The association of prescription opioid use with incident cancer: A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare population-based case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is the second leading cause of death globally, and researchers seek to identify modifiable risk factors Over the past several decades, there has been ongoing debate whether opioids are associated with cancer development, metastasis, or recurrence. Basic science, clinical, and observational studies have produced conflicting results. The authors examined the association between prescription opioids and incident cancers using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. A complex relation was observed between prescription opioids and incident cancer, and cancer site may be an important determinant. METHODS: By using linked SEER cancer registry and Medicare claims from 2008 through 2013, a case-control study was conducted examining the relation between cancer onset and prior opioid exposure. Logistic regression was used to account for differences between cases and controls for 10 cancer sites. RESULTS: Of the population studied (n = 348,319), 34% were prescribed opioids, 79.5% were white, 36.9% were dually eligible (for both Medicare and Medicaid), 13% lived in a rural area, 52.7% had ≥1 comorbidity, and 16% had a smoking-related diagnosis. Patients exposed to opioids had a lower odds ratio (OR) associated with breast cancer (adjusted OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.92-0.99) and colon cancer (adjusted OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.86-0.93) compared with controls. Higher ORs for kidney cancer, leukemia, liver cancer, lung cancer, and lymphoma, ranging from lung cancer (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.07) to liver cancer (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.08-1.31), were present in the exposed population. CONCLUSIONS: The current results suggest that an association exists between prescription opioids and incident cancer and that cancer site may play an important role. These findings can direct future research on specific patient populations that may benefit or be harmed by prescription opioid exposure.

Comparison of treatment of early-stage breast cancer among Nurses' Health Study participants and other Medicare beneficiaries.

PURPOSE: Increasingly epidemiological cohorts are being linked to claims data to provide rich data for healthcare research. These cohorts tend to be different than the general United States (US) population. We will analyze healthcare utilization of Nurses' Health Study (NHS) participants to determine if studies of newly diagnosed incident early-stage breast cancer can be generalized to the broader US Medicare population. METHODS: Analytic cohorts of fee-for-service NHS-Medicare-linked participants and a 1:13 propensity-matched SEER-Medicare cohort (SEER) with incident breast cancer in the years 2007-2011 were considered. Screening leading to, treatment-related, and general utilization in the year following early-stage breast cancer diagnosis were determined using Medicare claims data. RESULTS: After propensity matching, NHS and SEER were statistically balanced on all demographics. NHS and SEER had statistically similar rates of treatments including chemotherapy, breast-conserving surgery, mastectomy, and overall radiation use. Rates of general utilization include those related to hospitalizations, total visits, and emergency department visits were also balanced between the two groups. Total spending in the year following diagnosis were statistically equivalent for NHS and SEER ($36,180 vs. $35,399, p = 0.70). CONCLUSIONS: NHS and the general female population had comparable treatment and utilization patterns following diagnosis of early-stage incident breast cancers with the exception of type of radiation therapy received. This study provides support for the larger value of population-based cohorts in research on healthcare costs and utilization in breast cancer.

Statins associate with improved mortality among patients with certain histological subtypes of lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To measure the association between statin exposure and mortality in lung cancer patients belonging to different categories of histological subtype. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort of 19,974 individuals with incident lung cancer between 2007 and 2011 was identified using the SEER-Medicare linked database. Statin exposure both pre- and post-diagnosis was analyzed to identify a possible association with cancer-specific mortality in patients stratified by histological subtype. Intention-to-treat analyses and time-dependent Cox regression models were used to calculate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) corresponding to statin exposure both pre- and post-diagnosis, respectively. RESULTS: Overall baseline statin exposure was associated with a decrease in mortality risk for squamous-cell carcinoma patients (HR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.82-0.96) and adenocarcinoma patients (HR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.82-0.94), but not among those with small-cell lung cancer. Post-diagnostic statin exposure was associated with prolonged survival in squamous-cell carcinoma patients (HR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.59-0.79) and adenocarcinoma patients (HR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.68-0.89) in a dose-dependent manner. CONCLUSION: There is consistent evidence indicating that baseline or post-diagnostic exposure to simvastatin and atorvastatin is associated with extended survival in non-small-cell lung cancer subtypes. These results warrant further randomized clinical trials to evaluate subtype-specific effects of certain statins in patient cohorts with characteristics similar to those examined in this study.

