Dataset Information

Frequencies of Private Mentions and Sharing of Mammography and Breast Cancer Terms on Facebook: A Pilot Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The most popular social networking site in the United States is Facebook, an online forum where circles of friends create, share, and interact with each other's content in a nonpublic way.

Objective

Our objectives were to understand (1) the most commonly used terms and phrases relating to breast cancer screening, (2) the most commonly shared website links that other women interacted with, and (3) the most commonly shared website links, by age groups.

Methods

We used a novel proprietary tool from Facebook to analyze all of the more than 1.7 million unique interactions (comments on stories, reshares, and emoji reactions) and stories associated with breast cancer screening keywords that were generated by more than 1.1 million unique female Facebook users over the 1 month between November 15 and December 15, 2016. We report frequency distributions of the most popular shared Web content by age group and keywords.

Results

On average, each of 59,000 unique stories during the month was reshared 1.5 times, commented on nearly 8 times, and reacted to more than 20 times by other users. Posted stories were most often authored by women aged 45-54 years. Users shared, reshared, commented on, and reacted to website links predominantly to e-commerce sites (12,200/1.7 million, 36% of all the most popular links), celebrity news (n=8800, 26%), and major advocacy organizations (n=4900, 15%; almost all accounted for by the American Cancer Society breast cancer site).

Conclusions

On Facebook, women shared and reacted to links to commercial and informative websites regarding breast cancer and screening. This information could inform patient outreach regarding breast cancer screening, indirectly through better understanding of key issues, and directly through understanding avenues for paid messaging to women authoring and reacting to content in this space.

SUBMITTER: Huesch M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5482928 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of contemporary mammography screening using individual information about screening history and breast cancer mortality from public screening programmes.DesignProspective cohort study of Norwegian women who were followed between 1986 and 2009. Within that period (1995-2005), a national mammography screening programme was gradually implemented, with biennial invitations sent to women aged 50-69 years.ParticipantsAll Norwegian women aged 50-79 between 1986 and 2009.Main outcome measuresMultiple Poisson regression analysis was used to estimate breast cancer mortality rate ratios comparing women who were invited to screening (intention to screen) with women who were not invited, with a clear distinction between cases of breast cancer diagnosed before (without potential for screening effect) and after (with potential for screening effect) the first invitation for screening. We took competing causes of death into account by censoring women from further follow-up who died from other causes. Based on the observed mortality reduction combined with the all cause and breast cancer specific mortality in Norway in 2009, we used the CISNET (Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network) Stanford simulation model to estimate how many women would need to be invited to biennial mammography screening in the age group 50-69 years to prevent one breast cancer death during their lifetime.ResultsDuring 15 193 034 person years of observation (1986-2009), deaths from breast cancer occurred in 1175 women with a diagnosis after being invited to screening and 8996 women who had not been invited before diagnosis. After adjustment for age, birth cohort, county of residence, and national trends in deaths from breast cancer, the mortality rate ratio associated with being invited to mammography screening was 0.72 (95% confidence interval 0.64 to 0.79). To prevent one death from breast cancer, 368 (95% confidence interval 266 to 508) women would need to be invited to screening.ConclusionInvitation to modern mammography screening may reduce deaths from breast cancer by about 28%.

Project description:BackgroundOur objective was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the breast cancer detection rate (CDR), invasive CDR, recall rate, and positive predictive value 1 (PPV1) of digital mammography (DM) alone, combined digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and DM, combined DBT and synthetic 2-dimensional mammography (S2D), and DBT alone.MethodsMEDLINE and Embase were searched until April 2020 to identify comparative design studies reporting on patients undergoing routine breast cancer screening. Random effects model proportional meta-analyses estimated CDR, invasive CDR, recall rate, and PPV1. Meta-regression modeling was used to compare imaging modalities. All statistical tests were 2-sided.ResultsForty-two studies reporting on 2 606 296 patients (13 003 breast cancer cases) were included. CDR was highest in combined DBT and DM (6.36 per 1000 screened, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.62 to 7.14, P < .001), and combined DBT and S2D (7.40 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 6.49 to 8.37, P < .001) compared with DM alone (4.68 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 4.28 to 5.11). Invasive CDR was highest in combined DBT and DM (4.53 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 3.97 to 5.12, P = .003) and combined DBT and S2D (5.68 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 4.43 to 7.09, P < .001) compared with DM alone (3.42 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 3.02 to 3.83). Recall rate was lowest in combined DBT and S2D (42.3 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 37.4 to 60.4, P<.001). PPV1 was highest in combined DBT and DM (10.0%, 95% CI = 8.0% to 12.0%, P = .004), and combined DBT and S2D (16.0%, 95% CI = 10.0% to 23.0%, P < .001), whereas no difference was detected for DBT alone (7.0%, 95% CI = 6.0% to 8.0%, P = .75) compared with DM alone (7.0%, 95.0% CI = 5.0% to 8.0%).ConclusionsOur findings provide evidence on key performance metrics for DM, DBT alone, combined DBT and DM, and combined DBT and S2D, which may inform optimal application of these modalities for breast cancer screening.

