Literature DB >> 9747869

Diagnostic testing following screening mammography in the elderly.

H G Welch1, E S Fisher.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To provide some sense of the general frequency and timing of diagnostic testing following screening mammography in the United States, we investigated the experience of women screened in the Medicare population.
METHODS: By use of Medicare's National Claims History System, we identified a cohort (n=23172) of women 65 years old or older screened during the period from January 1, 1995, through April 30, 1995, and tracked each woman over the subsequent 8 months for the performance of additional breast imaging and biopsy procedures. Using two claims-based definitions for newly detected breast cancer, we also estimated the positive predictive value of screening mammography.
RESULTS: For every 1000 women aged 65-69 years who underwent screening, 85 (95% confidence interval [CI]=79-91) had follow-up testing in the subsequent 8 months; 76 (95% CI=71-82) had additional breast imaging, and 23 (95% CI=20-26) had biopsy procedures. Corresponding numbers for women aged 70 years or more were similar. Some women underwent repeated examinations; 13% of those receiving diagnostic mammograms had more than one; 11% of those undergoing biopsy procedures had more than one. About half of the women who underwent a biopsy had the procedure more than 3 weeks after the imaging test upon which the decision to perform a biopsy was presumably made. The estimated positive predictive value of an abnormal screening mammogram (defined as a mammogram that engendered additional testing) was 0.08 (95% CI=0.06-0.10) for women aged 65-69 years and 0.14 (95% CI=0.12-0.16) for women aged 70 years or more.
CONCLUSION: Additional testing is a frequent consequence of screening mammography and may require a considerable period of time to come to closure. The need for additional testing, however, is weakly predictive of cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9747869     DOI: 10.1093/jnci/90.18.1389

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  13 in total

1.  Using semi-Markov processes to study timeliness and tests used in the diagnostic evaluation of suspected breast cancer.

Authors:  R A Hubbard; J Lange; Y Zhang; B A Salim; J R Stroud; L Y T Inoue
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2016-07-21       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Identification of abnormal screening mammogram interpretation using Medicare claims data.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Weiwei Zhu; Steven Balch; Tracy Onega; Joshua J Fenton
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-06-28       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  Integrating age and comorbidity to assess screening mammography utilization.

Authors:  Alai Tan; Yong-Fang Kuo; James S Goodwin
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 5.043

4.  Linking the Iowa Women's Health Study cohort to Medicare data: linkage results and application to hip fracture.

Authors:  Beth Virnig; Sara B Durham; Aaron R Folsom; James Cerhan
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2010-06-23       Impact factor: 4.897

5.  Increased patient concern after false-positive mammograms: clinician documentation and subsequent ambulatory visits.

Authors:  M B Barton; S Moore; S Polk; E Shtatland; J G Elmore; S W Fletcher
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Screening mammography for frail older women: what are the burdens?

Authors:  L C Walter; C Eng; K E Covinsky
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Older women's experience with a benign breast biopsy—a mixed methods study.

Authors:  Mara A Schonberg; Rebecca A Silliman; Long H Ngo; Robyn L Birdwell; Valerie Fein-Zachary; Jessica Donato; Edward R Marcantonio
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2014-08-20       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Breast Cancer Screening in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Lung and Colorectal Cancer: A Population-Based Study of Utilization.

Authors:  Gelareh Sadigh; Ruth C Carlos; Kevin C Ward; Jeffrey M Switchenko; Renjian Jiang; Kimberly E Applegate; Richard Duszak
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2017-03-17       Impact factor: 5.532

9.  Diagnostic imaging and biopsy pathways following abnormal screen-film and digital screening mammography.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Weiwei Zhu; Ruslan Horblyuk; Leah Karliner; Brian L Sprague; Louise Henderson; David Lee; Tracy Onega; Diana S M Buist; Alison Sweet
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2013-03-08       Impact factor: 4.872

10.  Using Medicare data to estimate the prevalence of breast cancer screening in older women: comparison of different methods to identify screening mammograms.

Authors:  Whitney M Randolph; Jonathan D Mahnken; James S Goodwin; Jean L Freeman
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.402

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.