Dataset Information

How Do Women View Risk-Based Mammography Screening? A Qualitative Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Decades of persuasive messages have reinforced the importance of traditional screening mammography at regular intervals. A potential new paradigm, risk-based screening, adjusts mammography frequency based on a woman's estimated breast cancer risk in order to maximize mortality reduction while minimizing false positives and overdiagnosis. Women's views of risk-based screening are unknown.

Objective

To explore women's views and personal acceptability of a potential risk-based mammography screening paradigm.

Design

Four semi-structured focus group discussions about screening mammography and surveys before provision of information about risk-based screening. We analyzed coded focus group transcripts using a mixed deductive (content analysis) and inductive (grounded theory) approach.

Participants

Convenience sample of 29 women (40-74 years old) with no personal history of breast cancer recruited by print and online media in New Hampshire and Vermont.

Results

Twenty-seven out of 29 women reported having undergone mammography screening. All participants were white and most were highly educated. Some women accepted the idea that early cancer detection with traditional screening was beneficial-although many also reported hearing inconsistent recommendations from clinicians and mixed messages from media reports about mammography. Some women were familiar with a risk-based screening paradigm (primarily related to cervical cancer, n?=?8) and thought matching screening mammography frequency to personal risk made sense (n?=?8). Personal acceptability of risk-based screening was mixed. Some believed risk-based screening could reduce the harms of false positives and overdiagnosis (n?=?7). Others thought screening less often might result in missing a dangerous diagnosis (n?=?14). Many (n?=?18) expressed concerns about the feasibility of risk-based screening and questioned whether breast cancer risk estimates could be accurate. Some suspected that risk-based mammography was motivated by a desire to save money (n?=?6).

Conclusion

Some women thought risk-based screening made sense. Willingness to abandon traditional screening for the new paradigm was mixed. Broad acceptability of risk-based screening will require clearer communication about its rationale and feasibility and consistent messages from the health care team.

SUBMITTER: He X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6206346 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How Do Women View Risk-Based Mammography Screening? A Qualitative Study.

He Xiaofei X Schifferdecker Karen E KE Ozanne Elissa M EM Tosteson Anna N A ANA Woloshin Steven S Schwartz Lisa M LM

Journal of general internal medicine 20180731 11

<h4>Background</h4>Decades of persuasive messages have reinforced the importance of traditional screening mammography at regular intervals. A potential new paradigm, risk-based screening, adjusts mammography frequency based on a woman's estimated breast cancer risk in order to maximize mortality reduction while minimizing false positives and overdiagnosis. Women's views of risk-based screening are unknown.<h4>Objective</h4>To explore women's views and personal acceptability of a potential risk-b ...[more]

PMID: 30066118

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Risk-based screening in women 40-49 years old has not been evaluated in routine screening mammography practice. Purpose To use a cross-sectional study design to compare the trade-offs of risk-based and age-based screening for women 45 years of age or older to determine short-term outcomes. Materials and Methods A retrospective cross-sectional study was performed by using a database of 20 539 prospectively interpreted consecutive digital screening mammograms in 10 280 average-risk women aged 40-49 years who were screened at an academic medical center between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2013. Two hypothetical screening scenarios were compared: an age-based (≥45 years) scenario versus a risk-based (a 5-year risk of breast cancer greater than that of an average 50-year-old) scenario. Risk factors for risk-based screening included family history, race, age, prior breast biopsy, and breast density. Outcomes included breast cancers detected at mammography, false-positive mammograms, and benign biopsy findings. Short-term outcomes were compared by using the χ2 test. Results The screening population included 71 148 screening mammograms in 24 928 women with a mean age of 55.5 years ± 8.9 (standard deviation) (age range, 40-74 years). In women 40-49 years old, usual care included 50 screening-detected cancers, 1787 false-positive mammograms, and 384 benign biopsy results. The age-based (≥45 years) screening strategy revealed more cancers than did the risk-based strategy (34 [68%] vs 13 [26%] of 50; P < .001), while prompting more false-positive mammograms (899 [50.3%] vs 216 [12.1%] of 1787; P < .001) and benign biopsy results (175 [45.6%] vs 49 [12.8%] of 384; P < .001). The risk-based strategy demonstrated low levels of eligibility (few screenings) in the 40-44-year age group. Differences in outcomes in the 45-49-year age group explained the overall hypothetical screening strategy differences. Conclusion Risk-based screening for women 40-49 years old includes few women in the 40-44-year age range. Significant trade-offs in the 45-49-year age group explain the overall difference between hypothetical screening scenarios, both of which reduce the benefits as well as the harms of mammography for women 40-49 years old. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Joe and Hayward 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.

