Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Cancer Causes & Control 1/2017

01-01-2017 | Original Paper

Mammography rates after the 2009 revision to the United States Preventive Services Task Force breast cancer screening recommendation

Authors: Xuanzi Qin, Florence K.L. Tangka, Gery P. Guy Jr., David H. Howard

Published in: Cancer Causes & Control | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

In 2009, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against routine mammography screening for women aged 40–49 years. This revised recommendation was widely criticized and has sparked off intense debate. The objectives of this study are to examine the impact of the revised recommendation on the proportion of women receiving mammograms and how the effect varied by age.

Methods

We identified women who had continuous health insurance coverage and who did not have breast cancer between 2008 and 2011 in the Truven Health MarketScan Commercial Claims Databases using mammogram procedure codes. Using women aged 50–59 years as a control group, we used a differences-in-differences approach to estimate the impact of the revised recommendation on the proportion of women ages 40–49 years who received at least one mammogram. We also compared the age-specific changes in the proportion of women ages 35–59 years who were screened before and after the release of the revised recommendation.

Results

The proportion of women screened among the 40–49 and 50–59 age groups were 58.5 and 62.5%, respectively, between 2008 and 2009, and 56.9 and 62.0%, respectively, between 2010 and 2011. After 2009, the proportion of women screened declined by 1.2 percentage point among women aged 40–49 years (P < 0.01). The proportion of women screened decreased for all ages, and decreases were larger among women closer to the 40-year threshold.

