Measures of longitudinal adherence to fecal-based colorectal cancer screening: Literature review and recommended approaches.

The success of fecal occult blood-based colorectal cancer screening programs is dependent on repeating screening at short intervals (ie, every 1-2 years). We conducted a literature review to assess measures that have been used to assess longitudinal adherence to fecal-based screening. Among 46 citations identified and included in this review, six broad classifications of longitudinal adherence were identified: (a) stratified single-round attendance, (b) all possible adherence permutations, (c) consistent/inconsistent/never attendance, (d) number of times attended, (e) program adherence and (f) proportion of time covered. Advantages and disadvantages of these measures are described, and recommendations on which measures to use based on data availability and scientific question are also given. Stratified single round attendance is particularly useful for describing the yield of screening, while programmatic adherence measures are best suited to evaluating screening efficacy. We recommend that screening programs collect detailed longitudinal, individual-level data, not only for the screening tests themselves but additionally for diagnostic follow-up and surveillance exams, to allow for maximum flexibility in reporting adherence patterns using the measure of choice.

Applying the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) approach to a large pragmatic study involving safety net clinics.

BACKGROUND: The Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle is a commonly used improvement process in health care settings, although its documented use in pragmatic clinical research is rare. A recent pragmatic clinical research study, called the Strategies and Opportunities to STOP Colon Cancer in Priority Populations (STOP CRC), used this process to optimize the research implementation of an automated colon cancer screening outreach program in intervention clinics. We describe the process of using this PDSA approach, the selection of PDSA topics by clinic leaders, and project leaders' reactions to using PDSA in pragmatic research. METHODS: STOP CRC is a cluster-randomized pragmatic study that aims to test the effectiveness of a direct-mail fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) program involving eight Federally Qualified Health Centers in Oregon and California. We and a practice improvement specialist trained in the PDSA process delivered structured presentations to leaders of these centers; the presentations addressed how to apply the PDSA process to improve implementation of a mailed outreach program offering colorectal cancer screening through FIT tests. Center leaders submitted PDSA plans and delivered reports via webinar at quarterly meetings of the project's advisory board. Project staff conducted one-on-one, 45-min interviews with project leads from each health center to assess the reaction to and value of the PDSA process in supporting the implementation of STOP CRC. RESULTS: Clinic-selected PDSA activities included refining the intervention staffing model, improving outreach materials, and changing workflow steps. Common benefits of using PDSA cycles in pragmatic research were that it provided a structure for staff to focus on improving the program and it allowed staff to test the change they wanted to see. A commonly reported challenge was measuring the success of the PDSA process with the available electronic medical record tools. CONCLUSION: Understanding how the PDSA process can be applied to pragmatic trials and the reaction of clinic staff to their use may help clinics integrate evidence-based interventions into their everyday care processes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01742065 . Registered October 31, 2013.

Receipt of mammography recommendations among White and non-White women before and after the 2009 United States Preventive Services Task Force recommendation change.

PURPOSE: Receipt of a mammography recommendation from a physician is a strong predictor of obtaining a mammogram. In 2009, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended routine biennial mammography for women aged 50-74 but not for women aged 40-49. We examined changes in reports of clinician recommendations for mammography among White and non-White women after these age-specific recommendations were issued. METHODS: Data from women aged 40-49 and 50-74 were drawn from the 2008 and 2013 National Health Interview Surveys. We used linear probability models to determine whether the proportions of women reporting a mammography recommendation changed after the USPSTF recommendation was issued and whether any changes observed differed across White and non-White women. All analyses were stratified by age groups and mammography history. RESULTS: Among women without a recent mammogram, reported clinician recommendations did not change for White women, but they decreased by 13-percentage points (95 % CI -0.22, -0.03) among non-White women aged 40-49 (p = 0.01) and increased by 9-percentage points (95 % CI 0.01, 0.17) among non-White women aged 50-74 (p = 0.04). Among women with a mammogram in the past 2 years, reported mammography recommendation from a clinician did not change for White or non-White women. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations to reduce screening may be differentially implemented across racial/ethnic groups. Changes in reports of mammography recommendation from a clinician after the USPSTF breast cancer screening recommendation change were observed only among non-White women without a recent history of mammography. It is unclear whether these differences are due to the clinician, the women, or both.

Recruiting community health centers into pragmatic research: Findings from STOP CRC.