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.

Underutilization of Supplemental Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening Among Patients at High Breast Cancer Risk.

BACKGROUND: Women at high lifetime breast cancer risk may benefit from supplemental breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening, in addition to routine mammography screening for earlier cancer detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of 422,406 women undergoing routine mammography screening across 86 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) facilities during calendar year 2012. We determined availability and use of on-site screening breast MRI services based on woman-level characteristics, including >20% lifetime absolute risk using the National Cancer Institute risk assessment tool. Multivariate analyses were performed to determine sociodemographic characteristics associated with on-site screening MRI use. RESULTS: Overall, 43.9% (2403/5468) of women at high lifetime risk attended a facility with on-site breast MRI screening availability. However, only 6.6% (158/2403) of high-risk women obtained breast MRI screening within a 2-year window of their screening mammogram. Patient factors associated with on-site MRI screening use included younger (<40 years) age (odds ratio [OR] = 2.39, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34-4.21), family history (OR = 1.72, 95% CI: 1.13-2.63), prior breast biopsy (OR = 2.09, 95% CI: 1.22-3.58), and postsecondary education (OR = 2.22, 95% CI: 1.04-4.74). CONCLUSIONS: While nearly half of women at high lifetime breast cancer risk undergo routine screening mammography at a facility with on-site breast MRI availability, supplemental breast MRI remains widely underutilized among those who may benefit from earlier cancer detection. Future studies should evaluate whether other enabling factors such as formal risk assessment and patient awareness of high lifetime breast cancer risk can mitigate the underutilization of supplemental screening breast MRI.

Pathologists' Use of Second Opinions in Interpretation of Melanocytic Cutaneous Lesions: Policies, Practices, and Perceptions.

BACKGROUND: Research examining the role of second opinions in pathology for diagnosis of melanocytic lesions is limited. OBJECTIVE: To assess current laboratory policies, clinical use of second opinions, and pathologists' perceptions of second opinions for melanocytic lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cross-sectional data collected from 207 pathologists in 10 US states who diagnose melanocytic lesions. The web-based survey ascertained pathologists' professional information, laboratory second opinion policy, use of second opinions, and perceptions of second opinion value for melanocytic lesions. RESULTS: Laboratory policies required second opinions for 31% of pathologists and most commonly required for melanoma in situ (26%) and invasive melanoma (30%). In practice, most pathologists reported requesting second opinions for melanocytic tumors of uncertain malignant potential (85%) and atypical Spitzoid lesions (88%). Most pathologists perceived that second opinions increased interpretive accuracy (78%) and protected them from malpractice lawsuits (62%). CONCLUSION: Use of second opinions in clinical practice is greater than that required by laboratory policies, especially for melanocytic tumors of uncertain malignant potential and atypical Spitzoid lesions. Quality of care in surgical interventions for atypical melanocytic proliferations critically depends on the accuracy of diagnosis in pathology reporting. Future research should examine the extent to which second opinions improve accuracy of melanocytic lesion diagnosis.

Concordance of DNA methylation profiles between breast core biopsy and surgical excision specimens containing ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

The utility and reliability of assessing molecular biomarkers for translational applications on pre-operative core biopsy specimens assume consistency of molecular profiles with larger surgical specimens. Whether DNA methylation in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), measured in core biopsy and surgical specimens are similar, remains unclear. Here, we compared genome-scale DNA methylation measured in matched core biopsy and surgical specimens from DCIS, including specific DNA methylation biomarkers of subsequent invasive cancer. DNA was extracted from guided 2mm cores of formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) specimens, bisulfite-modified, and measured on the Illumina HumanMethylation450 BeadChip. DNA methylation profiles of core biopsies exhibited high concordance with matched surgical specimens. Within-subject variability in DNA methylation was significantly lower than between-subject variability (all P<2.20E-16). In 641 CpGs whose methylation was related with increased hazard of invasive breast cancer, lower within-subject than between-subject variability was observed in 92.3% of the study participants (P<0.05). Between patient-matched core biopsy and surgical specimens, <0.6% of CpGs measured had changes in median DNA methylation >15%, and a pathway analysis of these CpGs indicated enrichment for genes related with wound healing. Our results indicate that DNA methylation measured in core biopsies are representative of the matched surgical specimens and suggest that DCIS biomarkers measured in core biopsies can inform clinical decision-making.

