Social Support Needs of Minority Breast Cancer Patients: Significance of Racial Homogeneity and Kin Composition of Social Networks

Social support from family and friends assists breast cancer patients navigate a life crisis, but more needs to be understood about specific social network characteristics that can benefit breast cancer patients. To address this need, the primary aim of this study was to identify social network factors that facilitate or reduce social support. Given racially patterned gaps in social support among breast cancer patients, a secondary goal was to identify network characteristics that are linked to gaps in support. We examined these research questions using data from a sample of 915 breast cancer patients (NHWhite=373; NHBlack=377; Hispanic=165) and 4,021 of their network members. To improve on prior research, we collected detailed social network data using a personal-network measurement tool and assessed needed and received support on five support components. Study findings identified specific network characteristics that facilitate these social support components. Network size was associated with increased practical, informational, emotional, and spiritual support. Network density was associated with increased practical support. Racial homogeneity in networks were associated with reduced informational support while a higher number of daughters in support networks was associated with increased emotional support. Compared to NHWhite patients, NHBlack patients were more likely to experience inadequate practical and financial support. Additionally, compared to NHWhite patients, Hispanic patients were more likely to experience inadequate informational and emotional support. The study found that network density, racial homogeneity, and gender composition of NHWhite, NHBlack and Hispanic social networks contributed to the racially patterned disparities in social support. Findings in this study could inform interventions aimed at increasing social support through greater mobilization of existing network ties as well as policy-driven, formal community building initiatives aimed at replicating benefits of naturally occurring networks

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

The James Webb Space Telescope Mission

Twenty-six years ago a small committee report, building on earlier studies, expounded a compelling and poetic vision for the future of astronomy, calling for an infrared-optimized space telescope with an aperture of at least $4m$. With the support of their governments in the US, Europe, and Canada, 20,000 people realized that vision as the $6.5m$ James Webb Space Telescope. A generation of astronomers will celebrate their accomplishments for the life of the mission, potentially as long as 20 years, and beyond. This report and the scientific discoveries that follow are extended thank-you notes to the 20,000 team members. The telescope is working perfectly, with much better image quality than expected. In this and accompanying papers, we give a brief history, describe the observatory, outline its objectives and current observing program, and discuss the inventions and people who made it possible. We cite detailed reports on the design and the measured performance on orbit.Comment: Accepted by PASP for the special issue on The James Webb Space Telescope Overview, 29 pages, 4 figure

Accuracy of selfreported cancer-screening histories: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008; 17: 748–57

Abstract Background: Survey data used to study trends in cancer screening may overestimate screening utilization while potentially underestimating existing disparities in use. Methods: We did a literature review and meta-analysis of validation studies examining the accuracy of selfreported cancer-screening histories. We calculated summary random-effects estimates for sensitivity and specificity, separately for mammography, clinical breast exam (CBE), Pap smear, prostate-specific antigen testing (PSA), digital rectal exam, fecal occult blood testing, and colorectal endoscopy

Trends in Attaining Mammography Quality Benchmarks With Repeated Participation in a Quality Measurement Program: Going Beyond the Mammography Quality Standards Act to Address Breast Cancer Disparities

PURPOSE: The Mammography Quality Standards Act requires that mammography facilities conduct audits, but there are no specifications on the metrics to be measured. In a previous mammography quality improvement project, the authors examined whether breast cancer screening facilities could collect the data necessary to show that they met certain quality benchmarks. Here the authors present trends from the first 5 years of data collection to examine whether continued participation in this quality improvement program was associated with an increase in the number of benchmarks met for breast cancer screening. METHODS: Participating facilities across the state of Illinois (n = 114) with at least two time points of data collected (2006, 2009, 2010, 2011, and/or 2013) were included. Facilities provided aggregate data on screening mammographic examinations and corresponding diagnostic follow-up information, which was used to estimate 13 measures and corresponding benchmarks for patient tracking, callback, cancer detection, loss to follow-up, and timeliness of care. RESULTS: The number of facilities able to show that they met specific benchmarks increased with length of participation for many but not all measures. Trends toward meeting more benchmarks were apparent for cancer detection, timely imaging, not lost at biopsy, known minimal status (P \u3c .01 for all), and proportion of screening-detected cancers that were minimal and early stage (P \u3c .001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Participation in the quality improvement program seemed to lead to improvements in patient tracking, callback and detection, and timeliness benchmarks