BACKGROUND: Challenges of recruiting participants into pragmatic trials, particularly at the level of the health system, remain largely unexplored. As part of Strategies and Opportunities to STOP Colon Cancer in Priority Populations (STOP CRC), we recruited eight separate community health centers (consisting of 26 individual safety net clinics) into a large comparative effectiveness pragmatic study to evaluate methods of raising the rates of colorectal cancer screening. METHODS: In partnership with STOP CRC's advisory board, we defined criteria to identify eligible health centers and applied these criteria to a list of health centers in Washington, Oregon, and California affiliated with Oregon Community Health Information Network, a 16-state practice-based research network of federally sponsored health centers. Project staff contacted centers that met eligibility criteria and arranged in-person meetings of key study investigators with health center leadership teams. We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to thematically analyze the content of discussions during these meetings to identify major facilitators of and barriers to health center participation. RESULTS: From an initial list of 41 health centers, 11 met the initial inclusion criteria. Of these, leaders at three centers declined and at eight centers (26 clinic sites) agreed to participate (73%). Participating and nonparticipating health centers were similar with respect to clinic size, percent Hispanic patients, and percent uninsured patients. Participating health centers had higher proportions of Medicaid patients and higher baseline colorectal cancer screening rates. Common facilitators of participation were perception by center leadership that the project was an opportunity to increase colorectal cancer screening rates and to use electronic health record tools for population management. Barriers to participation were concerns of center leaders about ability to provide fecal testing to and assure follow-up of uninsured patients, limited clinic capacity to prepare mailings required by the study protocol, discomfort with randomization, and concerns about delaying program implementation at some clinics due to the research requirements. CONCLUSION: Our findings address an important research gap and may inform future efforts to recruit community health centers into pragmatic research.

Do Men Receive Information Required for Shared Decision Making About PSA Testing? Results from a National Survey.

Most professional organizations, including the American College of Physicians and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, emphasize that screening for prostate cancer with the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test should only occur after a detailed discussion between the health-care provider and patient about the known risks and potential benefits of the test. In fact, guidelines strongly advise health-care providers to involve patients, particularly those at elevated risk of prostate cancer, in a "shared decision making" (SDM) process about PSA testing. We analyzed data from the National Cancer Institute's Health Information National Trends Survey 2011-2012-a nationally representative, cross-sectional survey-to examine the extent to which health professionals provided men with information critical to SDM prior to PSA testing, including (1) that patients had a choice about whether or not to undergo PSA testing, (2) that not all doctors recommend PSA testing, and (3) that no one is sure if PSA testing saves lives. Over half (55 %) of men between the ages of 50 and 74 reported ever having had a PSA test. However, only 10 % of men, regardless of screening status, reported receiving all three pieces of information: 55 % reported being informed that they could choose whether or not to undergo testing, 22 % reported being informed that some doctors recommend PSA testing and others do not, and 14 % reported being informed that no one is sure if PSA testing actually saves lives. Black men and men with lower levels of education were less likely to be provided this information. There is a need to improve patient-provider communication about the uncertainties associated with the PSA test. Interventions directed at patients, providers, and practice settings should be considered.

Misclassification of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) Mammographic Density and Implications for Breast Density Reporting Legislation.

USA states have begun legislating mammographic breast density reporting to women, requiring that women undergoing screening mammography who have dense breast tissue (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System [BI-RADS] density c or d) receive written notification of their breast density; however, the impact that misclassification of breast density will have on this reporting remains unclear. The aim of this study was to assess reproducibility of the four-category BI-RADS density measure and examine its relationship with a continuous measure of percent density. We enrolled 19 radiologists, experienced in breast imaging, from a single integrated health care system. Radiologists interpreted 341 screening mammograms at two points in time 6 months apart. We assessed intra- and interobserver agreement in radiologists'; interpretations of BI-RADS density and explored whether agreement depended upon radiologist characteristics. We examined the relationship between BI-RADS density and percent density in a subset of 282 examinations. Intraradiologist agreement was moderate to substantial, with kappa varying across radiologists from 0.50 to 0.81 (mean = 0.69, 95% CI [0.63, 0.73]). Intraradiologist agreement was higher for radiologists with ≥10 years experience interpreting mammograms (difference in mean kappa = 0.10, 95% CI [0.01, 0.24]). Interradiologist agreement varied widely across radiologist pairs from slight to substantial, with kappa ranging from 0.02 to 0.72 (mean = 0.46, 95% CI [0.36, 0.55]). Of 145 examinations interpreted as "nondense" (BI-RADS density a or b) by the majority of radiologists, 82.8% were interpreted as "dense" (BI-RADS density c or d) by at least one radiologist. Of 187 examinations interpreted as "dense" by the majority of radiologists, 47.1% were interpreted as "nondense" by at least one radiologist. While the examinations of almost half of the women in our study were interpreted clinically as having BI-RADS density c or d, only about 10% of examinations had percent density >50%. Our results suggest that breast density reporting based on a single BI-RADS density interpretation may be misleading due to high interradiologist variability and a lack of correspondence between BI-RADS density and percent density.

