Literature DB >> 35712862

Diagnostic Mammography Performance across Racial and Ethnic Groups in a National Network of Community-Based Breast Imaging Facilities.

Sarah J Nyante1,2, Linn Abraham3, Erin J Aiello Bowles3, Christoph I Lee4,5, Karla Kerlikowske6,7,8, Diana L Miglioretti3,9, Brian L Sprague10, Louise M Henderson1,2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We evaluated differences in diagnostic mammography performance based on women's race/ethnicity.
METHODS: This cohort study included 267,868 diagnostic mammograms performed to evaluate screening mammogram findings at 98 facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium between 2005 and 2017. Mammogram assessments were recorded prospectively and breast cancers occurring within one year were ascertained. Performance statistics were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each racial/ethnic group. Multivariable regression was used to control for personal characteristics and imaging facility.
RESULTS: Among non-Hispanic White (70%), non-Hispanic Black (13%), Asian/Pacific Islander (10%), and Hispanic (7%) women, the invasive cancer detection rate (iCDR, per 1,000 mammograms) and positive predictive value (PPV2) were highest among non-Hispanic White women (iCDR, 35.8; 95% CI, 35.0-36.7; PPV2, 27.8; 95% CI, 27.3-28.3) and lowest among Hispanic women (iCDR, 22.3; 95% CI, 20.2-24.6; PPV2, 19.4; 95% CI, 18.0-20.9). Short interval follow-up recommendations were most common among non-Hispanic Black women [(31.0%; 95% CI, 30.6%-31.5%) vs. other groups, range, 16.6%-23.6%]. False-positive biopsy recommendations were most common among Asian/Pacific Islander women [per 1,000 mammograms: 169.2; 95% CI, 164.8-173.7) vs. other groups, range, 126.5-136.1]. Some differences were explained by adjusting for receipt of diagnostic ultrasound or MRI for iCDR and imaging facility for short-interval follow-up. Other differences changed little after adjustment.
CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic mammography performance varied across racial/ethnic groups. Addressing characteristics related to imaging facility and access, rather than personal characteristics, may help reduce some of these disparities. IMPACT: Diagnostic mammography performance studies should include racially and ethnically diverse populations to provide an accurate view of the population-level effects. ©2022 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35712862      PMCID: PMC9272467          DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-21-1379

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.090


  33 in total

1.  Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study.

Authors:  Lisa A Carey; Charles M Perou; Chad A Livasy; Lynn G Dressler; David Cowan; Kathleen Conway; Gamze Karaca; Melissa A Troester; Chiu Kit Tse; Sharon Edmiston; Sandra L Deming; Joseph Geradts; Maggie C U Cheang; Torsten O Nielsen; Patricia G Moorman; H Shelton Earp; Robert C Millikan
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2006-06-07       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 2.  Social determinants of Black-White disparities in breast cancer mortality: a review.

Authors:  Mary A Gerend; Manacy Pai
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 4.254

3.  Can mammography screening explain the race difference in stage at diagnosis of breast cancer?

Authors:  B A Jones; S V Kasl; M G Curnen; P H Owens; R Dubrow
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1995-04-15       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Differences in breast cancer stage at diagnosis and cancer-specific survival by race and ethnicity in the United States.

Authors:  Javaid Iqbal; Ophira Ginsburg; Paula A Rochon; Ping Sun; Steven A Narod
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2015-01-13       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  A comparison of PAM50 intrinsic subtyping with immunohistochemistry and clinical prognostic factors in tamoxifen-treated estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer.

Authors:  Torsten O Nielsen; Joel S Parker; Samuel Leung; David Voduc; Mark Ebbert; Tammi Vickery; Sherri R Davies; Jacqueline Snider; Inge J Stijleman; Jerry Reed; Maggie C U Cheang; Elaine R Mardis; Charles M Perou; Philip S Bernard; Matthew J Ellis
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2010-09-13       Impact factor: 12.531

6.  Racial and Ethnic Disparity in Symptomatic Breast Cancer Awareness despite a Recent Screen: The Role of Tumor Biology and Mammography Facility Characteristics.

Authors:  Mylove Mortel; Garth H Rauscher; Anne Marie Murphy; Kent Hoskins; Richard B Warnecke
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2015-07-21       Impact factor: 4.254

7.  Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practice.

Authors:  Ian R White; Patrick Royston; Angela M Wood
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2010-11-30       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Breast Density and Benign Breast Disease: Risk Assessment to Identify Women at High Risk of Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Jeffrey A Tice; Diana L Miglioretti; Chin-Shang Li; Celine M Vachon; Charlotte C Gard; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-08-17       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis (3D mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D mammography compared with 2D mammography alone (STORM-2): a population-based prospective study.

Authors:  Daniela Bernardi; Petra Macaskill; Marco Pellegrini; Marvi Valentini; Carmine Fantò; Livio Ostillio; Paolina Tuttobene; Andrea Luparia; Nehmat Houssami
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2016-06-23       Impact factor: 41.316

10.  Racial differences in timeliness of follow-up after abnormal screening mammography.

Authors:  S W Chang; K Kerlikowske; A Nápoles-Springer; S F Posner; E A Sickles; E J Pérez-Stable
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1996-10-01       Impact factor: 6.860

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.