1
|
Henderson JT, Webber EM, Weyrich MS, Miller M, Melnikow J. Screening for Breast Cancer: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA 2024; 331:1931-1946. [PMID: 38687490 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2023.25844] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/02/2024]
Abstract
Importance Breast cancer is a leading cause of cancer mortality for US women. Trials have established that screening mammography can reduce mortality risk, but optimal screening ages, intervals, and modalities for population screening guidelines remain unclear. Objective To review studies comparing different breast cancer screening strategies for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources MEDLINE, Cochrane Library through August 22, 2022; literature surveillance through March 2024. Study Selection English-language publications; randomized clinical trials and nonrandomized studies comparing screening strategies; expanded criteria for screening harms. Data Extraction and Synthesis Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility and quality; data extracted from fair- and good-quality studies. Main Outcomes and Measures Mortality, morbidity, progression to advanced cancer, interval cancers, screening harms. Results Seven randomized clinical trials and 13 nonrandomized studies were included; 2 nonrandomized studies reported mortality outcomes. A nonrandomized trial emulation study estimated no mortality difference for screening beyond age 74 years (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.83 to 1.19]). Advanced cancer detection did not differ following annual or biennial screening intervals in a nonrandomized study. Three trials compared digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) mammography screening with digital mammography alone. With DBT, more invasive cancers were detected at the first screening round than with digital mammography, but there were no statistically significant differences in interval cancers (pooled relative risk, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.64-1.17]; 3 studies [n = 130 196]; I2 = 0%). Risk of advanced cancer (stage II or higher) at the subsequent screening round was not statistically significant for DBT vs digital mammography in the individual trials. Limited evidence from trials and nonrandomized studies suggested lower recall rates with DBT. An RCT randomizing individuals with dense breasts to invitations for supplemental screening with magnetic resonance imaging reported reduced interval cancer risk (relative risk, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.29-0.77]) and additional false-positive recalls and biopsy results with the intervention; no longer-term advanced breast cancer incidence or morbidity and mortality outcomes were available. One RCT and 1 nonrandomized study of supplemental ultrasound screening reported additional false-positives and no differences in interval cancers. Conclusions and Relevance Evidence comparing the effectiveness of different breast cancer screening strategies is inconclusive because key studies have not yet been completed and few studies have reported the stage shift or mortality outcomes necessary to assess relative benefits.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jillian T Henderson
- Kaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, Center for Health Research, Portland, Oregon
| | - Elizabeth M Webber
- Kaiser Permanente Evidence-based Practice Center, Center for Health Research, Portland, Oregon
| | - Meghan S Weyrich
- University of California Davis Center for Healthcare Policy and Research, Sacramento
| | - Marykate Miller
- University of California Davis Center for Healthcare Policy and Research, Sacramento
| | - Joy Melnikow
- University of California Davis Center for Healthcare Policy and Research, Sacramento
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Nicholson WK, Silverstein M, Wong JB, Barry MJ, Chelmow D, Coker TR, Davis EM, Jaén CR, Krousel-Wood M, Lee S, Li L, Mangione CM, Rao G, Ruiz JM, Stevermer JJ, Tsevat J, Underwood SM, Wiehe S. Screening for Breast Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA 2024; 331:1918-1930. [PMID: 38687503 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2024.5534] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/02/2024]
Abstract
Importance Among all US women, breast cancer is the second most common cancer and the second most common cause of cancer death. In 2023, an estimated 43 170 women died of breast cancer. Non-Hispanic White women have the highest incidence of breast cancer and non-Hispanic Black women have the highest mortality rate. Objective The USPSTF commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of different mammography-based breast cancer screening strategies by age to start and stop screening, screening interval, modality, use of supplemental imaging, or personalization of screening for breast cancer on the incidence of and progression to advanced breast cancer, breast cancer morbidity, and breast cancer-specific or all-cause mortality, and collaborative modeling studies to complement the evidence from the review. Population Cisgender women and all other persons assigned female at birth aged 40 years or older at average risk of breast cancer. Evidence Assessment The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that biennial screening mammography in women aged 40 to 74 years has a moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to determine the balance of benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older and the balance of benefits and harms of supplemental screening for breast cancer with breast ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), regardless of breast density. Recommendation The USPSTF recommends biennial screening mammography for women aged 40 to 74 years. (B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of supplemental screening for breast cancer using breast ultrasonography or MRI in women identified to have dense breasts on an otherwise negative screening mammogram. (I statement).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - John B Wong
- Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
