Circulating serum xenoestrogens and mammographic breast density.

INTRODUCTION: Humans are widely exposed to estrogenically active phthalates, parabens, and phenols, raising concerns about potential effects on breast tissue and breast cancer risk. We sought to determine the association of circulating serum levels of these chemicals (reflecting recent exposure) with mammographic breast density (a marker of breast cancer risk). METHODS: We recruited postmenopausal women aged 55 to 70 years from mammography clinics in Madison, Wisconsin (N = 264). Subjects completed a questionnaire and provided a blood sample that was analyzed for mono-ethyl phthalate, mono-butyl phthalate, mono-benzyl phthalate, butyl paraben, propyl paraben, octylphenol, nonylphenol, and bisphenol A (BPA). Percentage breast density was measured from mammograms by using a computer-assisted thresholding method. RESULTS: Serum BPA was positively associated with mammographic breast density after adjusting for age, body mass index, and other potentially confounding factors. Mean percentage density was 12.6% (95% confidence interval (CI), 11.4 to 14.0) among the 193 women with nondetectable BPA levels, 13.7% (95% CI, 10.7 to 17.1) among the 35 women with detectable levels below the median (<0.55 ng/ml), and 17.6% (95% CI, 14.1 to 21.5) among the 34 women with detectable levels above the median (>0.55 ng/ml; Ptrend = 0.01). Percentage breast density was also elevated (18.2%; 95% CI, 13.4 to 23.7) among the 18 women with serum mono-ethyl phthalate above the median detected level (>3.77 ng/ml) compared with women with nondetectable BPA levels (13.1%; 95% CI, 11.9 to 14.3; Ptrend = 0.07). No other chemicals demonstrated associations with percentage breast density. CONCLUSIONS: Postmenopausal women with high serum levels of BPA and mono-ethyl phthalate had elevated breast density. Further investigation of the impact of BPA and mono-ethyl phthalate on breast cancer risk by using repeated serum measurements or other markers of xenoestrogen exposure are needed.

Reactions of women underscreened for cervical cancer who received unsolicited human papillomavirus self-sampling kits.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate experiences and reactions after receiving a mailed, unsolicited human papillomavirus self-sampling kit and identify psychosocial correlates of using kits. METHODS: Survey participants were underscreened women aged 30-64 who were mailed human papillomavirus kits as part of a pragmatic trial at Kaiser Permanente Washington, a United States integrated health care system. Six months after the mailing, we invited kit returners and non-returners to complete a web survey that measured psychosocial factors (e.g. cervical cancer/human papillomavirus knowledge, attitudes toward screening), experiences, and reactions to kits. We compared responses between kit returners and non-returners. RESULTS: Comparing 116 kit returners (272 invited) and 119 non-returners (1083 invited), we found no clinically significant differences in psychosocial factors. Overall, survey respondents showed knowledge gaps in human papillomavirus natural history (82% did not know human papillomavirus infection can clear on its own) and interpreting human papillomavirus test results (37% did not know a human papillomavirus-negative result indicates low cancer risk). Kit returners found kits convenient and easy to use (>90%). The most common reason for non-return was low confidence in ability to correctly use a kit, although many non-returners (49%) indicated that they would consider future use. Women reported low trust in human papillomavirus testing to identify women at high risk for cervical cancer (52% in returners, 42% in non-returners). CONCLUSIONS: Screening programs could improve uptake and acceptability of human papillomavirus self-sampling through outreach materials that emphasize the high efficacy of human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening and educate patients about how to interpret results.

Cancer Screening Reminders: Addressing the Spectrum of Patient Preferences.

CONTEXT: Health care systems continue to seek evidence about how to optimize the efficiency and effectiveness of cancer screening reminders. Annual reminders to receive preventive services can be an efficient strategy. OBJECTIVE: To understand patient motivators and barriers to cancer screening and preferences about reminder strategies. DESIGN: We conducted 11 focus groups among adults recommended for cancer screening within Kaiser Permanente Washington. We held separate focus groups with women aged 21 to 49 years, women 50 to 75 years, and men 50 to 75 years. We used an inductive, validated coding scheme for analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Motivators and barriers to obtaining recommended cancer screening and general cancer screening reminder content and modality preferences. RESULTS: Half of our participants were women aged 50 to 75 years, and 25% were men aged 50 to 75 years. Differences by age, sex, insurance status, financial status, and health beliefs all drove the participants' preferences for whether they seek these recommended services and how and when they wish to be reminded about recommended cancer screening. Most participants preferred personalized reminders, and many favored receiving reminders less than 3 months before the recommended procedure date rather than a consolidated annual reminder. Younger participants more commonly requested electronic reminders, such as texts and e-mails. CONCLUSION: Optimizing cancer screening reminders within a health care system involves a multifaceted approach that enables members to request which form of reminder they prefer (eg, electronic, paper, telephone) and the timing with which they want to be reminded, while staying affordable and manageable to the health care system.

Physician Service Attribution Methods for Examining Provision of Low-Value Care.