Project description:Guidelines recommend individualizing screening mammography decisions for women aged 75 years and older. However, little pragmatic guidance is available to help counsel patients.To provide an evidence-based approach for individualizing decision-making about screening mammography in older women.We searched PubMed for English-language studies in peer-reviewed journals published from January 1, 1990, to February 1, 2014, to identify risk factors for late-life breast cancer in women aged 65 years and older and to quantify the benefits and harms of screening mammography for women aged 75 years and older.Age is the major risk factor for developing and dying from breast cancer. Breast cancer risk factors that reflect hormonal exposures in the distant past, such as age at first birth or age at menarche, are less predictive of late-life breast cancer than factors indicating recent hormonal exposures such as high bone mass or obesity. Randomized trials of the benefits of screening mammography did not include women older than 74 years. Thus it is not known if screening mammography benefits older women. Observational studies favor extending screening mammography to older women who have a life expectancy of more than 10 years. Modeling studies estimate 2 fewer breast cancer deaths/1000 women who in their 70s continue biennial screening for 10 years instead of stopping screening at age 69. Potential harms of continued screening over 10 years include false-positive mammograms in approximately 200/1000 women screened and overdiagnosis (ie, finding breast cancer that would not have clinically surfaced otherwise) in approximately 13/1000 women screened. Providing information about life expectancy along with potential benefits and harms of screening may help older women's decision-making about screening mammography.For women with less than a 10-year life expectancy, recommendations to stop screening mammography should emphasize increased potential harms from screening and highlight health promotion measures likely to be beneficial over the short term. For women with a life expectancy of more than 10 years, deciding whether potential benefits of screening outweigh harms becomes a value judgment for patients, requiring a realistic understanding of screening outcomes.

Project description:BACKGROUND:We previously developed a pamphlet decision aid (DA) on mammography screening for women ≥ 75 years. However, implementing DAs in primary care may be challenging and may require support from non-physician healthcare team members. OBJECTIVE:To learn from primary care administrators, nurses, and staff their thoughts on how best to implement a mammography DA for women ≥ 75 years in practice. DESIGN:Qualitative study entailing in-person individual interviews using a semi-structured interview guide. PARTICIPANTS:Thirty-two non-physician healthcare team members (69.6% of those approached) participated from 8 different primary care practices (community and academic) in the Boston area or in Chapel Hill, NC. APPROACH:Participants were asked to provide feedback on the DA, their thoughts on ways to make the DA available to older women, and factors that would make it easier and/or harder to implement. KEY RESULTS:Participants felt the DA was clear, balanced, and understandable, but felt that it needed to be shorter for women with low health literacy. Most participants felt that as long as use of the DA was approved and supported by clinicians that women ≥ 75 years should receive the DA before a visit from staff (usually medical assistants) so that patients could ask their clinicians questions during the visit. Facilitators of DA use included its perceived helpfulness with decision-making, its format, and that existing systems (panel management, electronic medical record alerts) could be accessed to get the DA to patients especially at Medicare Annual Wellness visits. Participants perceived a need for training, albeit minimal, to provide the DA to patients. Barriers of DA use included competing demands on clinician and staff time. CONCLUSIONS:Participants felt that as long as use of the mammography DA for women ≥ 75 years was supported by clinicians, it would be feasible to implement with minimal refinements to existing healthcare system processes.

Project description:ObjectiveTo use data from two longstanding, population based screening programmes to study overdiagnosis in screening mammography.DesignPopulation based cohort study.SettingCopenhagen municipality (from 1991) and Funen County (from 1993), Denmark.Participants57,763 women targeted by organised screening, aged 56-69 when the screening programmes started, and followed up to 2009.Main outcome measuresOverdiagnosis of breast cancer in women targeted by screening, assessed by relative risks compared with historical control groups from screening regions, national control groups from non-screening regions, and historical national control groups.ResultsIn total, 3279 invasive breast carcinomas and ductal carcinomas in situ occurred. The start of screening led to prevalence peaks in breast cancer incidence: relative risk 2.06 (95% confidence interval 1.64 to 2.59) for Copenhagen and 1.84 (1.46 to 2.32) for Funen. During subsequent screening rounds, relative risks were slightly above unity: 1.04 (0.85 to 1.27) for Copenhagen and 1.14 (0.98 to 1.32) for Funen. A compensatory dip was seen after the end of invitation to screening: relative risk 0.80 (0.65 to 0.98) for Copenhagen and 0.67 (0.55 to 0.81) for Funen during the first four years. The relative risk of breast cancer accumulated over the entire follow-up period was 1.06 (0.90 to 1.25) for Copenhagen and 1.01 (0.93 to 1.10) for Funen. Relative risks for participants corrected for selection bias were estimated to be 1.08 for Copenhagen and 1.02 for Funen; for participants followed for at least eight years after the end of screening, they were 1.05 and 1.01. A pooled estimate gave 1.040 (0.99 to 1.09) for all targeted women and 1.023 (0.97 to 1.08) for targeted women followed for at least eight years after the end of screening.ConclusionsOn the basis of combined data from the two screening programmes, this study indicated that overdiagnosis most likely amounted to 2.3% (95% confidence interval -3% to 8%) in targeted women. Among participants, it was most likely 1-5%. At least eight years after the end of screening were needed to compensate for the excess incidence during screening.

Project description:To improve the performance of a computer-aided detection (CAD) system for mass detection by using four-view information in screening mammography.The authors developed a four-view CAD system that emulates radiologists' reading by using the craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique views of the ipsilateral breast to reduce false positives (FPs) and the corresponding views of the contralateral breast to detect asymmetry. The CAD system consists of four major components: (1) Initial detection of breast masses on individual views, (2) information fusion of the ipsilateral views of the breast (referred to as two-view analysis), (3) information fusion of the corresponding views of the contralateral breast (referred to as bilateral analysis), and (4) fusion of the four-view information with a decision tree. The authors collected two data sets for training and testing of the CAD system: A mass set containing 389 patients with 389 biopsy-proven masses and a normal set containing 200 normal subjects. All cases had four-view mammograms. The true locations of the masses on the mammograms were identified by an experienced MQSA radiologist. The authors randomly divided the mass set into two independent sets for cross validation training and testing. The overall test performance was assessed by averaging the free response receiver operating characteristic (FROC) curves of the two test subsets. The FP rates during the FROC analysis were estimated by using the normal set only. The jackknife free-response ROC (JAFROC) method was used to estimate the statistical significance of the difference between the test FROC curves obtained with the single-view and the four-view CAD systems.Using the single-view CAD system, the breast-based test sensitivities were 58% and 77% at the FP rates of 0.5 and 1.0 per image, respectively. With the four-view CAD system, the breast-based test sensitivities were improved to 76% and 87% at the corresponding FP rates, respectively. The improvement was found to be statistically significant (p < 0.0001) by JAFROC analysis.The four-view information fusion approach that emulates radiologists' reading strategy significantly improves the performance of breast mass detection of the CAD system in comparison with the single-view approach.

Project description:Importance:Whole-breast ultrasonography has been advocated to supplement screening mammography to improve outcomes in women with dense breasts. Objective:To determine the performance of screening mammography plus screening ultrasonography compared with screening mammography alone in community practice. Design, Setting, and Participants:Observational cohort study. Two Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries provided prospectively collected data on screening mammography with vs without same-day breast ultrasonography from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2013. The dates of analysis were March 2014 to December 2018. A total of 6081 screening mammography plus same-day screening ultrasonography examinations in 3386 women were propensity score matched 1:5 to 30 062 screening mammograms without screening ultrasonography in 15 176 women from a sample of 113 293 mammograms. Exclusion criteria included a personal history of breast cancer and self-reported breast symptoms. Exposures:Screening mammography with vs without screening ultrasonography. Main Outcomes and Measures:Cancer detection rate and rates of interval cancer, false-positive biopsy recommendation, short-interval follow-up, and positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation were estimated and compared using log binomial regression. Results:Screening mammography with vs without ultrasonography examinations was performed more often in women with dense breasts (74.3% [n = 4317 of 5810] vs 35.9% [n = 39 928 of 111 306] in the overall sample), in women who were younger than 50 years (49.7% [n = 3022 of 6081] vs 31.7% [n = 16 897 of 112 462]), and in women with a family history of breast cancer (42.9% [n = 2595 of 6055] vs 15.0% [n = 16 897 of 112 462]). While 21.4% (n = 1154 of 5392) of screening ultrasonography examinations were performed in women with high or very high (≥2.50%) Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium 5-year risk scores, 53.6% (n = 2889 of 5392) had low or average (<1.67%) risk. Comparing mammography plus ultrasonography with mammography alone, the cancer detection rate was similar at 5.4 vs 5.5 per 1000 screens (adjusted relative risk [RR], 1.14; 95% CI, 0.76-1.68), as were interval cancer rates at 1.5 vs 1.9 per 1000 screens (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.33-1.37). The false-positive biopsy rates were significantly higher at 52.0 vs 22.2 per 1000 screens (RR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.93-2.58), as was short-interval follow-up at 3.9% vs 1.1% (RR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.60-3.70). The positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation was significantly lower at 9.5% vs 21.4% (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.35-0.71). Conclusions and Relevance:In a relatively young population of women at low, intermediate, and high breast cancer risk, these results suggest that the benefits of supplemental ultrasonography screening may not outweigh associated harms.

Dataset Information

How Do Women View Risk-Based Mammography Screening? A Qualitative Study.

Background

Objective

Design

Participants

Results

Conclusion

Publications

How Do Women View Risk-Based Mammography Screening? A Qualitative Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets