A Qualitative Study Exploring Why Individuals Opt Out of Lung Cancer Screening

Background. Lung cancer screening with annual low-dose computed tomography is relatively new for long-term smokers in the USA supported by a US Preventive Services Task Force Grade B recommendation. As screening programs are more widely implemented nationally and providers engage patients about lung cancer screening, it is critical to understand behaviour among high-risk smokers who opt out to improve shared decision-making processes for lung cancer screening. Objective. The purpose of this study was to explore the reasons for screening-eligible patients’ decisions to opt out of screening after receiving a provider recommendation. Methods. Semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews were performed with 18 participants who met lung cancer screening criteria for age, smoking and pack-year history in Washington State from November 2015 to January 2016. Two researchers with cancer screening and qualitative methodology expertise conducted data analysis using thematic content analytic procedures from audio-recorded interviews. Results. Five primary themes emerged for reasons of opting out of lung cancer screening: (i) Knowledge Avoidance; (ii) Perceived Low Value; (iii) False-Positive Worry; (iv) Practical Barriers; and (v) Patient Misunderstanding. Conclusion. The participants in our study provided insight into why some patients make the decision to opt out of low-dose computed tomography screening, which provides knowledge that can inform intervention development to enhance shared decision-making processes between long-term smokers and their providers and decrease decisional conflict about screening

Tamoxifen Initiation After Ductal Carcinoma In Situ

Endocrine therapy initiation after ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is highly variable and largely unexplained. National guidelines recommend considering tamoxifen for women with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) DCIS or who undergo excision alone. We evaluated endocrine therapy use after DCIS over a 15-year period in an integrated health care setting to identify factors related to initiation

National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Screening Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium

Purpose To establish performance benchmarks for modern screening digital mammography and assess performance trends over time in U.S. community practice. Materials and Methods This HIPAA-compliant, institutional review board-approved study measured the performance of digital screening mammography interpreted by 359 radiologists across 95 facilities in six Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) registries. The study included 1 682 504 digital screening mammograms performed between 2007 and 2013 in 792 808 women. Performance measures were calculated according to the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, 5th edition, and were compared with published benchmarks by the BCSC, the National Mammography Database, and performance recommendations by expert opinion. Benchmarks were derived from the distribution of performance metrics across radiologists and were presented as 50th (median), 10th, 25th, 75th, and 90th percentiles, with graphic presentations using smoothed curves. Results Mean screening performance measures were as follows: abnormal interpretation rate (AIR), 11.6 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 11.5, 11.6); cancers detected per 1000 screens, or cancer detection rate (CDR), 5.1 (95% CI: 5.0, 5.2); sensitivity, 86.9% (95% CI: 86.3%, 87.6%); specificity, 88.9% (95% CI: 88.8%, 88.9%); false-negative rate per 1000 screens, 0.8 (95% CI: 0.7, 0.8); positive predictive value (PPV) 1, 4.4% (95% CI: 4.3%, 4.5%); PPV2, 25.6% (95% CI: 25.1%, 26.1%); PPV3, 28.6% (95% CI: 28.0%, 29.3%); cancers stage 0 or 1, 76.9%; minimal cancers, 57.7%; and node-negative invasive cancers, 79.4%. Recommended CDRs were achieved by 92.1% of radiologists in community practice, and 97.1% achieved recommended ranges for sensitivity. Only 59.0% of radiologists achieved recommended AIRs, and only 63.0% achieved recommended levels of specificity. Conclusion The majority of radiologists in the BCSC surpass cancer detection recommendations for screening mammography; however, AIRs continue to be higher than the recommended rate for almost half of radiologists interpreting screening mammograms. © RSNA, 2016 Online supplemental material is available for this article

Breast Tumor Prognostic Characteristics and Biennial vs Annual Mammography, Age, and Menopausal Status

Screening mammography intervals remain under debate in the United States

Effects of Transitioning From Conventional Methods to Liquid Based Methods on Unsatisfactory Pap Tests: Results from a Multicenter U.S. Study (poster)