OBJECTIVES: There has been significant research on provider attribution for quality and cost. Low-value care is an area of heightened focus, with little of the focus being on measurement; a key methodological decision is how to attribute delivered services and procedures. We illustrate the difference in relative and absolute physician- and panel-attributed services and procedures using overuse in cervical cancer screening. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective, cross-sectional study in an integrated health care system. METHODS: We used 2013 physician-level data from Group Health Cooperative to calculate two utilization attributions: (1) panel attribution with the procedure assigned to the physician's predetermined panel, regardless of who performed the procedure; and (2) physician attribution with the procedure assigned to the performing physician. We calculated the percentage of low-value cervical cancer screening tests and ranked physicians within the clinic using the two utilization attribution methods. RESULTS: The percentage of low-value cervical cancer screening varied substantially between physician and panel attributions. Across the whole delivery system, median panel- and physician-attributed percentages were 15 percent and 10 percent, respectively. Among sampled clinics, panel-attributed percentages ranged between 10 percent and 17 percent, and physician-attributed percentages ranged between 9 percent and 13 percent. Within a clinic, median panel-attributed screening percentage was 17 percent (range 0 percent-27 percent) and physician-attributed percentage was 11 percent (range 0 percent-24 percent); physician rank varied by attribution method. CONCLUSIONS: The attribution method is an important methodological decision when developing low-value care measures since measures may ultimately have an impact on national benchmarking and quality scores. Cross-organizational dialogue and transparency in low-value care measurement will become increasingly important for all stakeholders.

Facility Mammography Volume in Relation to Breast Cancer Screening Outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: To clarify the relationship between facility-level mammography interpretive volume and breast cancer screening outcomes. METHODS: We calculated annual mammography interpretive volumes from 2000-2009 for 116 facilities participating in the U.S. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC). Radiology, pathology, cancer registry, and women's self-report information were used to determine the indication for each exam, cancer characteristics, and patient characteristics. We examined the effect of annual total volume and percentage of mammograms that were screening on cancer detection rates using multinomial logistic regression adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, time since last mammogram, and BCSC registries. "Good prognosis" tumours were defined as screen-detected invasive cancers that were <15 mm, early stage, and lymph node negative at diagnosis. RESULTS: From 3,098,481 screening mammograms, 9,899 cancers were screen-detected within one year of the exam. Approximately 80% of facilities had annual total interpretive volumes of >2,000 mammograms, and 42% had >5,000. Higher total volume facilities were significantly more likely to diagnose invasive tumours with good prognoses (odds ratio [OR] 1.32; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-1.60, for total volume of 5,000-10,000/year v. 1,000-2,000/year; p-for-trend <0.001). A concomitant decrease in tumours with poor prognosis was seen (OR 0.78; 95%CI 0.63-0.98 for total volume of 5,000-10,000/year v. 1,000-2,000/year). CONCLUSIONS: Mammography facilities with higher total interpretive volumes detected more good prognosis invasive tumours and fewer poor prognosis invasive tumours, suggesting that women attending these facilities may be more likely to benefit from screening.

Predictors of preoperative MRI for breast cancer: differences by data source.

AIM: Investigate how the results of predictive models of preoperative MRI for breast cancer change based on available data. MATERIALS & METHODS: A total of 1919 insured women aged ≥18 with stage 0-III breast cancer diagnosed 2002-2009. Four models were compared using nested multivariable logistic, backwards stepwise regression; model fit was assessed via area under the curve (AUC), R2. RESULTS: MRI recipients (n = 245) were more recently diagnosed, younger, less comorbid, with higher stage disease. Significant variables included: Model 1/Claims (AUC = 0.76, R2 = 0.10): year, age, location, income; Model 2/Cancer Registry (AUC = 0.78, R2 = 0.12): stage, breast density, imaging indication; Model 3/Medical Record (AUC = 0.80, R2 = 0.13): radiologic recommendations; Model 4/Risk Factor Survey (AUC = 0.81, R2 = 0.14): procedure count. CONCLUSION: Clinical variables accounted for little of the observed variability compared with claims data.

The influence of race/ethnicity and place of service on breast reconstruction for Medicare beneficiaries with mastectomy.

Racial disparities in breast reconstruction for breast cancer are documented. Place of service has contributed to disparities in cancer care; but the interaction of race/ethnicity and place of service has not been explicitly examined. We examined whether place of service modified the effect of race/ethnicity on receipt of reconstruction. We included women with a mastectomy for incident breast cancer in SEER-Medicare from 2005-2009. Using Medicare claims, we determined breast reconstruction within 6 months. Facility characteristics included: rural/urban location, teaching status, NCI Cancer Center designation, cooperative oncology group membership, Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) status, and breast surgery volume. Using multivariable logistic regression, we analyzed reconstruction in relation to minority status and facility characteristics. Of the 17,958 women, 14.2% were racial/ethnic women of color and a total of 9.3% had reconstruction. Caucasians disproportionately received care at non-teaching hospitals (53% v. 42%) and did not at Disproportionate Share Hospitals (77% v. 86%). Women of color had 55% lower odds of reconstruction than Caucasians (OR = 0.45; 95% CI 0.37-0.55). Those in lower median income areas had lower odds of receiving reconstruction, regardless of race/ethnicity. Odds of reconstruction reduced at rural, non-teaching and cooperative oncology group hospitals, and lower surgery volume facilities. Facility effects on odds of reconstruction were similar in analyses stratified by race/ethnicity status. Race/ethnicity and facility characteristics have independent effects on utilization of breast reconstruction, with no significant interaction. This suggests that, regardless of a woman's race/ethnicity, the place of service influences the likelihood of reconstruction.