| | | | | | | | - Esa M Davis
- University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore
| | | | | | - Sei Lee
- University of California, San Francisco
| | - Li Li
- University of Virginia, Charlottesville
| | | | - Goutham Rao
- Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio
| | | | | | - Joel Tsevat
- The University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Zhang J, McGuinness JE, He X, Jones T, Silverman T, Guzman A, May BL, Kukafka R, Crew KD. Breast Cancer Risk and Screening Mammography Frequency Among Multiethnic Women. Am J Prev Med 2023; 64:51-60. [PMID: 36137818 DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2022.08.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/30/2022] [Revised: 07/19/2022] [Accepted: 08/02/2022] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION In 2009, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force updated recommended mammography screening frequency from annual to biennial for average-risk women aged 50-74 years. The association between estimated breast cancer risk and mammography screening frequency was evaluated. METHODS A single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted among racially/ethnically diverse women, aged 50-74 years, who underwent screening mammography from 2014 to 2018. Data on age, race/ethnicity, first-degree family history of breast cancer, previous benign breast biopsies, and mammographic density were extracted from the electronic health record to calculate Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium 5-year risk of invasive breast cancer, with a 5-year risk ≥1.67% defined as high risk. Multivariable analyses were conducted to determine the association between breast cancer risk factors and mammography screening frequency (annual versus biennial). Data were analyzed from 2020 to 2022. RESULTS Among 12,929 women with a mean age of 61±6.9 years, 82.7% underwent annual screening mammography, and 30.7% met high-risk criteria for breast cancer. Hispanic women were more likely to screen annually than non-Hispanic Whites (85.0% vs 79.8%, respectively), despite fewer meeting high-risk criteria. In multivariable analyses adjusting for breast cancer risk factors, high- versus low/average-risk women (OR=1.17; 95% CI=1.04, 1.32) and Hispanic versus non-Hispanic White women (OR=1.46; 95% CI=1.29, 1.65) were more likely to undergo annual mammography. CONCLUSIONS A majority of women continue to undergo annual screening mammography despite only a minority meeting high-risk criteria, and Hispanic women were more likely to screen annually despite lower overall breast cancer risk. Future studies should focus on the implementation of risk-stratified breast cancer screening strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jingwen Zhang
- Department of Medicine, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, New York
| | - Julia E McGuinness
- Department of Medicine, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, New York; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University, New York, New York.
| | - Xin He
- Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York
| | - Tarsha Jones
- Christine E. Lynn College of Nursing, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida
| | - Thomas Silverman
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, New York
| | - Ashlee Guzman
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, New York
| | - Benjamin L May
- Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University, New York, New York
| | - Rita Kukafka
- Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University, New York, New York; Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, New York; Department of Sociomedical Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York
| | - Katherine D Crew
- Department of Medicine, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, New York; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University, New York, New York; Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Crew KD, Bhatkhande G, Silverman T, Amenta J, Jones T, McGuinness JE, Mata J, Guzman A, He T, Dimond J, Tsai WY, Kukafka R. Patient and Provider Web-Based Decision Support for Breast Cancer Chemoprevention: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2022; 15:689-700. [PMID: 35679576 PMCID: PMC9532364 DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.capr-22-0013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/06/2022] [Revised: 05/09/2022] [Accepted: 06/06/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Significant underutilization of breast cancer chemoprevention remains, despite guidelines stating that physicians should recommend chemoprevention with antiestrogen therapy to high-risk women. We randomized women, ages 35 to 75 years, who met high-risk criteria for breast cancer, without a personal history of breast cancer or prior chemoprevention use, to standard educational materials alone or combined with a web-based decision aid. All healthcare providers, including primary care providers and breast specialists, were given access to a web-based decision support tool. The primary endpoint was chemoprevention uptake at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included decision antecedents (perceived breast cancer risk/worry, chemoprevention knowledge, self-efficacy) and decision quality (decision conflict, chemoprevention informed choice) based upon patient surveys administered at baseline, 1 and 6 months after randomization. Among 282 evaluable high-risk women enrolled from November 2016 to March 2020, mean age was 57 years (SD, 9.9) and mean 5-year invasive breast cancer risk was 2.98% (SD, 1.42). There was no significant difference in chemoprevention uptake at 6 months between the intervention and control groups (2.1% vs. 3.5%). Comparing the intervention and control arms at 1 month, there were significant differences among high-risk women in accurate breast cancer risk perceptions (56% vs. 39%, P = 0.017), adequate chemoprevention knowledge (49% vs. 27%, P < 0.001), mean decision conflict (34.0 vs. 47.0, P < 0.001), and informed choice (41% vs. 23%, P = 0.003). These differences were no longer significant at 6 months. Although our decision support tools did not result in a significant increase in chemoprevention uptake, we did observe improvements in decision antecedents and decision quality measures. PREVENTION RELEVANCE In this randomized controlled trial of decision support for 300 high-risk women and 50 healthcare providers, we did not observe a significant increase in chemoprevention uptake, which remained low at under 5%. However, these decision support tools may increase knowledge and informed choice about breast cancer chemoprevention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katherine D. Crew