Is religiosity associated with cancer screening? Results from a national survey.

This study examined the following: (1) relationships between religiosity-as measured by religious service attendance-and screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers; (2) the potential mediating role of social support; and (3) the potential moderating effect of race/ethnicity. Statistical analyses showed that religiosity was associated with greater utilization of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening. Social support fully mediated the relationship between religiosity and Pap screening, and partially mediated the relationship between religiosity and colorectal screening, but had no effect on the relationship between religiosity and mammography screening. Race/ethnicity moderated the relationship between religiosity and social support in the cervical cancer screening model, such that the positive association between religiosity and social support was stronger for non-Hispanic Blacks than it was for non-Hispanic Whites. These findings have implications for the role of social networks in health promotion and can inform cancer screening interventions in faith-based settings.

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.

Body mass index, tumor characteristics, and prognosis following diagnosis of early-stage breast cancer in a mammographically screened population.

PURPOSE: Many studies suggest increased body mass index (BMI) is associated with worse breast cancer outcomes, but few account for variability in screening, access to treatment, and tumor differences. We examined the association between BMI and risk of breast cancer recurrence, breast cancer-specific mortality, and all-cause mortality, and evaluated whether tumor characteristics differ by BMI among a mammographically screened population with access to treatment. METHODS: Using a retrospective cohort study design, we followed 485 women aged ≥40 years diagnosed with stage I/II breast cancer within 24 months of a screening mammogram occurring between 1988 and 1993 for 10-year outcomes. BMI before diagnosis was categorized as normal (<25 kg/m(2)), overweight (25-29.9 kg/m(2)), and obese (≥30 kg/m(2)). Tumor marker expression was assessed via immunohistochemistry using tissue collected before adjuvant treatment. Medical records were abstracted to identify treatment, recurrence, and mortality. We used Cox proportional hazards to separately model the hazard ratios (HR) of our three outcomes by BMI while adjusting for age, stage, and tamoxifen use. RESULTS: Relative to normal-weight women, obese women experienced increased risk of recurrence (HR 2.43; 95 % CI 1.34-4.41) and breast cancer death (HR 2.41; 95 % CI 1.00-5.81) within 10 years of diagnosis. There was no association between BMI and all-cause mortality. Obese women had significantly faster growing tumors, as measured by Ki-67. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings add to the growing evidence that obesity may contribute to poorer breast cancer outcomes, and also suggest that increased tumor proliferation among obese women is a pathway that explains part of their excess risk of adverse outcomes.

Organizational leadership for building effective health care teams.

The movement toward accountable care organizations and patient-centered medical homes will increase with implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA will therefore give further impetus to the growing importance of teams in health care. Teams typically involve 2 or more people embedded in a larger social system who differentiate their roles, share common goals, interact with each other, and perform tasks affecting others. Multiple team types fit within this definition, and they all need support from leadership to succeed. Teams have been invoked as a necessary tool to address the needs of patients with multiple chronic conditions and to address medical workforce shortages. Invoking teams, however, is much easier than making them function effectively, so we need to consider the implications of the growing emphasis on teams. Although the ACA will spur team development, organizational leadership must use what we know now to train, support, and incentivize team function. Meanwhile, we must also advance research regarding teams in health care to give those leaders more evidence to guide their work.

Mammographic interpretive volume and diagnostic mammogram interpretation performance in community practice.