Conclusions

The 2009 USPSTF breast cancer recommendation was followed by a small reduction in the proportion of insured women aged 40–49 years who were screened. Reductions were larger among women at the younger end of the age range, who presumably had less prior experience with mammography than women nearing 50.
Literature
1.
go back to reference US Preventive Services Task Force (2009) Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 151(10):716–726CrossRef US Preventive Services Task Force (2009) Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 151(10):716–726CrossRef
2.
go back to reference US Preventive Services Task Force (2002) Screening for breast cancer: recommendations and rationale. Am Fam Physician 65(12):2537–2544 US Preventive Services Task Force (2002) Screening for breast cancer: recommendations and rationale. Am Fam Physician 65(12):2537–2544
3.
go back to reference Nelson HD, Pappas M, Cantor A, Griffin J, Daeges M, Humphrey L (2016) Harms of breast cancer screening: systematic review to update the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Ann Intern Med 164(4):256–267CrossRefPubMed Nelson HD, Pappas M, Cantor A, Griffin J, Daeges M, Humphrey L (2016) Harms of breast cancer screening: systematic review to update the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Ann Intern Med 164(4):256–267CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Siu AL, Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, LeFevre ML (2016) Convergence and Divergence Around Breast Cancer Screening. Ann Intern Med 164(4):301–302CrossRefPubMed Siu AL, Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, LeFevre ML (2016) Convergence and Divergence Around Breast Cancer Screening. Ann Intern Med 164(4):301–302CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Siu AL (2016) Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement Screening for Breast Cancer. Ann Intern Med 164(4):279–296CrossRefPubMed Siu AL (2016) Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement Screening for Breast Cancer. Ann Intern Med 164(4):279–296CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Woolf SH (2010) The 2009 breast cancer screening recommendations of the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA 303(2):162–163CrossRefPubMed Woolf SH (2010) The 2009 breast cancer screening recommendations of the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA 303(2):162–163CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference DeAngelis CD, Fontanarosa PB (2010) US Preventive Services Task Force and breast cancer screening. JAMA 303(2):172–173CrossRefPubMed DeAngelis CD, Fontanarosa PB (2010) US Preventive Services Task Force and breast cancer screening. JAMA 303(2):172–173CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Kopans DB (2010) The recent US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines are not supported by the scientific evidence and should be rescinded. J Am Coll Radiol 7(4):260–264CrossRefPubMed Kopans DB (2010) The recent US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines are not supported by the scientific evidence and should be rescinded. J Am Coll Radiol 7(4):260–264CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Hendrick RE, Helvie MA (2011) United States Preventive Services Task Force screening mammography recommendations: science ignored. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196(2):W112–W116CrossRefPubMed Hendrick RE, Helvie MA (2011) United States Preventive Services Task Force screening mammography recommendations: science ignored. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196(2):W112–W116CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Lee CH, Dershaw DD, Kopans D, Evans P, Monsees B, Monticciolo D et al (2010) Breast cancer screening with imaging: recommendations from the Society of Breast Imaging and the ACR on the use of mammography, breast MRI, breast ultrasound, and other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer. J Am Coll Radiol 7(1):18–27CrossRefPubMed Lee CH, Dershaw DD, Kopans D, Evans P, Monsees B, Monticciolo D et al (2010) Breast cancer screening with imaging: recommendations from the Society of Breast Imaging and the ACR on the use of mammography, breast MRI, breast ultrasound, and other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer. J Am Coll Radiol 7(1):18–27CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Oeffinger KC, Fontham EH, Etzioni R et al (2015) Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. JAMA 314(15):1599–1614CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Oeffinger KC, Fontham EH, Etzioni R et al (2015) Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. JAMA 314(15):1599–1614CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference Kiviniemi MT, Hay JL (2012) Awareness of the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force recommended changes in mammography screening guidelines, accuracy of awareness, sources of knowledge about recommendations, and attitudes about updated screening guidelines in women ages 40-49 and 50+. BMC Public Health 12:899CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kiviniemi MT, Hay JL (2012) Awareness of the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force recommended changes in mammography screening guidelines, accuracy of awareness, sources of knowledge about recommendations, and attitudes about updated screening guidelines in women ages 40-49 and 50+. BMC Public Health 12:899CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
go back to reference Block LD, Jarlenski MP, Wu AW, Bennett WL (2009) Mammography use among women ages 40–49 after the, US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation. J Gen Intern Med 2013:1–7 Block LD, Jarlenski MP, Wu AW, Bennett WL (2009) Mammography use among women ages 40–49 after the, US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation. J Gen Intern Med 2013:1–7
17.
go back to reference Pace LE, He Y, Keating NL (2013) Trends in mammography screening rates after publication of the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations. Cancer 119(14):2518–2523CrossRefPubMed Pace LE, He Y, Keating NL (2013) Trends in mammography screening rates after publication of the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations. Cancer 119(14):2518–2523CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Howard DH, Adams EK (2012) Mammography rates after the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force breast cancer screening recommendation. Prev Med 55(5):485–487CrossRefPubMed Howard DH, Adams EK (2012) Mammography rates after the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force breast cancer screening recommendation. Prev Med 55(5):485–487CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Wang AT, Fan J, Van Houten HK, Tilburt JC, Stout NK, Montori VM et al (2014) Impact of the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines on screening mammography rates on women in their 40s. PLoS ONE 9(3):e91399CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Wang AT, Fan J, Van Houten HK, Tilburt JC, Stout NK, Montori VM et al (2014) Impact of the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines on screening mammography rates on women in their 40s. PLoS ONE 9(3):e91399CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
go back to reference Dehkordy SF, Hall KS, Roach AL, Rothman ED, Dalton VK, Carlos RC (2015) Trends in Breast Cancer Screening: impact of U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations. Am J Prev Med 49(3):419–422CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Dehkordy SF, Hall KS, Roach AL, Rothman ED, Dalton VK, Carlos RC (2015) Trends in Breast Cancer Screening: impact of U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations. Am J Prev Med 49(3):419–422CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
go back to reference Thomson Reuters (2012) Thomson Reuters Marketscan Research Databases. Thomson Reuters, New York Thomson Reuters (2012) Thomson Reuters Marketscan Research Databases. Thomson Reuters, New York
23.
go back to reference Howard DH, Huang YL (2012) Serious health events and discontinuation of routine cancer screening. Med Decis Mak 32(4):627–635CrossRef Howard DH, Huang YL (2012) Serious health events and discontinuation of routine cancer screening. Med Decis Mak 32(4):627–635CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Fenton JJ, Zhu W, Balch S, Smith-Bindman R, Fishman P, Hubbard RA (2014) Distinguishing screening from diagnostic mammograms using Medicare claims data. Med Care 52(7):e44–e51CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Fenton JJ, Zhu W, Balch S, Smith-Bindman R, Fishman P, Hubbard RA (2014) Distinguishing screening from diagnostic mammograms using Medicare claims data. Med Care 52(7):e44–e51CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
go back to reference Randolph WM, Mahnken JD, Goodwin JS, Freeman JL (2002) Using Medicare data to estimate the prevalence of breast cancer screening in older women: comparison of different methods to identify screening mammograms. Health Serv Res 37(6):1643–1657CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Randolph WM, Mahnken JD, Goodwin JS, Freeman JL (2002) Using Medicare data to estimate the prevalence of breast cancer screening in older women: comparison of different methods to identify screening mammograms. Health Serv Res 37(6):1643–1657CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
go back to reference Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, Fong A, Burnand B, Luthi JC et al (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 et al (2005) Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care 43(11):1130–1139CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Fiscella K, Holt K, Meldrum S, Franks P (2006) Disparities in preventive procedures: comparisons of self-report and Medicare claims data. BMC Health Serv Res 6:122CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Fiscella K, Holt K, Meldrum S, Franks P (2006) Disparities in preventive procedures: comparisons of self-report and Medicare claims data. BMC Health Serv Res 6:122CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
go back to reference Rauscher GH, Johnson TP, Cho YI, Walk JA (2008) Accuracy of self-reported cancer-screening histories: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 17(4):748–757CrossRef Rauscher GH, Johnson TP, Cho YI, Walk JA (2008) Accuracy of self-reported cancer-screening histories: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 17(4):748–757CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Freeman JL, Klabunde CN, Schussler N, Warren JL, Virnig BA, Cooper GS (2002) Measuring breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening with medicare claims data. Med Care 40(8):36–42 Freeman JL, Klabunde CN, Schussler N, Warren JL, Virnig BA, Cooper GS (2002) Measuring breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening with medicare claims data. Med Care 40(8):36–42
31.
go back to reference Howard DH, Tangka FK, Guy GP, Ekwueme DU, Lipscomb J (2013) Prostate cancer screening in men ages 75 and older fell by 8 percentage points after task force recommendation. Health Aff Millwood 32(3):596–602CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Howard DH, Tangka FK, Guy GP, Ekwueme DU, Lipscomb J (2013) Prostate cancer screening in men ages 75 and older fell by 8 percentage points after task force recommendation. Health Aff Millwood 32(3):596–602CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
go back to reference Calvocoressi L, Sun A, Kasl SV, Claus EB, Jones BA (2008) Mammography screening of women in their 40s: impact of changes in screening guidelines. Cancer 112(3):473–480CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Calvocoressi L, Sun A, Kasl SV, Claus EB, Jones BA (2008) Mammography screening of women in their 40s: impact of changes in screening guidelines. Cancer 112(3):473–480CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Mammography rates after the 2009 revision to the United States Preventive Services Task Force breast cancer screening recommendation
Authors
Xuanzi Qin
Florence K.L. Tangka
Gery P. Guy Jr.
David H. Howard
Publication date
01-01-2017
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Cancer Causes & Control / Issue 1/2017
Print ISSN: 0957-5243
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7225
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-016-0835-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Cancer Causes & Control 1/2017 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