- Department of Medicine, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY
- Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY
- Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY
| | - Gauri Bhatkhande
- Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY
| | - Thomas Silverman
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY
| | - Jacquelyn Amenta
- Department of Medicine, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY
| | - Tarsha Jones
- Christine E. Lynn College of Nursing, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL
| | - Julia E. McGuinness
- Department of Medicine, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY
- Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY
| | - Jennie Mata
- Department of Medicine, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY
- Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY
| | - Ashlee Guzman
- Department of Medicine, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY
- Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY
| | - Ting He
- Department of Biomedical Informatics and Data Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
| | | | - Wei-Yann Tsai
- Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY
- Department of Biostatistics, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY
| | - Rita Kukafka
- Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY
- Department of Sociomedical Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Ochi T, Tsunoda H, Yamauchi H, Takahashi O. Impact of childbirth history on dense breast in mammographic screening: a cross-sectional study. BMC Womens Health 2022; 22:194. [PMID: 35619123 PMCID: PMC9137205 DOI: 10.1186/s12905-022-01772-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/16/2022] [Accepted: 05/17/2022] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The evaluation of breast density is important, because dense breast has been shown to be associated with increased risk of breast cancer and a greater risk of a false-negative diagnostic performance due to masking a tumor. Although the relationship between parity and dense breast is under investigation, conclusive evidence is lacking. We aimed to investigate whether parity affects breast density. Methods The study design is a cross-sectional study. The subjects are healthy Japanese women who underwent opportunistic mammographic screening at the center for preventive medicine at a single institution from January 2016 to December 2018. Clinical characteristics and lifestyle factors were obtained from questionnaires. Breast density was categorized into 4 groups, namely, almost entirely fatty dense, scattered fibroglandular dense, heterogeneously dense, and extremely dense, according to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Heterogeneously and extremely dense were considered collectively as dense breast. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to investigate the relationship between parity and dense breast among premenopausal and postmenopausal women separately. Results 7612 premenopausal and 9252 postmenopausal women were investigated. Dense breast was shown in 62.6% of nulliparity, 57.3% of single parity, 47.3% of two parity, 37.6% of more than two parity among premenopausal women, and in 41.6% of nulliparity, 31.1% of single parity, 19.3% of two parity, 10.1% of more than two parity among postmenopausal women. For premenopausal women, two parity, single parity and nulliparity showed a higher risk for dense breast with statistically significance (Odds Ratio (OR) adjusted for potential confounding factors: 1.458 (95% Confidence interval (CI); 1.123–1.894), 2.349 (95%CI; 1.801–3.064), 3.222 (95%CI; 2.500–4.151), respectively), compared with more than two parity. For postmenopausal women, two parity, single parity and nulliparity had a higher risk (OR: 1.849 (95%CI; 1.479–2.312), 3.023 (95%CI; 2.385–3.830), 4.954 (95%CI; 3.975–6.174), respectively) with statistically significance, compared with more than two parity. Conclusions Parity showed an inverse trend of having dense breast among both premenopausal and postmenopausal women. In particular, nulliparous women need to recognize their higher risk of dense breast. In the future, the declining fertility rate may affect the prevalence of dense breast in the world.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tomohiro Ochi
- Graduate School of Public Health, St. Luke's International University, 10-1 Akashi-cho, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0044, Japan. .,Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, St. Luke's International Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. .,Department of Breast Surgery and Oncology, Nippon Medical School Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
| | - Hiroko Tsunoda
- Department of Radiology, St. Luke's International Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Hideko Yamauchi
- Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, St. Luke's International Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Osamu Takahashi
- Graduate School of Public Health, St. Luke's International University, 10-1 Akashi-cho, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0044, Japan.,Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, St. Luke's International Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
