Original Article

You have full text access to this OnlineOpen article

Mammographic screening: Patterns of use and estimated impact on breast carcinoma survival

  1. Karen Blanchard1,
  2. James A. Colbert1,
  3. Dhruv Puri1,
  4. Joel Weissman Ph.D.2,3,4,
  5. Beverly Moy M.D.2,
  6. Daniel B. Kopans M.D.5,6,
  7. Emily M. Kaine M.D.1,
  8. Richard H. Moore B.A.5,
  9. Elkan F. Halpern Ph.D.5,6,
  10. Kevin S. Hughes M.D.1,7,
  11. Kenneth K. Tanabe M.D.1,7,
  12. Barbara L. Smith M.D., Ph.D.1,7,
  13. James S. Michaelson Ph.D.1,8,9,†,*

Article first published online: 21 JUN 2004

DOI: 10.1002/cncr.20392

Issue

Cancer

Cancer

Volume 101, Issue 3, pages 495–507, 1 August 2004

Additional Information

How to Cite

Blanchard, K., Colbert, J. A., Puri, D., Weissman, J., Moy, B., Kopans, D. B., Kaine, E. M., Moore, R. H., Halpern, E. F., Hughes, K. S., Tanabe, K. K., Smith, B. L. and Michaelson, J. S. (2004), Mammographic screening: Patterns of use and estimated impact on breast carcinoma survival. Cancer, 101: 495–507. doi: 10.1002/cncr.20392

Author Information

  1. 1

    Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts

  2. 2

    Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts

  3. 3

    Institute for Health Policy, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts

  4. 4

    Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts

  5. 5

    Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts

  6. 6

    Department of Radiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts

  7. 7

    Department of Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts

  8. 8

    Department of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts

  9. 9

    Department of Pathology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts

  1. †

    Fax: (617) 724-3895

*Division of Surgical Oncology, Cox Building Room 626, Massachusetts General Hospital, 100 Blossom Street, Boston, MA 02114

Publication History

  1. Issue published online: 19 JUL 2004
  2. Article first published online: 21 JUN 2004
  3. Manuscript Accepted: 30 APR 2004
  4. Manuscript Revised: 24 APR 2004
  5. Manuscript Received: 4 NOV 2003

Funded by

  • Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Care New Nodal Award in Cancer Disparities

SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

ARTICLE TOOLS

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (213K)

Keywords:

  • breast carcinoma;
  • mammography;
  • screening;
  • disparity

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Although many studies support the life-saving potential of screening mammography, the actual utilization of screening and the impact of the actual pattern of screening use on the breast carcinoma death rate, remain incompletely understood. In the current report, the authors describe patterns of screening use among women who were examined at a large screening and diagnostic service and estimate the added mortality associated with missed screening mammograms.

METHODS

Mammography use was assessed in a population of 72,417 women who received a total of 254,818 screening mammograms at the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Avon Comprehensive Breast Center (Boston, MA) between January 1, 1985, and February 19, 2002. A computer simulation of breast carcinoma growth, spread, and detection of breast carcinoma was used to estimate the likely health consequences of various types of screening use.

RESULTS

Both prompt return for annual screening and full use of screening over extended periods of time were rare, and comparison of the MGH population with other populations revealed that the low level of use observed in the MGH population was not atypical. Only 6% of women who received a mammogram in 1992 received all annual mammograms that were available over the next 10 years; the mean number of mammograms received during this period was 5.06, or 51% of the number recommended by the American Cancer Society. Computer simulation results indicate that this underutilization of screening should result in higher mortality levels. Women from traditionally underserved socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic groups, women without insurance, and women who did not speak English had lower levels of use compared with other women. Lower levels of use also were observed among women receiving their first mammogram or who in the past had not returned promptly. Women ages 55–65 years had higher levels of use than did younger or older women. Women who previously had breast carcinoma also had higher levels of screening use. Nonetheless, none of the subpopulations of women stratified by age, race, ethnicity, zip code, income,language, insurance, status, previous screening use, or medical history exhibited a widespread propensity to promptly return for annual screening over an extended period of time.

CONCLUSIONS

By many measures, the current analysis is one of the most detailed descriptions of screening use to date. The authors observed a level of screening use that was disappointingly low, with potentially negative health-related consequences, among women across categories defined by racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and geographic characteristics; insurance status; language; age; medical history; and previous screening use. Improvements in the promptness with which women return to screening appear to have the potential to lead to considerable reductions in breast carcinoma death. Cancer 2004. © 2004 American Cancer Society.

View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (213K)