Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 2/2016

01-11-2016 | Epidemiology

Breast cancer screening initiation after turning 40 years of age within the PROSPR consortium

Authors: Elisabeth F. Beaber, Anna N. A. Tosteson, Jennifer S. Haas, Tracy Onega, Brian L. Sprague, Donald L. Weaver, Anne Marie McCarthy, Chyke A. Doubeni, Virginia P. Quinn, Celette Sugg Skinner, Ann G. Zauber, William E. Barlow

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 2/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Although United States clinical guidelines differ, the earliest recommended age for average risk breast cancer screening is 40 years. Little is known about factors influencing screening initiation.

Methods

We conducted a cohort study within the National Cancer Institute-funded Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium. We identified 3413 women on their 40th birthday in primary care networks at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth (DH) and Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) during 2011–2013 with no prior breast imaging or breast cancer. Cumulative incidence curves and Cox modeling were used to determine time from the 40th birthday to first breast cancer screening, cohort exit, or 42nd birthday. We calculated hazards ratios and 95 % confidence intervals from multivariable Cox proportional hazards models.

Results

Breast cancer screening cumulative incidence by the 42nd birthday was 62.9 % (BWH) and 39.8 % (DH). Factors associated with screening initiation were: a primary care visit within a year (HR 4.99, 95 % CI 4.23–5.89), an increasing number of primary care visits within a year (p for trend <0.0001), ZIP code of residence annual median household income ≤$52,000 (HR 0.79, 95 % CI 0.68–0.92), and health insurance type (Medicaid HR 0.72, 95 % CI 0.58–0.88; Medicare HR 0.55, 95 % CI 0.39–0.77; uninsured HR 0.37, 95 % CI 0.25–0.57).