The self-reported use of immunostains and cytogenetic testing in the diagnosis of melanoma by practicing U.S. pathologists of 10 selected states.

BACKGROUNDS: The diagnosis of melanoma can be challenging, especially in lesions for which the histopathologic criteria bridge two or more taxonomic categories. Newer genomic analytical methods of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) have been introduced as ancillary techniques to differentiate benign and malignant melanocytic proliferations. METHODS: We evaluated how pathologists perceive and are incorporating these new cytogenetic testing technologies into their practices. We conducted a study of 207 U.S. pathologists who interpret melanocytic lesions in clinical practice in 10 SEER states. Pathologists were surveyed regarding perceptions and utilization of FISH and/or CGH in their clinical practices. RESULTS: Results showed that 38% of pathologists use FISH and/or CGH in interpreting melanocytic lesions. Pathologists reporting FISH and/or CGH use were significantly younger (p < 0.05), were fellowship trained or board certified in dermatopathology (p < 0.001) and were affiliated with an academic institute (p < 0.001). Pathologists reporting that their colleagues consider them an expert in the assessment of melanocytic lesions were more likely to employ FISH and/or CGH in their practices than non-experts. CONCLUSIONS: Early users of cytogenetic testing technologies in cutaneous pathology are more likely to be younger, affiliated with an academic institution and fellowship trained or board certified in dermatopathology.

Availability of Advanced Breast Imaging at Screening Facilities Serving Vulnerable Populations.

OBJECTIVE: Among vulnerable women, unequal access to advanced breast imaging modalities beyond screening mammography may lead to delays in cancer diagnosis and unfavourable outcomes. We aimed to compare on-site availability of advanced breast imaging services (ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], and image-guided biopsy) between imaging facilities serving vulnerable patient populations and those serving non-vulnerable populations. SETTING: 73 imaging facilities across five Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium regional registries in the United States during 2011 and 2012. METHODS: We examined facility and patient characteristics across a large, national sample of imaging facilities and patients served. We characterized facilities as serving vulnerable populations based on the proportion of mammograms performed on women with lower educational attainment, lower median income, racial/ethnic minority status, and rural residence.We performed multivariable logistic regression to determine relative risks of on-site availability of advanced imaging at facilities serving vulnerable women versus facilities serving non-vulnerable women. RESULTS: Facilities serving vulnerable populations were as likely (Relative risk [RR] for MRI = 0.71, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.42, 1.19; RR for MRI-guided biopsy = 1.07 [0.61, 1.90]; RR for stereotactic biopsy = 1.18 [0.75, 1.85]) or more likely (RR for ultrasound = 1.38 [95% CI 1.09, 1.74]; RR for ultrasound-guided biopsy = 1.67 [1.30, 2.14]) to offer advanced breast imaging services as those serving non-vulnerable populations. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced breast imaging services are physically available on-site for vulnerable women in the United States, but it is unknown whether factors such as insurance coverage or out-of-pocket costs might limit their use.

Disparities in the use of screening magnetic resonance imaging of the breast in community practice by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.

BACKGROUND: Uptake of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) coupled with breast cancer risk assessment offers the opportunity to tailor the benefits and harms of screening strategies for women with differing cancer risks. Despite the potential benefits, there is also concern for worsening population-based health disparities. METHODS: Among 316,172 women aged 35 to 69 years from 5 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries (2007-2012), the authors examined 617,723 negative screening mammograms and 1047 screening MRIs. They examined the relative risks (RRs) of MRI use by women with a <20% lifetime breast cancer risk and RR in the absence of MRI use by women with a ≥20% lifetime risk. RESULTS: Among women with a <20% lifetime risk of breast cancer, non-Hispanic white women were found to be 62% more likely than nonwhite women to undergo an MRI (95% confidence interval, 1.32-1.98). Of these women, those with an educational level of some college or technical school were 43% more likely and those who had at least a college degree were 132% more likely to receive an MRI compared with those with a high school education or less. Among women with a ≥20% lifetime risk, there was no statistically significant difference noted with regard to the use of screening MRI by race or ethnicity, but high-risk women with a high school education or less were less likely to undergo screening MRI than women who had graduated from college (RR, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.63). CONCLUSIONS: Uptake of screening MRI of the breast into clinical practice has the potential to worsen population-based health disparities. Policies beyond health insurance coverage should ensure that the use of this screening modality reflects evidence-based guidelines.

