Breast Cancer Screening
Recently Published Documents





2021 ◽  
Maria Castaldi ◽  
Abbas Smiley ◽  
Katharine Kechejian ◽  
Jonathan Butler ◽  
Rifat Latifi

Abstract Background: Barriers to breast cancer screening remain despite Medicaid expansion for preventive screening tests and implementation of patient navigation programs (PNP) under the Affordable Care Act. Women from underserved communities experience disproportionately low rates of screening mammography. This study compares barriers to breast cancer screening among women at an inner-city safety-net center (City) and those at a suburban county medical center (County). Inner city and suburban county medical centers’ initiatives were studied to compare outcomes of breast cancer screening and factors that influence access to care.Methods: Women 40 years of age or older delinquent in breast cancer screening were offered PN services between October 2014 and September 2019. Four different screening time-to-event intervals were investigated: time from PN acceptance to screening mammography, to diagnostic mammography, to biopsy, and overall screening completion time. Barriers to complete breast cancer screening between the two centers were compared.Results: Women from lowest income quartiles took significantly longer to complete breast cancer screening when compared to women from higher income quartiles when a barrier was present, regardless of barrier type and center. Transportation was a major barrier to screening mammography completion, while fear was the major barrier to abnormal screening work up. Table 1.Conclusion: Disparity in breast cancer screening and management persists despite implementation of a PNP. In the presence of a barrier, women from the lowest income quartiles have prolonged breast cancer screening completion time regardless of center or barrier type. Women who experience fear have longest screening time completion. Future directions aim to increase resource allocation to ameliorate wait times in overburdened safety-net hospitals as well as advanced training for PN to alleviate women’s fears.

Jennifer A. Cooper ◽  
David Jenkinson ◽  
Chris Stinton ◽  
Matthew G. Wallis ◽  
Sue Hudson ◽  

Abstract Objectives In breast cancer screening, two readers separately examine each woman’s mammograms for signs of cancer. We examined whether preventing the two readers from seeing each other’s decisions (blinding) affects behaviour and outcomes. Methods This cohort study used data from the CO-OPS breast-screening trial (1,119,191 women from 43 screening centres in England) where all discrepant readings were arbitrated. Multilevel models were fitted using Markov chain Monte Carlo to measure whether reader 2 conformed to the decisions of reader 1 when they were not blinded, and the effect of blinding on overall rates of recall for further tests and cancer detection. Differences in positive predictive value (PPV) were assessed using Pearson’s chi-squared test. Results When reader 1 recalls, the probability of reader 2 also recalling was higher when not blinded than when blinded, suggesting readers may be influenced by the other’s decision. Overall, women were less likely to be recalled when reader 2 was blinded (OR 0.923; 95% credible interval 0.864, 0.986), with no clear pattern in cancer detection rate (OR 1.029; 95% credible interval 0.970, 1.089; Bayesian p value 0.832). PPV was 22.1% for blinded versus 20.6% for not blinded (p < 0.001). Conclusions Our results suggest that when not blinded, reader 2 is influenced by reader 1’s decisions to recall (alliterative bias) which would result in bypassing arbitration and negate some of the benefits of double-reading. We found a relationship between blinding the second reader and slightly higher PPV of breast cancer screening, although this analysis may be confounded by other centre characteristics. Key Points • In Europe, it is recommended that breast screening mammograms are analysed by two readers but there is little evidence on the effect of ‘blinding’ the readers so they cannot see each other’s decisions. • We found evidence that when the second reader is not blinded, they are more likely to agree with a recall decision from the first reader and less likely to make an independent judgement (alliterative error). This may reduce overall accuracy through bypassing arbitration. • This observational study suggests an association between blinding the second reader and higher positive predictive value of screening, but this may be confounded by centre characteristics.

Sultan Al Balushi ◽  
Yuthar Al Rawahi ◽  
Wahid Al Kharusi ◽  
Bassim Al Bahrani ◽  
Khalid Al Baimani ◽  

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 511
Jennifer D. Brooks ◽  
Hermann H. Nabi ◽  
Irene L. Andrulis ◽  
Antonis C. Antoniou ◽  
Jocelyne Chiquette ◽  

Early detection of breast cancer through screening reduces breast cancer mortality. The benefits of screening must also be considered within the context of potential harms (e.g., false positives, overdiagnosis). Furthermore, while breast cancer risk is highly variable within the population, most screening programs use age to determine eligibility. A risk-based approach is expected to improve the benefit-harm ratio of breast cancer screening programs. The PERSPECTIVE I&I (Personalized Risk Assessment for Prevention and Early Detection of Breast Cancer: Integration and Implementation) project seeks to improve personalized risk assessment to allow for a cost-effective, population-based approach to risk-based screening and determine best practices for implementation in Canada. This commentary describes the four inter-related activities that comprise the PERSPECTIVE I&I project. 1: Identification and validation of novel moderate to high-risk susceptibility genes. 2: Improvement, validation, and adaptation of a risk prediction web-tool for the Canadian context. 3: Development and piloting of a socio-ethical framework to support implementation of risk-based breast cancer screening. 4: Economic analysis to optimize the implementation of risk-based screening. Risk-based screening and prevention is expected to benefit all women, empowering them to work with their healthcare provider to make informed decisions about screening and prevention.

2021 ◽  
pp. 084456212110132
Louise Racine ◽  
Isil Andsoy ◽  
Sithokozile Maposa ◽  
Hassanali Vatanparast ◽  
Susan Fowler-Kerry

Background Women living in the Arab world present low breast cancer screening rates, delayed diagnosis, and higher mortality rates. Purpose To further explore the Muslim Syrian refugee women’s breast self-examination (BSE), utilization of clinical breast examination (CBE) and mammography. Methods A cross-sectional descriptive exploratory study design was used. The sample consisted of 75 refugee women. Data were collected using Champion’s Health Belief Model Scale, the Cancer Stigma Scale, and the Arab Culture-Specific Barriers to Breast Cancer Questionnaire. Descriptive, Pearson correlation and logistic regression analyses were used to analyze the data. Results A minority of women had BSE (32%), CBE (12%) and mammograms (6.7%) anytime during their lifetime. Women’s breast cancer screening (BCS) knowledge ranked at a medium level (M = 10.57, SD = 0.40). Low knowledge score, BSE information, policy opposition, responsibility, barriers to BSE, and seriousness were found to be statistically significant in women’s BSE practice. BSE benefits and religious beliefs significantly predict CBE Age, education, knowledge, responsibility, susceptibility, social barriers, and religious beliefs were statistically significant in women’s mammography use (p < .01). Conclusions Participants’ breast cancer screening practices were low. Health beliefs, Arab culture and stigma about cancer affected women’s BCS practices. Faith-based interventions may improve knowledge and practices.

Matthew M. Miller ◽  
Max O. Meneveau ◽  
Carrie M. Rochman ◽  
Anneke T. Schroen ◽  
Courtney M. Lattimore ◽  

Export Citation Format

Share Document