PURPOSE: To investigate the association between radiologist interpretive volume and diagnostic mammography performance in community-based settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study received institutional review board approval and was HIPAA compliant. A total of 117,136 diagnostic mammograms that were interpreted by 107 radiologists between 2002 and 2006 in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium were included. Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the adjusted effect on sensitivity and the rates of false-positive findings and cancer detection of four volume measures: annual diagnostic volume, screening volume, total volume, and diagnostic focus (percentage of total volume that is diagnostic). Analyses were stratified by the indication for imaging: additional imaging after screening mammography or evaluation of a breast concern or problem. RESULTS: Diagnostic volume was associated with sensitivity; the odds of a true-positive finding rose until a diagnostic volume of 1000 mammograms was reached; thereafter, they either leveled off (P < .001 for additional imaging) or decreased (P = .049 for breast concerns or problems) with further volume increases. Diagnostic focus was associated with false-positive rate; the odds of a false-positive finding increased until a diagnostic focus of 20% was reached and decreased thereafter (P < .024 for additional imaging and P < .001 for breast concerns or problems with no self-reported lump). Neither total volume nor screening volume was consistently associated with diagnostic performance. CONCLUSION: Interpretive volume and diagnostic performance have complex multifaceted relationships. Our results suggest that diagnostic interpretive volume is a key determinant in the development of thresholds for considering a diagnostic mammogram to be abnormal. Current volume regulations do not distinguish between screening and diagnostic mammography, and doing so would likely be challenging.

Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined the comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in U.S. community practice. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the interpretive performance of digital and film-screen mammography differs. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Mammography facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. PARTICIPANTS: 329,261 women aged 40 to 79 years underwent 869 286 mammograms (231 034 digital; 638 252 film-screen). MEASUREMENTS: Invasive cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed within 12 months of a digital or film-screen examination and calculation of mammography sensitivity, specificity, cancer detection rates, and tumor outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, cancer detection rates and tumor characteristics were similar for digital and film-screen mammography, but the sensitivity and specificity of each modality varied by age, tumor characteristics, breast density, and menopausal status. Compared with film-screen mammography, the sensitivity of digital mammography was significantly higher for women aged 60 to 69 years (89.9% vs. 83.0%; P = 0.014) and those with estrogen receptor-negative cancer (78.5% vs. 65.8%; P = 0.016); borderline significantly higher for women aged 40 to 49 years (82.4% vs. 75.6%; P = 0.071), those with extremely dense breasts (83.6% vs. 68.1%; P = 0.051), and pre- or perimenopausal women (87.1% vs. 81.7%; P = 0.057); and borderline significantly lower for women aged 50 to 59 years (80.5% vs. 85.1%; P = 0.097). The specificity of digital and film-screen mammography was similar by decade of age, except for women aged 40 to 49 years (88.0% vs. 89.7%; P < 0.001). LIMITATION: Statistical power for subgroup analyses was limited. CONCLUSION: Overall, cancer detection with digital or film-screen mammography is similar in U.S. women aged 50 to 79 years undergoing screening mammography. Women aged 40 to 49 years are more likely to have extremely dense breasts and estrogen receptor-negative tumors; if they are offered mammography screening, they may choose to undergo digital mammography to optimize cancer detection. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.

Was the drop in mammography rates in 2005 associated with the drop in hormone therapy use?

BACKGROUND: In 2005, mammography rates in the United States dropped nationally for the first time among age-eligible women. An increased risk of breast cancer related to hormone therapy (HT) use reported in 2002 led to a dramatic drop in its use by 2005. Because current users of HT also tend to have higher mammography rates, the authors examined whether concurrent drops in HT and mammography use were associated. METHODS: Multivariate logistic regression was used to test for an interaction between HT use and survey year, controlling for a range of measurable factors in data from the 2000 and 2005 National Health Interview Surveys (NHIS). RESULTS: Women ages 50 to 64 years were more likely to report a recent mammogram if they also reported more education, a usual source of care, private health insurance, any race except non-Hispanic Asian, talking with an obstetrician/gynecologist or other physician in the past 12 months, or were currently taking HT. Women aged ≥ 65 years were more likely to report a recent mammogram if they also reported younger age (ages 65-74 years), more education, a usual source of care, having Medicare Part B or other supplemental Medicare insurance, excellent health, any race except non-Hispanic Asian, talking with an obstetrician/gynecologist or other physician in the past 12 months, or were currently taking HT. CONCLUSIONS: The change in HT use was associated with the drop in mammography use for women ages 50 to 64 years but not for women aged ≥ 65 years. NHIS data explained 70% to 80% of the change in mammography use.

Accuracy of screening mammography varies by week of menstrual cycle.