Opportunistic Breast Cancer Education and Screening in Rural Honduras.

PURPOSE: In Honduras, the breast cancer burden is high, and access to women's health services is low. This project tested the connection of community-based breast cancer detection with clinical diagnosis and treatment in a tightly linked and quickly facilitated format. METHODS: The Norris Cotton Cancer Center at Dartmouth College partnered with the Honduran cancer hospital La Liga Contra el Cancer to expand a cervical cancer screening program, which included self-breast exam (SBE) education and clinical breast exams (CBEs), to assess patient attitudes about and uptake of breast cancer education and screening services. The cervical cancer screening event was held in Honduras in 2013; 476 women from 31 villages attended. RESULTS: Half of the women attending elected to receive a CBE; most had concerns about lactation. Clinicians referred 12 women with abnormal CBEs to La Liga Contra el Cancer for additional evaluation at no cost. All referred patients were compliant with the recommendation and received follow-up care. One abnormal follow-up mammogram/ultrasound result was negative on biopsy. One woman with an aggressive phyllodes tumor had a mastectomy within 60 days. Multimodal education about breast cancer screening maximized delivery of women's health services in a low-tech rural setting. CONCLUSION: The addition of opportunistic breast cancer education and screening to a cervical cancer screening event resulted in high uptake of services at low additional cost to program sponsors. Such novel strategies to maximize delivery of women's health services in low-resource settings, where there is no access to mammography, may result in earlier detection of breast cancer. Close follow-up of positive results with referral to appropriate treatment is essential.

Advanced Breast Imaging Availability by Screening Facility Characteristics.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To determine the relationship between screening mammography facility characteristics and on-site availability of advanced breast imaging services required for supplemental screening and the diagnostic evaluation of abnormal screening findings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed data from all active imaging facilities across six regional registries of the National Cancer Institute-funded Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium offering screening mammography in calendar years 2011-2012 (n = 105). We used generalized estimating equations regression models to identify associations between facility characteristics (eg, academic affiliation, practice type) and availability of on-site advanced breast imaging (eg, ultrasound [US], magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) and image-guided biopsy services. RESULTS: Breast MRI was not available at any nonradiology or breast imaging-only facilities. A combination of breast US, breast MRI, and imaging-guided breast biopsy services was available at 76.0% of multispecialty breast centers compared to 22.2% of full diagnostic radiology practices (P = .0047) and 75.0% of facilities with academic affiliations compared to 29.0% of those without academic affiliations (P = .04). Both supplemental screening breast US and screening breast MRI were available at 28.0% of multispecialty breast centers compared to 4.7% of full diagnostic radiology practices (P < .01) and 25.0% of academic facilities compared to 8.5% of nonacademic facilities (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Screening facility characteristics are strongly associated with the availability of on-site advanced breast imaging and image-guided biopsy service. Therefore, the type of imaging facility a woman attends for screening may have important implications on her timely access to supplemental screening and diagnostic breast imaging services.

Effect of radiologists' diagnostic work-up volume on interpretive performance.