McGuinness JE, Bhatkhande G, Amenta J, Silverman T, Mata J, Guzman A, He T, Dimond J, Jones T, Kukafka R, Crew KD. Strategies to Identify and Recruit Women at High Risk for Breast Cancer to a Randomized Controlled Trial of Web-based Decision Support Tools. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2022; 15:399-406. [PMID: 35412592 DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.capr-21-0593] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/05/2021] [Revised: 02/03/2022] [Accepted: 03/28/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
We evaluated strategies to identify and recruit a racially/ethnically diverse cohort of women at high-risk for breast cancer to a randomized controlled trial (RCT). We enrolled 300 high-risk women and 50 healthcare providers to a RCT of standard educational materials alone or in combination with web-based decision support tools. We implemented five strategies to identify high-risk women: (i) recruitment among patients previously enrolled in a study evaluating breast cancer risk; (ii) automated breast cancer risk calculation using information extracted from the electronic health record (EHR); (iii) identification of women with atypical hyperplasia or lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) using International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9/10 diagnostic codes; (iv) clinical encounters with enrolled healthcare providers; (v) recruitment flyers/online resources. Breast cancer risk was calculated using either the Gail or Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) models. We identified 6,229 high-risk women and contacted 3,459 (56%), of whom 17.2% were identified from prior study cohort, 37.5% through EHR risk information, 14.8% with atypical hyperplasia/LCIS, 29.0% by clinical encounters, and 1.5% through recruitment flyers. Women from the different recruitment sources varied by age and 5-year invasive breast cancer risk. Of 300 enrolled high-risk women, 44.7% came from clinical encounters and 27.3% from prior study cohort. Comparing enrolled with not-enrolled participants, there were significant differences in mean age (57.2 vs. 59.1 years), proportion of non-Whites (41.5% vs. 54.8%), and mean 5-year breast cancer risk (3.0% vs. 2.3%). We identified and successfully recruited diverse high-risk women from multiple sources. These strategies may be implemented in future breast cancer chemoprevention trials. PREVENTION RELEVANCE We describe five strategies to identify and successfully recruit a large cohort of racially/ethnically diverse high-risk women from multiple sources to a randomized controlled trial evaluating interventions to increase chemoprevention uptake. Findings could inform recruitment efforts for future breast cancer prevention trials to increase recruitment yield of high-risk women.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julia E McGuinness
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York.,Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
| | - Gauri Bhatkhande
- Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York
| | - Jacquelyn Amenta
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York.,Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
| | - Thomas Silverman
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
| | - Jennie Mata
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York.,Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
| | - Ashlee Guzman
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York.,Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
| | - Ting He
- Department of Biomedical Informatics and Data Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Jill Dimond
- Sassafras Tech Collective, Ann Arbor, Michigan
| | - Tarsha Jones
- Christine E Lynn College of Nursing, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida
| | - Rita Kukafka
- Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York.,Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York.,Department of Sociomedical Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York
| | - Katherine D Crew
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York.,Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York.,Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Prevalence and correlates of false-positive results after 3-D screening mammography among uninsured women in a community outreach program. Prev Med Rep 2022; 27:101790. [PMID: 35656225 PMCID: PMC9152806 DOI: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.101790] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/04/2021] [Revised: 03/29/2022] [Accepted: 04/02/2022] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
False-positive results have been rarely investigated among uninsured minority women who undergo 3-D screening mammography. Here, we analyzed data from 21,022 women participating in the Breast Screening and Patient Navigation (BSPAN) program of North Texas with an aim to report prevalence and correlates of false-positive results after 3-D screening mammography, stratified by age. False-positives were defined as a negative diagnostic mammogram or a negative biopsy within 1 year of a positive screen. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess associations of demographic and clinical covariates and false positive results for age groups 40–49 and 50–64 years. Prevalence of false-positive results was 11.8% and 9.6% in the 40–49 and 50–64 age groups, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression demonstrated that, in the 40–49 age group, women who were non-menopausal, did not use hormone replacement therapy (HRT), and had self-reported prior mammograms had higher odds of false-positive results than those who were menopausal, used HRT and had no self-reported prior mammograms, respectively. In the 50–64 age group, women with a prior self-reported diagnostic mammogram had higher odds of false-positive results than those without a prior self-reported diagnostic mammogram. This study establishes contemporary evidence regarding prevalence and correlates of false-positive results after 3-D mammography in the unique BSPAN population, and demonstrate that use of 3-D mammography is not enough to reduce false-positive rates among uninsured women served through community outreach programs. Further research is needed to explore improved techniques to reduce false-positive rates, and ensure optimal use of scarce resources in outreach programs.
