Validation of self-reported post-treatment mammography surveillance among breast cancer survivors by electronic medical record extraction method

Comparison of health information exchange data with self-report in measuring cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Efficient measurement of the receipt of cancer screening has been attempted with electronic health records (EHRs), but EHRs are commonly implemented within a single health care setting. However, health information exchange (HIE) includes EHR data from multiple health care systems and settings, thereby providing a more population-based measurement approach. In this study, we set out to understand the value of statewide HIE data in comparison to survey self-report (SR) to measure population-based cancer screening.

METHODS

A statewide survey was conducted among residents in Indiana who had been seen at an ambulatory or inpatient clinical setting in the past year. Measured cancer screening tests included colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for colorectal cancer, human papilloma virus (HPV) and Pap tests for cervical cancer, and mammogram for breast cancer. For each screening test, the self-reported response for receipt of the screening (yes/no) and 'time since last screening' were compared with the corresponding information from patient HIE to evaluate the concordance between the two measures.

RESULTS

Gwet's AC for HIE and self-report of screening receipt ranged from 0.24-0.73, indicating a fair to substantial concordance. For the time since receipt of last screening test, the Gwet's AC ranged from 0.21-0.90, indicating fair to almost perfect concordance. In comparison with SR data, HIE data provided relatively more additional information about laboratory-based tests: FIT (19% HIE alone vs. 4% SR alone) and HPV tests (27% HIE alone vs. 12% SR alone) and less additional information about procedures: colonoscopy (8% HIE alone vs. 23% SR alone), Pap test (13% HIE alone vs. 19% SR alone), or mammography (9% HIE alone vs. 10% SR alone).

CONCLUSION

Studies that use a single data source should consider the type of cancer screening test to choose the optimal data collection method. HIE and self-report both provided unique information in measuring cancer screening, and the most robust measurement approach involves collecting screening information from both HIE and patient self-report.

Examining the Association of Food Insecurity and Being Up-to-Date for Breast and Colorectal Cancer Screenings

BACKGROUND

Food insecurity (FI) has been associated with poor access to health care. It is unclear whether this association is beyond that predicted by income, education, and health insurance. FI may serve as a target for intervention given the many programs designed to ameliorate FI. We examined the association of FI with being up-to-date to colorectal cancer and breast cancer screening guidelines.

METHODS

Nine NCI-designated cancer centers surveyed adults in their catchment areas using demographic items and a two-item FI questionnaire. For the colorectal cancer screening sample (n = 4,816), adults ages 50-75 years who reported having a stool test in the past year or a colonoscopy in the past 10 years were considered up-to-date. For the breast cancer screening sample (n = 2,449), female participants ages 50-74 years who reported having a mammogram in the past 2 years were up-to-date. We used logistic regression to examine the association between colorectal cancer or breast cancer screening status and FI, adjusting for race/ethnicity, income, education, health insurance, and other sociodemographic covariates.

RESULTS

The prevalence of FI was 18.2% and 21.6% among colorectal cancer and breast cancer screening participants, respectively. For screenings, 25.6% of colorectal cancer and 34.1% of breast cancer participants were not up-to-date. In two separate adjusted models, FI was significantly associated with lower odds of being up-to-date with colorectal cancer screening [OR, 0.7; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.5-0.99)] and breast cancer screening (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.4-0.96).

CONCLUSIONS

FI was inversely associated with being up-to-date for colorectal cancer and breast cancer screening.

IMPACT

Future studies should combine FI and cancer screening interventions to improve screening rates.

Validity of self-reported mammography uptake in the Belgian health interview survey: selection and reporting bias

BACKGROUND

The validity of self-reported mammography uptake is often questioned. We assessed the related selection and reporting biases among women aged 50-69 years in the Belgian Health Interview Survey (BHIS) using reimbursement data for mammography stemming from the Belgian Compulsory Health Insurance organizations (BCHI).

METHODS

Individual BHIS 2013 data (n = 1040) were linked to BCHI data 2010-13 (BHIS-BCHI sample). Being reimbursed for mammography within the last 2-years was used as the gold standard. Selection bias was assessed by comparing BHIS estimates reimbursement rates in BHIS-BCHI with similar estimates from the Echantillon Permanent/Permanente Steekproef (EPS), a random sample of BCHI data, while reporting bias was investigated by comparing self-reported versus reimbursement information in the BHIS-BCHI. Reporting bias was further explored through measures of agreement and logistic regression.

RESULTS

Mammography uptake rates based on self-reported information and reimbursement from the BHIS-BCHI were 75.5% and 69.8%, respectively. In the EPS, it was 64.1%. The validity is significantly affected by both selection bias {relative size = 8.93% [95% confidence interval (CI): 3.21-14.64]} and reporting bias [relative size = 8.22% (95% CI: 0.76-15.68)]. Sensitivity was excellent (93.7%), while the specificity was fair (66.4%). The agreement was moderate (kappa = 0.63). Women born in non-EU countries (OR = 2.81, 95% CI: 1.54-5.13), with high household income (OR = 1.27, 95% CI: 1.02-1.60) and those reporting poor perceived health (OR = 1.41, 95% CI: 1.14-1.73) were more likely to inaccurately report their mammography uptake.

CONCLUSIONS

The validity of self-reported mammography uptake in women aged 50-69 years is affected by both selection and reporting bias. Both administrative and survey data are complementary when assessing mammography uptake.

Improving Screening Uptake among Breast Cancer Survivors and Their First-Degree Relatives at Elevated Risk to Breast Cancer: Results and Implications of a Randomized Study in the State of Georgia

Women diagnosed with breast cancer at a relatively early age (≤45 years) or with bilateral disease at any age are at elevated risk for additional breast cancer, as are their female first-degree relatives (FDRs). We report on a randomized trial to increase adherence to mammography screening guidelines among survivors and FDRs. From the Georgia Cancer Registry, breast cancer survivors diagnosed during 2000–2009 at six Georgia cancer centers underwent phone interviews about their breast cancer screening behaviors and their FDRs. Nonadherent survivors and FDRs meeting all inclusion criteria were randomized to high-intensity (evidence-based brochure, phone counseling, mailed reminders, and communications with primary care providers) or low-intensity interventions (brochure only). Three and 12-month follow-up questionnaires were completed. Data analyses used standard statistical approaches. Among 1055 survivors and 287 FDRs who were located, contacted, and agreed to participate, 59.5% and 62.7%, respectively, reported breast cancer screening in the past 12 months and were thus ineligible. For survivors enrolled at baseline (N = 95), the proportion reporting adherence to guideline screening by 12 months post-enrollment was similar in the high and low-intensity arms (66.7% vs. 79.2%, p = 0.31). Among FDRs enrolled at baseline (N = 83), screening was significantly higher in the high-intensity arm at 12 months (60.9% vs. 32.4%, p = 0.03). Overall, about 72% of study-eligible survivors (all of whom were screening nonadherent at baseline) reported screening within 12 months of study enrollment. For enrolled FDRs receiving the high-intensity intervention, over 60% reported guideline screening by 12 months. A major conclusion is that using high-quality central cancer registries to identify high-risk breast cancer survivors and then working closely with these survivors to identify their FDRs represents a feasible and effective strategy to promote guideline cancer screening.

Promoting Breast Cancer Surveillance: The EMPOWER Study, a Randomized Clinical Trial in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study

PURPOSE

The aim of the current study was to increase the uptake of screening mammography among high-risk women who were treated for a childhood cancer with chest radiotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Two hundred four female survivors in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study who were treated with chest radiotherapy with 20 Gy or greater, age 25 to 50 years, and without breast imaging in the past 24 months were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive a mailed informational packet followed by a tailored telephone-delivered brief motivational interview (intervention) versus an attention control. Primary outcome was the difference in the proportion of participants who completed a screening mammogram by 12 months as evaluated in an intent-to-treat analysis. Stratum-adjusted relative risk (RR) and 95% CI were estimated using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method. Secondary outcomes included the completion of screening breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and barriers to screening and moderating factors.

RESULTS

Women in the intervention group were significantly more likely than those in the control group to report a mammogram (45 [33.1%] of 136 v 12 [17.6%] of 68; RR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1 to 3.3). The intervention was more successful among women age 25 to 39 years (RR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.1 to 4.7) than among those age 40 to 50 years (RR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.6 to 3.2). The proportion of women who reported a breast MRI at 12 months was similar between the two groups: 16.2% (intervention) compared with 13.2% (control; RR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.6 to 2.5). Primary barriers to completing a screening mammogram and/or breast MRI included lack of physician recommendation, deferred action by survivor, cost, and absence of symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Use of mailed materials followed by telephone-delivered counseling increased mammography screening rates in survivors at high risk for breast cancer; however, this approach did not increase the rate of breast MRI. Cost of imaging and physician recommendation were important barriers that should be addressed in future studies.

Validity and reliability of self-reported health indicators among women attending organized mammographic screening

AIMS

Risk factors for breast cancer are often used for adjustment in epidemiological studies, including in the evaluation of early performance measures in mammographic screening. Information about risk factors among participants in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program has been collected since 2006. We aimed to examine the validity of self-reported history of breast cancer and mammographic screening, as well as the reliability of weight and height amongt women attending the program.

METHODS

Information from a questionnaire handed in by participants in the program, 2006-2015, was linked to outcomes from the Cancer Registry of Norway. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values (PPV) were calculated for self-reported histories of breast cancer and screening. Results were stratified by five-year age groups and evaluated using the χ² statistic. The reliability of self-reported weight and height were assessed using descriptive statistics, histograms, and mean differences.

RESULTS

A total of 538,907 of 611,711 (88%) women attending the program during the study period returned at least one part of the questionnaire. The overall sensitivity, specificity, and PPV for breast cancer and mammography were 96.5%, 99.8%, and 81.3%; and 99.9%, 84.4%, and 97.6% respectively. The mean difference in self-reported weight was 0.35 kg and for height was -0.14 cm, over a period of up to 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Norwegian women attending the screening program are reasonably accurate in self-reporting their breast cancer and mammography histories. On average, women consistently reported weight and height within one kg/cm.