PURPOSE: To examine radiologists' screening performance in relation to the number of diagnostic work-ups performed after abnormal findings are discovered at screening mammography by the same radiologist or by different radiologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In an institutional review board-approved HIPAA-compliant study, the authors linked 651 671 screening mammograms interpreted from 2002 to 2006 by 96 radiologists in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium to cancer registries (standard of reference) to evaluate the performance of screening mammography (sensitivity, false-positive rate [ FPR false-positive rate ], and cancer detection rate [ CDR cancer detection rate ]). Logistic regression was used to assess the association between the volume of recalled screening mammograms ("own" mammograms, where the radiologist who interpreted the diagnostic image was the same radiologist who had interpreted the screening image, and "any" mammograms, where the radiologist who interpreted the diagnostic image may or may not have been the radiologist who interpreted the screening image) and screening performance and whether the association between total annual volume and performance differed according to the volume of diagnostic work-up. RESULTS: Annually, 38% of radiologists performed the diagnostic work-up for 25 or fewer of their own recalled screening mammograms, 24% performed the work-up for 0-50, and 39% performed the work-up for more than 50. For the work-up of recalled screening mammograms from any radiologist, 24% of radiologists performed the work-up for 0-50 mammograms, 32% performed the work-up for 51-125, and 44% performed the work-up for more than 125. With increasing numbers of radiologist work-ups for their own recalled mammograms, the sensitivity (P = .039), FPR false-positive rate (P = .004), and CDR cancer detection rate (P < .001) of screening mammography increased, yielding a stepped increase in women recalled per cancer detected from 17.4 for 25 or fewer mammograms to 24.6 for more than 50 mammograms. Increases in work-ups for any radiologist yielded significant increases in FPR false-positive rate (P = .011) and CDR cancer detection rate (P = .001) and a nonsignificant increase in sensitivity (P = .15). Radiologists with a lower annual volume of any work-ups had consistently lower FPR false-positive rate , sensitivity, and CDR cancer detection rate at all annual interpretive volumes. CONCLUSION: These findings support the hypothesis that radiologists may improve their screening performance by performing the diagnostic work-up for their own recalled screening mammograms and directly receiving feedback afforded by means of the outcomes associated with their initial decision to recall. Arranging for radiologists to work up a minimum number of their own recalled cases could improve screening performance but would need systems to facilitate this workflow.

Serrated and adenomatous polyp detection increases with longer withdrawal time: results from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.

OBJECTIVES: Detection and removal of adenomas and clinically significant serrated polyps (CSSPs) is critical to the effectiveness of colonoscopy in preventing colorectal cancer. Although longer withdrawal time has been found to increase polyp detection, this association and the use of withdrawal time as a quality indicator remains controversial. Few studies have reported on withdrawal time and serrated polyp detection. Using data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry, we examined how an endoscopist's withdrawal time in normal colonoscopies affects adenoma and serrated polyp detection. METHODS: We analyzed 7,996 colonoscopies performed in 7,972 patients between 2009 and 2011 by 42 endoscopists at 14 hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers, and community practices. CSSPs were defined as sessile serrated polyps and hyperplastic polyps proximal to the sigmoid. Adenoma and CSSP detection rates were calculated based on median endoscopist withdrawal time in normal exams. Regression models were used to estimate the association of increased normal withdrawal time and polyp, adenoma, and CSSP detection. RESULTS: Polyp and adenoma detection rates were highest among endoscopists with 9 min median normal withdrawal time, and detection of CSSPs reached its highest levels at 8-9 min. Incident rate ratios for adenoma and CSSP detection increased with each minute of normal withdrawal time above 6 min, with maximum benefit at 9 min for adenomas (1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.21, 1.85)) and CSSPs (1.77, 95% CI (1.15, 2.72)). When modeling was used to set the minimum withdrawal time at 9 min, we predicted that adenomas and CSSPs would be detected in 302 (3.8%) and 191 (2.4%) more patients. The increase in detection was most striking for the CSSPs, with nearly a 30% relative increase. CONCLUSIONS: A withdrawal time of 9 min resulted in a statistically significant increase in adenoma and serrated polyp detection. Colonoscopy quality may improve with a median normal withdrawal time benchmark of 9 min.

Risk factors for inflammatory breast cancer and other invasive breast cancers.

BACKGROUND: We investigated risk factors for inflammatory breast cancer (IBC), a rare, aggressive, and poorly understood breast cancer that is characterized by diffuse breast skin erythema and edema. METHODS: We included 617 IBC case subjects in a nested case-control study from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium database (1994-2009). We also included 1151 noninflammatory, locally advanced, invasive breast cancers with chest wall/breast skin involvement (LABC), 7600 noninflammatory invasive case subjects without chest wall/breast skin involvement (BC), and 93 654 control subjects matched to case subjects on age and year at diagnosis and mammography registry. We present estimates of rate ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from conditional logistic regression analyses for each case group vs control subjects based on multiply imputed datasets. RESULTS: First-degree family history of breast cancer and high mammographic breast density increased risk of IBC, LABC, and BC. High body mass index (BMI) increased IBC risk irrespective of menopausal status and estrogen receptor (ER) expression; rate ratios for BMI 30 and greater vs BMI less than 25 were 3.90 (95% CI = 1.50 to 10.14) in premenopausal women and 3.70 (95% CI = 1.98 to 6.94) in peri/postmenopausal women not currently using hormones. BMI 30 and greater slightly increased risk of ER-positive BC (RR = 1.40; 95% CI = 1.11 to 1.76). Statistically significant reductions in risk of ER-negative IBC with older age at first birth and of ER-positive IBC with higher education were not seen for LABC and BC of the same ER status. CONCLUSIONS: Different associations with BMI, age at first birth, and education between IBC and/or LABC and BC suggest a distinct etiology for IBC.