Collapse
|
8
|
Benefits and harms of annual, biennial, or triennial breast cancer mammography screening for women at average risk of breast cancer: a systematic review for the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC). Br J Cancer 2022; 126:673-688. [PMID: 34837076 PMCID: PMC8854566 DOI: 10.1038/s41416-021-01521-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/09/2020] [Revised: 06/20/2021] [Accepted: 07/30/2021] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Although mammography screening is recommended in most European countries, the balance between the benefits and harms of different screening intervals is still a matter of debate. This review informed the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (BC) recommendations. METHODS We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to identify RCTs, observational or modelling studies, comparing desirable (BC deaths averted, QALYs, BC stage, interval cancer) and undesirable (overdiagnosis, false positive related, radiation related) effects from annual, biennial, or triennial mammography screening in women of average risk for BC. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS We included one RCT, 13 observational, and 11 modelling studies. In women 50-69, annual compared to biennial screening may have small additional benefits but an important increase in false positive results; triennial compared to biennial screening may have smaller benefits while avoiding some harms. In younger women (aged 45-49), annual compared to biennial screening had a smaller gain in benefits and larger harms, showing a less favourable balance in this age group than in women 50-69. In women 70-74, there were fewer additional harms and similar benefits with shorter screening intervals. The overall certainty of the evidence for each of these comparisons was very low. CONCLUSIONS In women of average BC risk, screening intervals have different trade-offs for each age group. The balance probably favours biennial screening in women 50-69. In younger women, annual screening may have a less favourable balance, while in women aged 70-74 years longer screening intervals may be more favourable.
Collapse
|
9
|
Barba D, León-Sosa A, Lugo P, Suquillo D, Torres F, Surre F, Trojman L, Caicedo A. Breast cancer, screening and diagnostic tools: All you need to know. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2020; 157:103174. [PMID: 33249359 DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2020.103174] [Citation(s) in RCA: 43] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/28/2020] [Revised: 09/18/2020] [Accepted: 11/05/2020] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Breast cancer is one of the most frequent malignancies among women worldwide. Methods for screening and diagnosis allow health care professionals to provide personalized treatments that improve the outcome and survival. Scientists and physicians are working side-by-side to develop evidence-based guidelines and equipment to detect cancer earlier. However, the lack of comprehensive interdisciplinary information and understanding between biomedical, medical, and technology professionals makes innovation of new screening and diagnosis tools difficult. This critical review gathers, for the first time, information concerning normal breast and cancer biology, established and emerging methods for screening and diagnosis, staging and grading, molecular and genetic biomarkers. Our purpose is to address key interdisciplinary information about these methods for physicians and scientists. Only the multidisciplinary interaction and communication between scientists, health care professionals, technical experts and patients will lead to the development of better detection tools and methods for an improved screening and early diagnosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Diego Barba
- Escuela de Medicina, Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ, Quito, Ecuador; Instituto de Investigaciones en Biomedicina, Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ, Quito, Ecuador; Mito-Act Research Consortium, Quito, Ecuador
| | - Ariana León-Sosa
- Escuela de Medicina, Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ, Quito, Ecuador; Instituto de Investigaciones en Biomedicina, Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ, Quito, Ecuador; Mito-Act Research Consortium, Quito, Ecuador
| | - Paulina Lugo
- Hospital de los Valles HDLV, Quito, Ecuador; Fundación Ayuda Familiar y Comunitaria AFAC, Quito, Ecuador
| | - Daniela Suquillo
- Instituto de Investigaciones en Biomedicina, Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ, Quito, Ecuador; Mito-Act Research Consortium, Quito, Ecuador; Ingeniería en Procesos Biotecnológicos, Colegio de Ciencias Biológicas y Ambientales COCIBA, Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ, Quito, Ecuador
| | - Fernando Torres
- Escuela de Medicina, Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ, Quito, Ecuador; Hospital de los Valles HDLV, Quito, Ecuador
| | - Frederic Surre
- University of Glasgow, James Watt School of Engineering, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, United Kingdom
| | - Lionel Trojman
- LISITE, Isep, 75006, Paris, France; Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ, Colegio de Ciencias e Ingenierías Politécnico - USFQ, Instituto de Micro y Nanoelectrónica, IMNE, USFQ, Quito, Ecuador
| | - Andrés Caicedo
- Escuela de Medicina, Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ, Quito, Ecuador; Instituto de Investigaciones en Biomedicina, Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ, Quito, Ecuador; Mito-Act Research Consortium, Quito, Ecuador; Sistemas Médicos SIME, Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ, Quito, Ecuador.