Background: Pap testing has transitioned from conventional preparations (CP) to liquid based preparations (LBP) due to perceived superiority of LBPs. Many studies conclude LBPs reduce unsatisfactory (UNSAT) tests however some believe the evidence to substantiate this claim is weak. We studied the effect of the transition from CPs to LBPs on the proportion of UNSAT Pap tests (PT) in four health care systems in the United States participating in the NIH-funded SEARCH project. Methods: Our study cohort consisted of 548,174 women with 1,443,725 total PTs, ages 21-65 years, between 2000 and 2010. We used segmented regression analysis to estimate the effect of adopting LBPs on the proportion of UNSAT PTs after adjusting for age. Results: Three sites implementing SurePath LBP experienced significant reductions in UNSAT PTs (Site 1 estimated effect: -2.46% [95% CI: -1.47%, -3.45%], Site 2: -1.78% [95% CI: -1.54%, -2.02%], Site 3: -8.25% [95% CI: -7.33%, -9.17%]. The fourth site implementing ThinPrep LBP did not experience a reduction in UNSAT studies. The relative risk of an UNSAT PT in women \u3e 50 increased after the transition to LBPs (SurePath: RR 2.1 [95% CI: 1.9, 2.2] and ThinPrep: RR 1.7 [95% CI: 1.5, 2.0]). Conclusions: The observed changes in the proportion of UNSAT PTs varied across the participating sites and it was dependent on the type of LBP technology, age of women and the rates prior to the implementation of this technology

No effect of aspirin on mammographic density in a randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Epidemiologic studies suggest a reduced risk of breast cancer among women who regularly use aspirin; a plausible mechanism is through aspirin effect on mammographic breast density, a breast cancer risk factor, possibly mediated through aspirin interference with estrogen synthesis. METHODS: In a 2-arm randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial, we evaluated the effects of 6-month administration of 325 mg/day aspirin on total mammographic breast dense area and percent of the mammographic breast image occupied by dense areas (% density) in 143 postmenopausal women. Eligible women, recruited from 2005 to 2007, were healthy, not taking hormone therapy, with elevated mammographic breast density (American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System density category 2, 3, or 4) within 6 months before enrollment. RESULTS: Women were a mean (SD) 59.5 (5.5) years. Geometric mean baseline percent density was 17.6% (95% confidence interval, 14.8-20.9) in women randomized to aspirin and 19.2% (95% confidence interval, 16.3-22.7) in women randomized to placebo. Percent density decreased in women randomized to aspirin by an absolute 0.8% versus an absolute decrease of 1.2% in controls (P = 0.84). Total breast area and dense area decreased to a similar degree in women assigned to aspirin and in those assigned to placebo, with no statistically significant differences between trial arms. CONCLUSIONS: A single daily administration of adult-dose aspirin for 6 months had no effect on mammographic density in postmenopausal women. If aspirin affects breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women, it may do so through alternative pathways than mammographic breast density. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18(5):1524-30)

An Assessment of the Quality of Mammography Care at Facilities Treating Medically Vulnerable Populations

Women in medically vulnerable populations, including racial and ethnic minorities, the socioeconomically disadvantaged, and residents of rural areas, experience higher breast cancer mortality than do others. Whether mammography facilities that treat vulnerable women demonstrate lower quality of care than other facilities is unknown

Factors Associated with Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Use among Medicare Beneficiaries with Nonmetastatic Breast Cancer

Preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) use among Medicare beneficiaries with breast cancer has substantially increased from 2005 to 2009. We sought to identify factors associated with preoperative breast MRI use among women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or stage I-III invasive breast cancer (IBC)

Genome-wide copy number alterations in subtypes of invasive breast cancers in young white and African American women.

Genomic copy number alterations (CNA) are common in breast cancer. Identifying characteristic CNAs associated with specific breast cancer subtypes is a critical step in defining potential mechanisms of disease initiation and progression. We used genome-wide array comparative genomic hybridization to identify distinctive CNAs in breast cancer subtypes from 259 young (diagnosed with breast cancer at 40%) for TN breast tumors at 10q, 11p, 11q, 16q, 20p, and 20q. In addition, we report CNAs that differ in frequency between TN breast tumors of AA and CA women. This is of particular relevance because TN breast cancer is associated with higher mortality and young AA women have higher rates of TN breast tumors compared to CA women. These data support the possibility that higher overall frequency of genomic alteration events as well as specific focal CNAs in TN breast tumors might contribute in part to the poor breast cancer prognosis for young AA women

Assessing Health Care Use and Cost Consequences of a New Screening Modality: The Case of Digital Mammography

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