Reported mammographic density: film-screen versus digital acquisition.

PURPOSE: To test the hypothesis that American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) categories for breast density reported by radiologists are lower when digital mammography is used than those reported when film-screen (FS) mammography is used. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was institutional review board approved and HIPAA compliant. Demographic data, risk factors, and BI-RADS breast density categories were collected from five mammography registries that were part of the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Active, passive, or waiver of consent was obtained for all participants. Women aged 40 years and older who underwent at least two screening mammographic examinations less than 36 months apart between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2009, were included. Women with prior breast cancer, augmentation, or use of agents known to affect density were excluded. The main sample included 89 639 women with both FS and digital mammograms. The comparison group included 259 046 women with two FS mammograms and 87 066 women with two digital mammograms. BI-RADS density was cross-tabulated according to the order in which the two types of mammogram were acquired and by the first versus second interpretation. RESULTS: Regardless of acquisition method, the percentage of women with a change in density from one reading to the next was similar. Breast density was lower in 19.8% of the women who underwent FS before digital mammography and 17.1% of those who underwent digital before FS mammography. Similarly, lower density classifications were reported on the basis of the second mammographic examination regardless of acquisition method (15.8%-19.8%). The percentage of agreement between density readings was similar regardless of mammographic types paired (67.3%-71.0%). CONCLUSION: The study results showed no difference in reported BI-RADS breast density categories according to acquisition method. Reported BI-RADS density categories may be useful in the development of breast cancer risk models in which FS, digital, or both acquisition methods are used.

Effects of digital mammography uptake on downstream breast-related care among older women.

BACKGROUND: Digital mammography is the dominant modality for breast cancer screening in the United States. No previous studies have investigated as to how introducing digital mammography affects downstream breast-related care. OBJECTIVE: Compare breast-related health care use after a screening mammogram before and after introduction of digital mammography. RESEARCH DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: Longitudinal study of screening mammograms from 14 radiology facilities contributing data to the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium performed 1 year before and 4 years after each facility introduced digital mammography, along with linked Medicare claims. We included 30,211 mammograms for women aged 66 years and older without breast cancer. MEASURES: Rates of false-positive recall and short-interval follow-up were based on radiologists' assessments and recommendations; rates of follow-up mammography, ultrasound, and breast biopsy use were based on Medicare claims. RESULTS: False-positive recall rates increased after the introduction of digital mammography. Follow-up mammography use was significantly higher across all 4 years after a facility began using digital mammography compared with the year before [year 1 odds ratio (OR) = 1.7, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.4-2.1]. Among women with false-positive mammography results, use of ultrasound decreased significantly in the second through fourth years after digital mammography began (year 2 OR = 0.4, 95% CI, 0.3-0.6). CONCLUSIONS: Introduction of a new technology led to changes in health care use that persisted for at least 4 years. Comparative effectiveness research on new technologies should consider not only diagnostic performance but also downstream utilization attributable to this apparent learning curve.

Assessing health care use and cost consequences of a new screening modality: the case of digital mammography.