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Lian J, Li K. A Review of Breast Density Implications and Breast Cancer Screening. Clin Breast Cancer 2020; 20:283-290. [DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2020.03.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/25/2019] [Revised: 02/10/2020] [Accepted: 03/12/2020] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
|
11
|
Jiang X, McGuinness JE, Sin M, Silverman T, Kukafka R, Crew KD. Identifying Women at High Risk for Breast Cancer Using Data From the Electronic Health Record Compared With Self-Report. JCO Clin Cancer Inform 2020; 3:1-8. [PMID: 30869999 DOI: 10.1200/cci.18.00072] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE A barrier to chemoprevention uptake among high-risk women is the lack of routine breast cancer risk assessment in the primary care setting. We calculated breast cancer risk using the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) model, accounting for age, race/ethnicity, first-degree family history of breast cancer, benign breast disease, and mammographic density, using data collected from the electronic health records (EHRs) and self-reports. PATIENTS AND METHODS Among women undergoing screening mammography, we enrolled those age 35 to 74 years without a prior history of breast cancer. Data on demographics, first-degree family history, breast radiology, and pathology reports were extracted from the EHR. We assessed agreement between the EHR and self-report on information about breast cancer risk. RESULTS Among 9,514 women with known race/ethnicity, 1,443 women (15.2%) met high-risk criteria based upon a 5-year invasive breast cancer risk of 1.67% or greater according to the BCSC model. Among 1,495 women with both self-report and EHR data, more women with a first-degree family history of breast cancer (14.6% v 4.4%) and previous breast biopsies (21.3% v 11.3%) were identified by self-report versus EHR, respectively. However, more women with atypia and lobular carcinoma in situ were identified from the EHR. There was moderate agreement in identification of high-risk women between EHR and self-report data (κ, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.42-0.54). CONCLUSION By using EHR data, we determined that 15% of women undergoing screening mammography had a high risk for breast cancer according to the BCSC model. There was moderate agreement between information on breast cancer risk derived from the EHR and self-report. Examining EHR data may serve as an initial screen for identifying women eligible for breast cancer chemoprevention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | - Katherine D Crew
- Columbia University, New York, NY.,Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, New York, NY
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Jones T, Freeman K, Ackerman M, Trivedi MS, Silverman T, Shapiro P, Kukafka R, Crew KD. Mental Illness and BRCA1/2 Genetic Testing Intention Among Multiethnic Women Undergoing Screening Mammography. Oncol Nurs Forum 2020; 47:E13-E24. [PMID: 31845917 PMCID: PMC7295180 DOI: 10.1188/20.onf.e13-e24] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To examine associations between patient-reported mental illness diagnosis and symptoms and BRCA1/2 genetic testing intention among women undergoing screening mammography. SAMPLE & SETTING 100 multiethnic women of lower socioeconomic status who were undergoing mammography screening and met family history criteria for BRCA1/2 genetic testing. METHODS & VARIABLES Descriptive and bivariate nonparametric statistics and multivariate logistic regression were used to examine associations between mental illness and genetic testing intention. Variables were anxiety, depression, patient-reported mental illness diagnosis and symptoms, and testing intention. RESULTS Prevalence rates of mental illness symptoms were 36% for clinically significant depression and 36% for anxiety. Although 76% of participants intended to undergo genetic testing, only 5% had completed testing. History of mental illness and elevated levels of anxiety and depressive symptoms were positively correlated with testing intention in the bivariate analysis. In multivariate analysis, only younger age and less education were associated with testing intention. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING Future studies should address psychosocial needs and other competing barriers at the patient, provider, and healthcare system levels to increase access to BRCA1/2 genetic testing among multiethnic women.
Collapse
|
13
|
Crew KD, Silverman TB, Vanegas A, Trivedi MS, Dimond J, Mata J, Sin M, Jones T, Terry MB, Tsai WY, Kukafka R. Study protocol: Randomized controlled trial of web-based decision support tools for high-risk women and healthcare providers to increase breast cancer chemoprevention. Contemp Clin Trials Commun 2019; 16:100433. [PMID: 31497674 PMCID: PMC6722284 DOI: 10.1016/j.conctc.2019.100433] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/01/2019] [Revised: 08/11/2019] [Accepted: 08/19/2019] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Chemoprevention using selective estrogen receptor modulators and aromatase inhibitors has been shown to reduce invasive breast cancer incidence in high-risk women. Despite this evidence, few high-risk women who are eligible for chemoprevention utilize it as a risk-reducing strategy. Reasons for low uptake include inadequate knowledge about chemoprevention among patients and healthcare providers, concerns about side effects, time constraints during the clinical encounter, and competing comorbidities. METHODS/DESIGN We describe the study design of a randomized controlled trial examining the effect of two web-based decision support tools on chemoprevention decision antecedents and quality, referral for specialized counseling, and chemoprevention uptake among women at an increased risk for breast cancer. The trial is being conducted at a large, urban medical center. A total of 300 patients and 50 healthcare providers will be recruited and randomized to standard educational materials alone or in combination with the decision support tools. Patient reported outcomes will be assessed at baseline, one and six months after randomization, and after their clinic visit with their healthcare provider. DISCUSSION We are conducting this trial to provide evidence on how best to support personalized breast cancer risk assessment and informed and shared decision-making for chemoprevention. We propose to integrate the decision support tools into clinical workflow, which can potentially expand quality decision-making and chemoprevention uptake. TRIAL REGISTRATION NCT03069742.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katherine D. Crew
