Pragati Advani1, Shailesh Advani2, Pratibha Nayak3, Helena M VonVille4, Pamela Diamond5, Jason Burnett6, Abenaa M Brewster7, Sally W Vernon5. 1. Radiation Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7E-528, MSC 9778, Bethesda, MD, USA. pragati.advani@nih.gov. 2. Social Epidemiology Research Unit, Social Behavioral Research Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. 3. Population Health Science, Battelle Memorial Institute, Atlanta, GA, USA. 4. Library, School of Public Health, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. 5. Department of Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston School of Public Health, Houston, TX, USA. 6. Department of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA. 7. Department of Clinical Cancer Prevention, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increasing number of breast cancer survivors in the USA have led to greater focus on the long-term health outcomes and surveillance care among these women. However limited evidence exists of use of surveillance mammography among breast cancer survivors and how it varies across racial/ethnic groups. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature to explore disparities in use of surveillance mammogram among women breast cancer survivors by searching for relevant studies published between 2000 and 2020 from Medline (Ovid), PubMed (National Library of Medicine), and PsycINFO (Ovid) bibliographic databases. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts of all articles that reported surveillance mammography use across racial/ethnic groups. Data on study design, screening eligibility, sample size, operational definition, and/or measure of the use of a surveillance mammogram among breast cancer survivors and the association between race/ethnicity and use of a surveillance mammogram were summarized in the evidence tables. RESULTS: We identified 1544 records from the three databases, and 30 studies examined the use of surveillance mammograms among breast cancer survivors across race/ethnic groups. Of these, 21 provided adjusted estimates of racial/ethnic disparities in use of surveillance mammograms, and 15 of these reported statistically significant disparities. In summary, most studies reported that non-white women (mainly Blacks and Hispanics) were less likely to receive a timely surveillance mammogram compared to White. CONCLUSION: This study extends the evidence of racial/ethnic disparities beyond completion of initial treatment by finding similar disparities in receipt of surveillance mammograms among breast cancer survivors. IMPLICATION FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Our findings identify a need to improve efforts to increase post-treatment use of surveillance mammography among racial/ethnic minority women to reduce these gaps and improve overall clinical and quality of life outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Increasing number of breast cancer survivors in the USA have led to greater focus on the long-term health outcomes and surveillance care among these women. However limited evidence exists of use of surveillance mammography among breast cancer survivors and how it varies across racial/ethnic groups. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature to explore disparities in use of surveillance mammogram among women breast cancer survivors by searching for relevant studies published between 2000 and 2020 from Medline (Ovid), PubMed (National Library of Medicine), and PsycINFO (Ovid) bibliographic databases. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts of all articles that reported surveillance mammography use across racial/ethnic groups. Data on study design, screening eligibility, sample size, operational definition, and/or measure of the use of a surveillance mammogram among breast cancer survivors and the association between race/ethnicity and use of a surveillance mammogram were summarized in the evidence tables. RESULTS: We identified 1544 records from the three databases, and 30 studies examined the use of surveillance mammograms among breast cancer survivors across race/ethnic groups. Of these, 21 provided adjusted estimates of racial/ethnic disparities in use of surveillance mammograms, and 15 of these reported statistically significant disparities. In summary, most studies reported that non-white women (mainly Blacks and Hispanics) were less likely to receive a timely surveillance mammogram compared to White. CONCLUSION: This study extends the evidence of racial/ethnic disparities beyond completion of initial treatment by finding similar disparities in receipt of surveillance mammograms among breast cancer survivors. IMPLICATION FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Our findings identify a need to improve efforts to increase post-treatment use of surveillance mammography among racial/ethnic minority women to reduce these gaps and improve overall clinical and quality of life outcomes.
Authors: Chyke A Doubeni; Terry S Field; Marianne Ulcickas Yood; Sharon J Rolnick; Charles P Quessenberry; Hassan Fouayzi; Jerry H Gurwitz; Feifei Wei Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-06-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Caitlin C Murphy; L Kay Bartholomew; Melissa Y Carpentier; Shirley M Bluethmann; Sally W Vernon Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2012-06-12 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: James L Khatcheressian; Antonio C Wolff; Thomas J Smith; Eva Grunfeld; Hyman B Muss; Victor G Vogel; Francine Halberg; Mark R Somerfield; Nancy E Davidson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-10-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Nancy L Keating; Mary Beth Landrum; Edward Guadagnoli; Eric P Winer; John Z Ayanian Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-01-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Erica S Breslau; Diana D Jeffery; William W Davis; Richard P Moser; Timothy S McNeel; Sarah Hawley Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2009-11-02 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Terry S Field; Chyke Doubeni; Matthew P Fox; Diana S M Buist; Feifei Wei; Ann M Geiger; Virginia P Quinn; Timothy L Lash; Marianne N Prout; Marianne Ulcickas Yood; Floyd J Frost; Rebecca A Silliman Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-12-01 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: James L Khatcheressian; Patricia Hurley; Elissa Bantug; Laura J Esserman; Eva Grunfeld; Francine Halberg; Alexander Hantel; N Lynn Henry; Hyman B Muss; Thomas J Smith; Victor G Vogel; Antonio C Wolff; Mark R Somerfield; Nancy E Davidson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-11-05 Impact factor: 44.544