PURPOSE: To investigate sensitivity, specificity, and cancer detection rate of screening mammography according to week of menstrual cycle among premenopausal women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved HIPAA-compliant study, sensitivity, specificity, and cancer detection rate of 387,218 screening mammograms linked to 1283 breast cancers in premenopausal women according to week of menstrual cycle were studied by using prospectively collected information from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Logistic regression analysis was used to test for differences in mammography performance according to week of menstrual cycle, adjusting for age and registry. RESULTS: Overall, screening mammography performance did not differ according to week of menstrual cycle. However, when analyses were subdivided according to prior mammography, different patterns emerged. For the 66.6% of women who had undergone regular screening (mammography had been performed within the past 2 years), sensitivity was higher in week 1 (79.5%) than in subsequent weeks (week 2, 70.3%; week 3, 67.4%; week 4, 73.0%; P = .041). In the 17.8% of women who underwent mammography for the first time in this study, sensitivity tended to be lower during the follicular phase (week 1, 72.1%; week 2, 80.4%; week 3, 84.6%; week 4, 93.8%; P = .051). Sensitivity did not vary significantly by week in menstrual cycle in women who had undergone mammography more than 3 years earlier. There were no clinically meaningful differences in specificity or cancer detection rate. CONCLUSION: Premenopausal women who undergo regular screening may benefit from higher sensitivity of mammography if they schedule screening mammography during the 1st week of their menstrual cycle. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.10100974/-/DC1.

Timeliness of follow-up after abnormal screening mammogram: variability of facilities.

PURPOSE: To describe the timeliness of follow-up care in community-based settings among women who receive a recommendation for immediate follow-up during the screening mammography process and how follow-up timeliness varies according to facility and facility-level characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an institutional review board-approved and HIPAA-compliant study. Screening mammograms obtained from 1996 to 2007 in women 40-80 years old in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium were examined. Inclusion criteria were a recommendation for immediate follow-up at screening, or subsequent imaging, and observed follow-up within 180 days of the recommendation. Recommendations for additional imaging (AI) and biopsy or surgical consultation (BSC) were analyzed separately. The distribution of time to follow-up care was estimated by using the Kaplan-Meier estimator. RESULTS: Data were available on 214,897 AI recommendations from 118 facilities and 35,622 BSC recommendations from 101 facilities. The median time to subsequent follow-up care after recommendation was 14 days for AI and 16 days for BSC. Approximately 90% of AI follow-up and 81% of BSC follow-up occurred within 30 days. Facilities with higher recall rates tended to have longer AI follow-up times (P < .001). Over the study period, BSC follow-up rates at 15 and 30 days improved (P < .001). Follow-up times varied substantially across facilities. Timely follow-up was associated with larger volumes of the recommended procedures but not notably associated with facility type nor observed facility-level characteristics. CONCLUSION: Most patients with follow-up returned within 3 weeks of the recommendation.

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.

Multiple clinical practice guidelines for breast and cervical cancer screening: perceptions of US primary care physicians.

BACKGROUND: Multiple clinical practice guidelines exist for breast and cervical cancer screening, and differ in aggressiveness with respect to the recommended frequency and target populations for screening. OBJECTIVES: To determine (1) US primary care physicians' (PCPs) perceptions of the influence of different clinical practice guidelines; (2) the relationship between the number, aggressiveness, and agreement of influential guidelines and the aggressiveness of physicians' screening recommendations; and (3) factors associated with guideline perceptions. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A nationally representative sample of 1212 PCPs was surveyed in 2006-2007. Cross-sectional analyses examined physicians' perceptions of the influence of different breast and cervical cancer screening guidelines, the relationship of guideline perceptions to screening recommendations in response to hypothetical vignettes, and the predictors of guideline perceptions. RESULTS: American Cancer Society and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines were perceived as more influential than other guidelines. Most physicians (62%) valued multiple guidelines, and conflicting and aggressive rather than conservative guideline combinations. The number, aggressiveness, and agreement of influential guidelines were associated with the aggressiveness of screening recommendations (P < 0.01)-which was highest for physicians valuing multiple-aggressive, lowest for physicians valuing multiple-conservative, and intermediate for physicians valuing multiple-conflicting, single, and no guidelines. Obstetrician/gynecologists specialty predicted valuation of aggressive guidelines (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: PCPs' perceptions of cancer screening guidelines vary, relate to screening recommendations in logically-consistent ways, and are predicted by specialty and other factors. The number, aggressiveness, and agreement of valued guidelines are associated with screening recommendations, suggesting that guideline multiplicity is an important problem in clinical decision-making.

Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography.

BACKGROUND: Computer-aided detection identifies suspicious findings on mammograms to assist radiologists. Since the Food and Drug Administration approved the technology in 1998, it has been disseminated into practice, but its effect on the accuracy of interpretation is unclear. METHODS: We determined the association between the use of computer-aided detection at mammography facilities and the performance of screening mammography from 1998 through 2002 at 43 facilities in three states. We had complete data for 222,135 women (a total of 429,345 mammograms), including 2351 women who received a diagnosis of breast cancer within 1 year after screening. We calculated the specificity, sensitivity, and positive predictive value of screening mammography with and without computer-aided detection, as well as the rates of biopsy and breast-cancer detection and the overall accuracy, measured as the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) curve. RESULTS: Seven facilities (16%) implemented computer-aided detection during the study period. Diagnostic specificity decreased from 90.2% before implementation to 87.2% after implementation (P<0.001), the positive predictive value decreased from 4.1% to 3.2% (P=0.01), and the rate of biopsy increased by 19.7% (P<0.001). The increase in sensitivity from 80.4% before implementation of computer-aided detection to 84.0% after implementation was not significant (P=0.32). The change in the cancer-detection rate (including invasive breast cancers and ductal carcinomas in situ) was not significant (4.15 cases per 1000 screening mammograms before implementation and 4.20 cases after implementation, P=0.90). Analyses of data from all 43 facilities showed that the use of computer-aided detection was associated with significantly lower overall accuracy than was nonuse (area under the ROC curve, 0.871 vs. 0.919; P=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The use of computer-aided detection is associated with reduced accuracy of interpretation of screening mammograms. The increased rate of biopsy with the use of computer-aided detection is not clearly associated with improved detection of invasive breast cancer.

Time trends in radiologists' interpretive performance at screening mammography from the community-based Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, 1996-2004.

PURPOSE: To examine time trends in radiologists' interpretive performance at screening mammography between 1996 and 2004. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All study procedures were institutional review board approved and HIPAA compliant. Data were collected on subsequent screening mammograms obtained from 1996 to 2004 in women aged 40-79 years who were followed up for 1 year for breast cancer. Recall rate, sensitivity, and specificity were examined annually. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) and random-effects models were used to test for linear trend. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), tumor histologic findings, and size of the largest dimension or diameter of the tumor were also examined. RESULTS: Data on 2,542,049 subsequent screening mammograms and 12,498 cancers diagnosed in the follow-up period were included in this study. Recall rate increased from 6.7% to 8.6%, sensitivity increased from 71.4% to 83.8%, and specificity decreased from 93.6% to 91.7%. In GEE models, adjusted odds ratios per calendar year were 1.04 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02, 1.05) for recall rate, 1.09 (95% CI: 1.07. 1.12) for sensitivity, and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.95, 0.98) for specificity (P < .001 for all). Random-effects model results were similar. The AUC increased over time: 0.869 (95% CI: 0.861, 0.877) for 1996-1998, 0.884 (95% CI: 0.879, 0.890) for 1999-2001, and 0.891 (95% CI: 0.885, 0.896) for 2002-2004 (P < .001). Tumor histologic findings and size remained constant. CONCLUSION: Recall rate and sensitivity for screening mammograms increased, whereas specificity decreased from 1996 to 2004 among women with a prior mammogram. This trend remained after accounting for risk factors. The net effect was an improvement in overall discrimination, a measure of the probability that a mammogram with cancer in the follow-up period has a higher Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System assessment category than does a mammogram without cancer in the follow-up period.

Sociodemographic correlates of cancer fatalism and the moderating role of religiosity: Results from a nationally-representative survey.

In general, it has been found that cancer fatalism is negatively associated with important cancer prevention and control behaviors, whereas religiosity is positively associated with these behaviors. Yet, the notion that religiosity gives rise to fatalistic beliefs that may discourage health behaviors is deeply ingrained in the public health literature. In addition, racial/ethnic group membership is associated with higher reports of cancer fatalism, though this association may be confounded by socioeconomic status (SES). A better understanding of the relationships between racial/ethnic group membership, SES, and religiosity may contribute to the development of effective interventions to address cancer fatalism and improve health behaviors. In this study, we examined associations between racial/ethnic group membership, SES, and cancer fatalism as the outcome. In addition, we tested whether religiosity (as measured by religious service attendance) moderated these relationships.