- Department of Medicine, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
- Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
- Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Thomas B. Silverman
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Alejandro Vanegas
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Meghna S. Trivedi
- Department of Medicine, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
- Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Jill Dimond
- Sassafras Tech Collective, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Jennie Mata
- Department of Medicine, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
- Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Margaret Sin
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Tarsha Jones
- Christine E Lynn College of Nursing, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA
| | - Mary Beth Terry
- Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Wei-Yann Tsai
- Department of Biostatistics, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Rita Kukafka
- Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
- Department of Sociomedical Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
McGuinness JE, Trivedi MS, Silverman T, Marte A, Mata J, Kukafka R, Crew KD. Uptake of genetic testing for germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants in a predominantly Hispanic population. Cancer Genet 2019; 235-236:72-76. [PMID: 31078448 PMCID: PMC6625883 DOI: 10.1016/j.cancergen.2019.04.063] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/05/2019] [Revised: 04/10/2019] [Accepted: 04/18/2019] [Indexed: 10/26/2022]
Abstract
Genetic counseling is under-utilized in women who meet family history criteria for BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) testing, particularly among racial/ethnic minorities. We evaluated the uptake of BRCA1/2 genetic testing among women presenting for screening mammography in a predominantly Hispanic, low-income population of Washington Heights in New York City. We administered the Six-Point Scale (SPS) to women presenting for screening mammography at Columbia University Irving Medical Center (CUIMC) in the Washington Heights neighborhood of New York, NY. The SPS is a family history screener to determine eligibility for BRCA1/2 genetic testing based upon U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines that has been validated in low-income, multiethnic populations. Among women who underwent screening mammography at CUIMC between November 2014 and June 2016, 3,055 completed the SPS family history screener. Participants were predominantly Hispanic (76.7%), and 12% met family history criteria for BRCA1/2 testing, of whom <5% had previously undergone testing. In a multiethnic population, a significant proportion met family history criteria for BRCA1/2 testing, but uptake of genetic testing was low. Such underutilization of BRCA1/2 genetic testing among minorities further underscores the need to develop programs to engage high-risk women from underrepresented populations in genetic testing services.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julia E McGuinness
- Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, 177 Fort Washington Avenue, Suite 6GN-435, New York, NY 10032, United States.
| | - Meghna S Trivedi
- Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, 177 Fort Washington Avenue, Suite 6GN-435, New York, NY 10032, United States
| | - Thomas Silverman
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, United States
| | - Awilda Marte
- Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, 177 Fort Washington Avenue, Suite 6GN-435, New York, NY 10032, United States
| | - Jennie Mata
- Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, 177 Fort Washington Avenue, Suite 6GN-435, New York, NY 10032, United States
| | - Rita Kukafka
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, United States
| | - Katherine D Crew
- Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, 177 Fort Washington Avenue, Suite 6GN-435, New York, NY 10032, United States
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Ho PJ, Bok CM, Ishak HMM, Lim LY, Liu J, Wong FY, Chia KS, Tan MH, Chay WY, Hartman M, Li J. Factors associated with false-positive mammography at first screen in an Asian population. PLoS One 2019; 14:e0213615. [PMID: 30856210 PMCID: PMC6411141 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213615] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/22/2018] [Accepted: 02/25/2019] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction False-positive recall is an issue in national screening programmes. The aim of this study is to investigate the recall rate at first screen and to identify potential predictors of false-positive recall in a multi-ethnic Asian population-based breast cancer screening programme. Methods Women aged 50–64 years attending screening mammography for the first time (n = 25,318) were included in this study. The associations between potential predictors (sociodemographic, lifestyle and reproductive) and false-positive recall were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression models. Results The recall rate was 7.6% (n = 1,923), of which with 93.8% were false-positive. Factors independently associated with higher false-positive recall included Indian ethnicity (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.52 [1.25 to 1.84]), premenopause (1.23 [1.04 to 1.44]), nulliparity (1.85 [1.57 to 2.17]), recent breast symptoms (1.72 [1.31 to 2.23]) and history of breast lump excision (1.87 [1.53 to 2.26]). Factors associated with lower risk of false-positive recall included older age at screen (0.84 [0.73 to 0.97]) and use of oral contraceptives (0.87 [0.78 to 0.97]). After further adjustment of percent mammographic density, associations with older age at screening (0.97 [0.84 to 1.11]) and menopausal status (1.12 [0.95 to 1.32]) were attenuated and no longer significant. Conclusion For every breast cancer identified, 15 women without cancer were subjected to further testing. Efforts to educate Asian women on what it means to be recalled will be useful in reducing unnecessary stress and anxiety.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peh Joo Ho