Project description:Background Previous studies have suggested that breast parenchymal texture features may reflect the biologic risk factors associated with breast cancer development. Therefore, combining the characteristics of normal parenchyma from the contralateral breast with radiomic features of breast tumors may improve the accuracy of digital mammography in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Purpose To determine whether the addition of radiomic analysis of contralateral breast parenchyma to the characterization of breast lesions with digital mammography improves lesion classification over that with radiomic tumor features alone. Materials and Methods This HIPAA-compliant, retrospective study included 182 patients (age range, 25-90 years; mean age, 55.9 years ± 14.9) who underwent mammography between June 2002 and July 2009. There were 106 malignant and 76 benign lesions. Automatic lesion segmentation and radiomic analysis were performed for each breast lesion. Radiomic texture analysis was applied in the normal regions of interest in the contralateral breast parenchyma to assess the mammographic parenchymal patterns. The classification performance of both individual features and the output from a Bayesian artificial neural network classifier was evaluated with the leave-one-patient-out method by using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) as the figure of merit in the task of differentiating between malignant and benign lesions. Results The performance of the combined lesion and parenchyma classifier in the differentiation between malignant and benign mammographic lesions was better than that with the lesion features alone (AUC = 0.84 ± 0.03 vs 0.79 ± 0.03, respectively; P = .047). Overall, six radiomic features-spiculation, margin sharpness, size, circularity from the tumor feature set, and skewness and power law beta from the parenchymal feature set-were selected more than 50% of the time during the feature selection process on the combined feature set. Conclusion Combining quantitative radiomic data from tumors with contralateral parenchyma characterizations may improve diagnostic accuracy for breast cancer. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Shaffer in this issue.

Project description:ContextScreening ultrasound may depict small, node-negative breast cancers not seen on mammography.ObjectiveTo compare the diagnostic yield, defined as the proportion of women with positive screen test results and positive reference standard, and performance of screening with ultrasound plus mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer.Design, setting, and participantsFrom April 2004 to February 2006, 2809 women, with at least heterogeneously dense breast tissue in at least 1 quadrant, were recruited from 21 sites to undergo mammographic and physician-performed ultrasonographic examinations in randomized order by a radiologist masked to the other examination results. Reference standard was defined as a combination of pathology and 12-month follow-up and was available for 2637 (96.8%) of the 2725 eligible participants.Main outcome measuresDiagnostic yield, sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy (assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) of combined mammography plus ultrasound vs mammography alone and the positive predictive value of biopsy recommendations for mammography plus ultrasound vs mammography alone.ResultsForty participants (41 breasts) were diagnosed with cancer: 8 suspicious on both ultrasound and mammography, 12 on ultrasound alone, 12 on mammography alone, and 8 participants (9 breasts) on neither. The diagnostic yield for mammography was 7.6 per 1000 women screened (20 of 2637) and increased to 11.8 per 1000 (31 of 2637) for combined mammography plus ultrasound; the supplemental yield was 4.2 per 1000 women screened (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-7.2 per 1000; P = .003 that supplemental yield is 0). The diagnostic accuracy for mammography was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.67-0.87) and increased to 0.91 (95% CI, 0.84-0.96) for mammography plus ultrasound (P = .003 that difference is 0). Of 12 supplemental cancers detected by ultrasound alone, 11 (92%) were invasive with a median size of 10 mm (range, 5-40 mm; mean [SE], 12.6 [3.0] mm) and 8 of the 9 lesions (89%) reported had negative nodes. The positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation after full diagnostic workup was 19 of 84 for mammography (22.6%; 95% CI, 14.2%-33%), 21 of 235 for ultrasound (8.9%, 95% CI, 5.6%-13.3%), and 31 of 276 for combined mammography plus ultrasound (11.2%; 95% CI. 7.8%-15.6%).ConclusionsAdding a single screening ultrasound to mammography will yield an additional 1.1 to 7.2 cancers per 1000 high-risk women, but it will also substantially increase the number of false positives.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00072501.