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. 1. Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington. Electronic address: diana.s.buist@kp.org. 2. Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington. 4. Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 5. Departments of Medicine and Epidemiology and Biostatistics, General Internal Medicine Section, Department of Veterans Affairs, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 6. Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; University of California, Davis, Department of Public Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Davis, California. 7. Division of Medical Oncology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington. 8. University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health, Chicago, Illinois. 9. University of Vermont College of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Burlington, Vermont. 10. The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice and Department of Biomedical Data Science, Department of Medicine, and Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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