Racial inequities in the timing of breast cancer detection, diagnosis, and initiation of treatment.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest differences in quality and timeliness of care received may be major contributing sources to the racial disparity in breast cancer detection and related outcomes. METHODS: Female patients with breast cancer diagnosed during 1985-1993 (n=400) and followed through June 20, 2001, were included in this retrospective cohort study. Three white patients were selected randomly and matched to each black patient by year of diagnosis. Method and timing of diagnosis and timing of treatment were abstracted from medical records. Initial staging and subsequent breast cancer recurrence and vital status were obtained from the Hospital and Connecticut State Tumor Registry. RESULTS: Black women were more likely than white women to be diagnosed after a patient-noted abnormality. Black women were less likely than white women to have completed a diagnostic evaluation within 30 days after a patient-noted abnormality (P <0.01) or after having an abnormality noted on screening mammogram (P=0.0001) and were less likely to have initiated treatment within 30 days of diagnosis (P=0.0001). Women diagnosed after a patient-noted abnormality were more likely to have subsequent breast cancer recurrence and/or death due to breast cancer compared with women diagnosed after a screening mammogram (56% versus 24%, respectively, P <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Racial differences were identified at each step in the evaluation and treatment clinical pathway, including method of detection, timing from first symptoms of cancer to pathologic diagnosis, and timing from diagnosis to initiation of treatment. The findings highlight the need to provide equal opportunity for timely medical care and treatment.

International variation in screening mammography interpretations in community-based programs.

BACKGROUND: Variations in mammography interpretations may have important clinical and economic implications. To evaluate international variability in mammography interpretation, we analyzed published reports from community-based screening programs from around the world. METHODS: A total of 32 publications were identified in MEDLINE that fit the study inclusion criteria. Data abstracted from the publications included features of the population screened, examination technique, and clinical outcomes, including the percentage of mammograms judged to be abnormal, positive predictive value of an abnormal mammogram (PPV(A)), positive predictive value of a biopsy performed (PPV(B)), and percentages of breast cancer patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and minimal disease (DCIS and/or tumor size < or =10 mm). North American screening programs were compared with those from other countries using meta-regression analysis. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Wide ranges were noted for the percentage of mammograms judged to be abnormal (1.2%-15.0%), for PPV(A) (3.4%-48.7%), for PPV(B) (5.0%-85.2%), for percentage diagnosed with DCIS (4.3%-68.1%), and for percentage diagnosed with minimal disease (14.0%-80.6%). The percentage of mammograms judged to be abnormal were 2-4 percentage points higher in North American screening programs than they were in programs from other countries, after adjusting for covariates such as percentage of women who were less than 50 years of age and calendar year in which the mammogram was performed. The percentage of mammograms judged to be abnormal had a negative association with PPV(A) and PPV(B) (both P<.001) and a positive association with the frequency of DCIS cases diagnosed (P =.008) and the number of DCIS cases diagnosed per 1000 screens (P =.024); no consistent relationship was observed with the proportion of breast cancer diagnoses reported as having minimal disease or the number of minimal disease cases diagnosed per 1000 screens. CONCLUSION: North American screening programs appear to interpret a higher percentage of mammograms as abnormal than programs from other countries without evident benefit in the yield of cancers detected per 1000 screens, although an increase in DCIS detection was noted.

The personal costs and convenience of screening mammography.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined the impact of women's personal costs on obtaining a screening mammogram in the United States. METHODS: All women obtaining screening mammograms at nine Connecticut mammography facilities during a 2-week study period were asked to complete a questionnaire. Facilities included urban and rural fixed sites and mobile sites. The survey included questions about insurance coverage, mammogram payment, and personal costs in terms of transportation, family care, parking, and lost work time from the women's perspective. RESULTS: The response rate was 62% (731 of 1189). Thirty-two percent of respondents incurred some type of personal cost, including lost work time, family care, and parking. Women incurring personal costs were more likely than those without personal costs to attend an urban facility (46% vs. 23%, p < 0.01) and be under the age of 50 (40% vs. 26%, p < 0.01). Overall, 61% of women listed convenience and 17% listed cost as a reason for choosing a mammography facility; 23% reported that cost might prevent them from obtaining a future mammogram. CONCLUSIONS: One third of women obtaining mammograms may be incurring personal costs. These personal costs should be considered in future cost-effectiveness analyses.