Conclusions

Breast cancer screening uptake after the 40th birthday varies by health system, primary care visits, median household income, and health insurance type, suggesting the need for further exploration. Future research should evaluate screening performance metrics after initiation and consider cumulative benefits and risks associated with breast cancer screening over time.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
4.
go back to reference Oeffinger KC, Fontham ET, Etzioni R, Herzig A, Michaelson JS, Shih YC, Walter LC, Church TR, Flowers CR, LaMonte SJ, Wolf AM, DeSantis C, Lortet-Tieulent J, Andrews K, Manassaram-Baptiste D, Saslow D, Smith RA, Brawley OW, Wender R, American Cancer S (2015) Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. JAMA 314(15):1599–1614. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.12783 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Oeffinger KC, Fontham ET, Etzioni R, Herzig A, Michaelson JS, Shih YC, Walter LC, Church TR, Flowers CR, LaMonte SJ, Wolf AM, DeSantis C, Lortet-Tieulent J, Andrews K, Manassaram-Baptiste D, Saslow D, Smith RA, Brawley OW, Wender R, American Cancer S (2015) Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. JAMA 314(15):1599–1614. doi:10.​1001/​jama.​2015.​12783 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
go back to reference Siu AL, U. S. Preventive Services Task Force (2016) Screening for breast cancer: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 164(4):279–296. doi:10.7326/M15-2886 CrossRefPubMed Siu AL, U. S. Preventive Services Task Force (2016) Screening for breast cancer: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 164(4):279–296. doi:10.​7326/​M15-2886 CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Haas JS, Sprague BL, Klabunde CN, Tosteson AN, Chen JS, Bitton A, Beaber EF, Onega T, Kim JJ, MacLean CD, Harris K, Yamartino P, Howe K, Pearson L, Feldman S, Brawarsky P, Schapira MM, PROSPR Consortium (2016) Provider attitudes and screening practices following changes in breast and cervical cancer screening guidelines. J Gen Intern Med 31(1):52–59. doi:10.1007/s11606-015-3449-5 CrossRefPubMed Haas JS, Sprague BL, Klabunde CN, Tosteson AN, Chen JS, Bitton A, Beaber EF, Onega T, Kim JJ, MacLean CD, Harris K, Yamartino P, Howe K, Pearson L, Feldman S, Brawarsky P, Schapira MM, PROSPR Consortium (2016) Provider attitudes and screening practices following changes in breast and cervical cancer screening guidelines. J Gen Intern Med 31(1):52–59. doi:10.​1007/​s11606-015-3449-5 CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Nelson HD, Fu R, Cantor A, Pappas M, Daeges M, Humphrey L (2016) Effectiveness of breast cancer screening: systematic review and meta-analysis to update the 2009 U.S. preventive services task force recommendation. Ann Intern Med 164(4):244–255. doi:10.7326/M15-0969 CrossRefPubMed Nelson HD, Fu R, Cantor A, Pappas M, Daeges M, Humphrey L (2016) Effectiveness of breast cancer screening: systematic review and meta-analysis to update the 2009 U.S. preventive services task force recommendation. Ann Intern Med 164(4):244–255. doi:10.​7326/​M15-0969 CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Nelson HD, O’Meara ES, Kerlikowske K, Balch S, Miglioretti D (2016) Factors associated with rates of false-positive and false-negative results from digital mammography screening: an analysis of registry data. Ann Intern Med 164(4):226–235. doi:10.7326/M15-0971 CrossRefPubMed Nelson HD, O’Meara ES, Kerlikowske K, Balch S, Miglioretti D (2016) Factors associated with rates of false-positive and false-negative results from digital mammography screening: an analysis of registry data. Ann Intern Med 164(4):226–235. doi:10.​7326/​M15-0971 CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40(5):373–383CrossRefPubMed Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40(5):373–383CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, Fong A, Burnand B, Luthi JC, Saunders LD, Beck CA, Feasby TE, Ghali WA (2005) Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care 43(11):1130–1139CrossRefPubMed Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, Fong A, Burnand B, Luthi JC, Saunders LD, Beck CA, Feasby TE, Ghali WA (2005) Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care 43(11):1130–1139CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Newell SA, Girgis A, Sanson-Fisher RW, Savolainen NJ (1999) The accuracy of self-reported health behaviors and risk factors relating to cancer and cardiovascular disease in the general population: a critical review. Am J Prev Med 17(3):211–229CrossRefPubMed Newell SA, Girgis A, Sanson-Fisher RW, Savolainen NJ (1999) The accuracy of self-reported health behaviors and risk factors relating to cancer and cardiovascular disease in the general population: a critical review. Am J Prev Med 17(3):211–229CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Colbert JA, Kaine EM, Bigby J, Smith DN, Moore RH, Rafferty E, Georgian-Smith D, Anne D’Alessandro H, Yeh E, Kopans DB, Halpern EF, Hughes K, Smith BL, Tanabe KK, Michaelson JS (2004) The age at which women begin mammographic screening. Cancer 101(8):1850–1859. doi:10.1002/cncr.20583 CrossRefPubMed Colbert JA, Kaine EM, Bigby J, Smith DN, Moore RH, Rafferty E, Georgian-Smith D, Anne D’Alessandro H, Yeh E, Kopans DB, Halpern EF, Hughes K, Smith BL, Tanabe KK, Michaelson JS (2004) The age at which women begin mammographic screening. Cancer 101(8):1850–1859. doi:10.​1002/​cncr.​20583 CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference O’Connor AM, Wennberg JE, Legare F, Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Moulton BW, Sepucha KR, Sodano AG, King JS (2007) Toward the ‘tipping point’: decision aids and informed patient choice. Health Aff (Millwood) 26(3):716–725. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.26.3.716 CrossRef O’Connor AM, Wennberg JE, Legare F, Llewellyn-Thomas HA, Moulton BW, Sepucha KR, Sodano AG, King JS (2007) Toward the ‘tipping point’: decision aids and informed patient choice. Health Aff (Millwood) 26(3):716–725. doi:10.​1377/​hlthaff.​26.​3.​716 CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Plourde N, Brown HK, Vigod S, Cobigo V (2016) Contextual factors associated with uptake of breast and cervical cancer screening: a systematic review of the literature. Women Health:1–20. doi:10.1080/03630242.2016.1145169 Plourde N, Brown HK, Vigod S, Cobigo V (2016) Contextual factors associated with uptake of breast and cervical cancer screening: a systematic review of the literature. Women Health:1–20. doi:10.​1080/​03630242.​2016.​1145169
24.
go back to reference Ruffin MT, Gorenflo DW, Woodman B (2000) Predictors of screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostatic cancer among community-based primary care practices. J Am Board Fam Pract 13(1):1–10CrossRefPubMed Ruffin MT, Gorenflo DW, Woodman B (2000) Predictors of screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostatic cancer among community-based primary care practices. J Am Board Fam Pract 13(1):1–10CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Schueler KM, Chu PW, Smith-Bindman R (2008) Factors associated with mammography utilization: a systematic quantitative review of the literature. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 17(9):1477–1498. doi:10.1089/jwh.2007.0603 CrossRef Schueler KM, Chu PW, Smith-Bindman R (2008) Factors associated with mammography utilization: a systematic quantitative review of the literature. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 17(9):1477–1498. doi:10.​1089/​jwh.​2007.​0603 CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Breast cancer screening initiation after turning 40 years of age within the PROSPR consortium
Authors
Elisabeth F. Beaber
Anna N. A. Tosteson
Jennifer S. Haas
Tracy Onega
Brian L. Sprague
Donald L. Weaver
Anne Marie McCarthy
Chyke A. Doubeni
Virginia P. Quinn
Celette Sugg Skinner
Ann G. Zauber
William E. Barlow
Publication date
01-11-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 2/2016
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-3990-x

Other articles of this Issue 2/2016

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 2/2016 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine