Changes in access to screening mammography, 2008-2011

Social determinants of health and health inequities in breast cancer screening: a scoping review

Introduction

This scoping review aims to highlight key social determinants of health associated with breast cancer screening behavior in United States women aged ≥40  years old, identify public and private databases with SDOH data at city, state, and national levels, and share lessons learned from United States based observational studies in addressing SDOH in underserved women influencing breast cancer screening behaviors.

Methods

The Arksey and O'Malley York methodology was used as guidance for this review: (1) identifying research questions; (2) searching for relevant studies; (3) selecting studies relevant to the research questions; (4) charting the data; and (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting results.

Results

The 72 included studies were published between 2013 and 2023. Among the various SDOH identified, those related to socioeconomic status (n = 96) exhibited the highest frequency. The Health Care Access and Quality category was reported in the highest number of studies (n = 44; 61%), showing its statistical significance in relation to access to mammography. Insurance status was the most reported sub-categorical factor of Health Care Access and Quality.

Discussion

Results may inform future evidence-based interventions aiming to address the underlying factors contributing to low screening rates for breast cancer in the United States.

The Effect of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Adoption on Facility-Level Breast Cancer Screening Volume

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine whether digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) adoption was associated with a decrease in screening mammography capacity across Breast Cancer Screening Consortium facilities, given concerns about increasing imaging and interpretation times associated with DBT.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Facility characteristics and examination volume data were collected prospectively from Breast Cancer Screening Consortium facilities that adopted DBT between 2011 and 2014. Interrupted time series analyses using Poisson regression models in which facility was considered a random effect were used to evaluate differences between monthly screening volumes during the 12-month preadoption period and the 12-month postadoption period (with the two periods separated by a 3-month lag) and to test for changes in month-to-month facility-level screening volume during the preadoption and postadoption periods.

RESULTS

Across five regional breast imaging registries, 15 of 83 facilities (18.1%) adopted DBT for screening between 2011 and 2014. Most had no academic affiliation (73.3% [11/15]), were nonprofit (80.0% [12/15]), and were general radiology practices (66.7% [10/15]). Facility-level monthly screening volumes were slightly higher during the postadoption versus preadoption periods (relative risk [RR], 1.09; 95% CI, 1.06-1.11). Monthly screening volumes remained relatively stable within the preadoption period (RR, 1.00 per month; 95% CI 1.00-1.01 per month) and the postadoption period (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 1.00-1.01 per month).

CONCLUSION

In a cohort of facilities with varied characteristics, monthly screening examination volumes did not decrease after DBT adoption.

Addressing Potential Health Disparities in the Adoption of Advanced Breast Imaging Technologies

With the advent of new screening technologies, including digital breast tomosynthesis, screening ultrasound, and breast magnetic resonance imaging, there is growing concern that existing disparities among traditionally underserved populations will worsen. These newer screening modalities purport improved cancer detection over mammography alone but are not offered at all screening facilities and often require a larger co-pay or out-of-pocket expense. Thus, the potential for worsening disparities with regard to access and appropriate utilization of supplemental screening technologies exists. Currently, there is a dearth of literature on the topic of health disparities related to access and the use of supplemental breast cancer screening and their impact on outcomes. Identifying and addressing explanatory factors for persistent and potentially worsening disparities remain a central focus of efforts to improve equity in breast cancer care. Therefore, this paper provides an overview of factors that may contribute to present and future disparities in breast cancer screening and outcomes, and explores specific relevant topics requiring greater research efforts as more personalized, multimodality breast cancer screening approaches are adopted into clinical practice.

Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Average Risk: 2015 Guideline Update From the American Cancer Society

IMPORTANCE

Breast cancer is a leading cause of premature mortality among US women. Early detection has been shown to be associated with reduced breast cancer morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To update the American Cancer Society (ACS) 2003 breast cancer screening guideline for women at average risk for breast cancer.

PROCESS

The ACS commissioned a systematic evidence review of the breast cancer screening literature to inform the update and a supplemental analysis of mammography registry data to address questions related to the screening interval. Formulation of recommendations was based on the quality of the evidence and judgment (incorporating values and preferences) about the balance of benefits and harms.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Screening mammography in women aged 40 to 69 years is associated with a reduction in breast cancer deaths across a range of study designs, and inferential evidence supports breast cancer screening for women 70 years and older who are in good health. Estimates of the cumulative lifetime risk of false-positive examination results are greater if screening begins at younger ages because of the greater number of mammograms, as well as the higher recall rate in younger women. The quality of the evidence for overdiagnosis is not sufficient to estimate a lifetime risk with confidence. Analysis examining the screening interval demonstrates more favorable tumor characteristics when premenopausal women are screened annually vs biennially. Evidence does not support routine clinical breast examination as a screening method for women at average risk.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The ACS recommends that women with an average risk of breast cancer should undergo regular screening mammography starting at age 45 years (strong recommendation). Women aged 45 to 54 years should be screened annually (qualified recommendation). Women 55 years and older should transition to biennial screening or have the opportunity to continue screening annually (qualified recommendation). Women should have the opportunity to begin annual screening between the ages of 40 and 44 years (qualified recommendation). Women should continue screening mammography as long as their overall health is good and they have a life expectancy of 10 years or longer (qualified recommendation). The ACS does not recommend clinical breast examination for breast cancer screening among average-risk women at any age (qualified recommendation).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These updated ACS guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for breast cancer screening for women at average risk of breast cancer. These recommendations should be considered by physicians and women in discussions about breast cancer screening.

Changes in the availability of screening mammography, 2000-2010

BACKGROUND

Rates of screening mammography have plateaued, and the number of mammography facilities has declined in the past decade. The objective of this study was to assess changes over time and geographic disparities in the availability of mammography services.

METHODS

Using information from the US Food and Drug Administration and the US Census, county-level mammography capacity was defined as the number of mammography machines per 10,000 women aged ≥ 40 years. Cross-sectional variation and longitudinal changes in capacity were examined in relation to county characteristics.

RESULTS

Between 2000 and 2010, the number of mammography facilities declined 10% from 9434 to 8469, the number of mammography machines declined 10% from 13,100 to 11,762, and the median county mammography capacity decreased nearly 20% from 1.77 to 1.42 machines per 10,000 women aged ≥ 40 years. In cross-sectional analysis, counties with greater percentages of uninsured residents, less educated residents, greater population density, and higher managed care penetration had lower mammography capacity. Conversely, counties with more hospital beds per 100,000 population had higher capacity. High initial mammography capacity, growth in both the percentage of the population aged ≥ 65 years and the percentage living in poverty, and increased managed care penetration were all associated with a decrease in mammography capacity between 2000 and 2010. Only the percentage of rural residents was associated with an increase in capacity.

CONCLUSIONS

Geographic variation in mammography capacity and declines in capacity over time are associated with demographic, socioeconomic, and health care market characteristics. Maldistribution of mammography resources may explain geographic disparities in breast cancer screening rates.