BACKGROUND: Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) has largely replaced screen-film mammography (SFM) for breast cancer screening, but how this affects downstream breast-related use and costs is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To compare breast-related health care use and costs among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing SFM versus FFDM from 1999 to 2005. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SUBJECTS: Medicare-enrolled women aged 66 and older with mammograms in Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries. MEASURES: Subsequent follow-up with additional imaging or breast biopsy within 12 months was ascertained through Medicare claims. Associated mean costs were estimated by screening modality and year, adjusting for confounding factors, and clustering within mammography facilities using Generalized Estimating Equations. RESULTS: Among 138,199 women, 332,324 SFM and 22,407 FFDM mammograms were analyzed. Approximately 6.5% of SFM and 9.0% of FFDM had positive findings. In 2001, subsequent imaging was higher among FFDM versus SFM (127.5 vs. 97.4 follow-up mammography claims per 1000 index mammograms), whereas subsequent biopsy was lower among FFDM versus SFM (19.2 vs. 24.9 per 1000 index mammograms) with differences decreasing over time. From 2001 to 2004, mammography subsequent to FFDM had higher mean costs than SFM ($82.60 vs. $64.31 in 2001). The only cost differences between SFM and FFDM for ultrasound or biopsy were in 2001. CONCLUSIONS: Subsequent breast-related health care use differed early in FFDM introduction, but diminished over time with differences attributable to higher recall rates for additional imaging and lower rates of biopsy in those undergoing FFDM versus SFM. Remaining cost differences are because of higher reimbursement rates for FFDM versus SFM.

Perception of colonoscopy benefits: a gap in patient knowledge?

Our study aimed to determine, for patients who had undergone recent colonoscopy, associations between specific colonoscopy patient characteristics, exam characteristics and patients' perception of colonoscopy reducing their risk of dying from colorectal cancer. A cross-sectional analysis was conducted using data (2004-2008) from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry, consisting of a Self-report Questionnaire, Colonoscopy Report form, and a Follow-up Questionnaire, which measured agreement responses to the statement, "Having a colonoscopy decreased my chances of dying from colon cancer". Chi-square tests and logistic regression were used to assess differences in patient responses by patient and colonoscopy characteristics. A majority of patients (N=5,672, 81%) agreed that having a colonoscopy decreased their chances of dying from colon cancer. Patients with a personal history of polyps were more likely to agree that colonoscopy reduced their chances of dying compared to patients without prior polypectomy [OR (95% CI) =1.34 (1.06, 1.69)] and patients with a family history of colorectal cancer were 33% more likely to agree to the statement than those without a family history [OR (95% CI) =1.33 (1.12, 1.58)]. Personal history of polyps and family history of colorectal cancer are significant predictors of patients' positive perception of colonoscopy, suggesting that personal experience, rather than the potential preventive effect of colonoscopy itself, may influence the perceived benefit of colonoscopy. Intervention efforts should be made to effectively disseminate knowledge of the preventive benefit of colonoscopy.

Influence of annual interpretive volume on screening mammography performance in the United States.

PURPOSE: To examine whether U.S. radiologists' interpretive volume affects their screening mammography performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Annual interpretive volume measures (total, screening, diagnostic, and screening focus [ratio of screening to diagnostic mammograms]) were collected for 120 radiologists in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) who interpreted 783 965 screening mammograms from 2002 to 2006. Volume measures in 1 year were examined by using multivariate logistic regression relative to screening sensitivity, false-positive rates, and cancer detection rate the next year. BCSC registries and the Statistical Coordinating Center received institutional review board approval for active or passive consenting processes and a Federal Certificate of Confidentiality and other protections for participating women, physicians, and facilities. All procedures were compliant with the terms of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. RESULTS: Mean sensitivity was 85.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 83.7%, 86.6%) and was significantly lower for radiologists with a greater screening focus (P = .023) but did not significantly differ by total (P = .47), screening (P = .33), or diagnostic (P = .23) volume. The mean false-positive rate was 9.1% (95% CI: 8.1%, 10.1%), with rates significantly higher for radiologists who had the lowest total (P = .008) and screening (P = .015) volumes. Radiologists with low diagnostic volume (P = .004 and P = .008) and a greater screening focus (P = .003 and P = .002) had significantly lower false-positive and cancer detection rates, respectively. Median invasive tumor size and proportion of cancers detected at early stages did not vary by volume. CONCLUSION: Increasing minimum interpretive volume requirements in the United States while adding a minimal requirement for diagnostic interpretation could reduce the number of false-positive work-ups without hindering cancer detection. These results provide detailed associations between mammography volumes and performance for policymakers to consider along with workforce, practice organization, and access issues and radiologist experience when reevaluating requirements.