-04-18       Impact factor: 4.872

Review 7.  American Cancer Society/American Society of Clinical Oncology Breast Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline.

Authors:  Carolyn D Runowicz; Corinne R Leach; N Lynn Henry; Karen S Henry; Heather T Mackey; Rebecca L Cowens-Alvarado; Rachel S Cannady; Mandi L Pratt-Chapman; Stephen B Edge; Linda A Jacobs; Arti Hurria; Lawrence B Marks; Samuel J LaMonte; Ellen Warner; Gary H Lyman; Patricia A Ganz
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-12-07       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Cumulative Risk Distribution for Interval Invasive Second Breast Cancers After Negative Surveillance Mammography.

Authors:  Janie M Lee; Linn Abraham; Diana L Lam; Diana S M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti; Nehmat Houssami; Constance D Lehman; Louise M Henderson; Rebecca A Hubbard
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-05-02       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Mammography surveillance and mortality in older breast cancer survivors.

Authors:  Timothy L Lash; Matthew P Fox; Diana S M Buist; Feifei Wei; Terry S Field; Floyd J Frost; Ann M Geiger; Virginia P Quinn; Marianne Ulcickas Yood; Rebecca A Silliman
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-06-04       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Surveillance Breast MRI and Mammography: Comparison in Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Karen J Wernli; Laura Ichikawa; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Susan D Brandzel; Mary Bush; Dianne Johnson; Louise M Henderson; Larissa Nekhlyudov; Tracy Onega; Brian L Sprague; Janie M Lee; Constance D Lehman; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-06-04       Impact factor: 29.146

View more
  3 in total

1.  Identifying Effective Supplemental Screening Strategies for Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Christoph I Lee; Janie M Lee
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2020-02-25       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Digital Mammography and Breast Tomosynthesis Performance in Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer, 2007-2016.

Authors:  Janie M Lee; Laura E Ichikawa; Karen J Wernli; Erin Bowles; Jennifer M Specht; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti; Kathryn P Lowry; Anna N A Tosteson; Natasha K Stout; Nehmat Houssami; Tracy Onega; Diana S M Buist
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2021-05-18       Impact factor: 29.146

3.  Assessment of a Risk-Based Approach for Triaging Mammography Examinations During Periods of Reduced Capacity.

Authors:  Diana L Miglioretti; Michael C S Bissell; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Steven R Cummings; Louise M Henderson; Tracy Onega; Ellen S O'Meara; Garth H Rauscher; Brian L Sprague; Anna N A Tosteson; Karen J Wernli; Janie M Lee; Christoph I Lee
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-03-01
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.