- Genome Institute of Singapore, Genome, Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Chek Mei Bok
- Genome Institute of Singapore, Genome, Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | | | - Li Yan Lim
- Department of Surgery, University Surgical Cluster, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Jenny Liu
- Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
| | | | - Kee Seng Chia
- Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Min-Han Tan
- National Cancer Centre, Singapore, Singapore
- Institute of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology, Singapore, Singapore
| | | | - Mikael Hartman
- Department of Surgery, University Surgical Cluster, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
- Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Jingmei Li
- Genome Institute of Singapore, Genome, Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
- Department of Surgery, University Surgical Cluster, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
- Karolinska Institutet, Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Stockholm, Sweden
- * E-mail:
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Pilot study of decision support tools on breast cancer chemoprevention for high-risk women and healthcare providers in the primary care setting. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2018; 18:134. [PMID: 30558581 PMCID: PMC6296071 DOI: 10.1186/s12911-018-0716-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/02/2018] [Accepted: 12/03/2018] [Indexed: 02/08/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Breast cancer chemoprevention can reduce breast cancer incidence in high-risk women; however, chemoprevention is underutilized in the primary care setting. We conducted a pilot study of decision support tools among high-risk women and their primary care providers (PCPs). Methods The intervention included a decision aid (DA) for high-risk women, RealRisks, and a provider-centered tool, Breast Cancer Risk Navigation (BNAV). Patients completed validated surveys at baseline, after RealRisks and after their PCP clinical encounter or at 6-months. Referral for high-risk consultation and chemoprevention uptake were assessed via the electronic health record. The primary endpoint was accuracy of breast cancer risk perception at 6-months. Results Among 40 evaluable high-risk women, median age was 64.5 years and median 5-year breast cancer risk was 2.19%. After exposure to RealRisks, patients demonstrated an improvement in accurate breast cancer risk perceptions (p = 0.02), an increase in chemoprevention knowledge (p < 0.01), and 24% expressed interest in taking chemoprevention. Three women had a high-risk referral, and no one initiated chemoprevention. Decisional conflict significantly increased from after exposure to RealRisks to after their clinical encounter or at 6-months (p < 0.01). Accurate breast cancer risk perceptions improved and was sustained at 6-months or after clinical encounters. We discuss the side effect profile of chemoprevention and the care pathway when RealRisks was introduced to understand why patients experienced increased decision conflict. Conclusion Future interventions should carefully link the use of a DA more proximally to the clinical encounter, investigate timed measurements of decision conflict and improve risk communication, shared decision making, and chemoprevention education for PCPs. Additional work remains to better understand the impact of decision aids targeting both patients and providers. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02954900 November 4, 2016 Retrospectively registered.
Collapse
|
17
|
The Challenges of Screening Mammography in Racial/Ethnic Minority Populations in the United States: A mini-review and observations from a predominantly Hispanic community. JOURNAL OF CANCER TREATMENT & DIAGNOSIS 2018; 2:16-20. [PMID: 30112517 PMCID: PMC6089539] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/04/2022]
Abstract
Screening mammography is recommended by U.S. medical organizations for breast cancer screening in average risk women because of its demonstrated reductions in breast cancer mortality. However, significant disparities in breast cancer screening utilization and mortality remain among racial/ethnic minorities. Efforts have appropriately been directed at increasing engagement with screening services in these populations, however, there is a dearth of data regarding false-positive rates and overdiagnosis in minority patients engaged in breast cancer screening. We recently examined screening practices among a predominantly Hispanic population presenting to an academic medical center in New York, NY, and found that approximately 53% of women experienced at least one false-positive mammography result over a median of 8.9 years of screening. We also observed that Hispanic women were more likely to screen annually than white women despite recommendations to screen less frequently. In this review, we briefly review the benefits and harms of screening mammography in average-risk women, namely, false-positive results and breast cancer overdiagnosis, followed by a discussion of the disparities in breast cancer screening and mortality among racial/ethnic minority populations. We then present our own recent observations and propose that future interventions among Hispanic and other minority populations could include patient- and provider-centered educational programs that focus on providing a balanced discussion of benefits and harms of screening mammography.
Collapse
|