Benefits and Harms of Screening Mammography by Comorbidity and Age: A Qualitative Synthesis of Observational Studies and Decision Analyses

Braithwaite, Dejana; Walter, Louise C.; Izano, Monika A.; Kerlikowske, Karla

doi:10.1007/s11606-015-3580-3

Cited by 36 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The most common, immediate, unwanted outcome from screening is recall for additional imaging evaluation. This can be both inconvenient and anxiety‐provoking, although it is challenging to study the balance between this and the beneficial reassurance of an ultimately negative screening report . There also currently is no validated method with which to individualize population estimates of breast cancer risk, especially given that the majority of breast cancers are sporadic and occur in women who would not be considered at high risk using available predictive tools .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This can be both inconvenient and anxiety-provoking, although it is challenging to study the balance between this and the beneficial reassurance of an ultimately negative screening report. 21 There also currently is no validated method with which to individualize population estimates of breast cancer risk, especially given that the majority of breast cancers are sporadic and occur in women who would not be considered at high risk using available predictive tools. 22 Given these challenges, additional resources to aid communication, such as multimedia-based patient education tools, could be helpful in improving the consistent communication surrounding screening mammography.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mammography decision making: Trends and predictors of provider communication in the Health Information National Trends Survey, 2011 to 2014

Spring

Marshall

Warner

2016

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In 2009 the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended that the decision to start screening mammography prior to age 50 should be individualized. We examined whether healthcare providers are communicating about mammography decision-making with women and if communication is associated with screening behavior. Methods Data were drawn from the 2011–2014 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). We included 5,915 female respondents age 40 or older who responded to the following question: ‘Has a doctor or other health professional ever told you that you could choose whether or not to have a mammogram?’. We used logistic regression to generate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for predictors of provider communication and assessed whether provider communication was associated with mammography in the previous two years overall and stratified by age. Results Less than half of women reported provider communication on mammogram choice. Women who reported provider communication were not more likely to report no mammogram in the past two years (OR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.87–1.31) compared to those who did not. When stratified by 10-year age group, provider communication was associated with higher likelihood of no mammogram only among women age ≥70 (OR: 1.64, 95% CI: 1.15–2.34) and was associated with lower likelihood of no mammogram only among women age 40–49 (OR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.43–0.92). Conclusions Between 2011 and 2014 less than half of women received communication on mammogram choice despite USPSTF recommendations. Provider communication on mammogram choice can influence screening behavior, particularly for younger and older women.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mammography decision making: Trends and predictors of provider communication in the Health Information National Trends Survey, 2011 to 2014

Spring

Marshall

Warner

2016

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The rate of overdiagnosis of cancer in patients with life‐limiting comorbidity can be reduced by careful ascertainment of the patient’s overall health status and expected longevity, and thus the likelihood that the patient has the potential to benefit from screening . All cancer screening guidelines recommend careful assessment of a patient’s overall health status and longevity to determine when screening is no longer likely to be beneficial …”

Section: The Benefits Limitations and Harms Of Screeningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The rate of overdiagnosis of cancer in patients with life-limiting comorbidity can be reduced by careful ascertainment of the patient's overall health status and expected longevity, and thus the likelihood that the patient has the potential to benefit from screening. 24,25 All cancer screening guidelines recommend careful assessment of a patient's overall health status and longevity to determine when screening is no longer likely to be beneficial. 26,27 Because there are no absolutely reliable criteria on an individual basis by which to distinguish a truly nonprogressive cancer from one that is progressive (and thus avoid overtreatment), the rate of overdiagnosis can only be estimated by determining whether there is excess incidence after a long duration of follow-up in a group exposed to screening compared with an unexposed group.…”

Section: The Benefits Limitations and Harms Of Screeningmentioning

confidence: 99%

A blueprint for cancer screening and early detection: Advancing screening’s contribution to cancer control

Wender

Brawley

Fedewa

et al. 2018

CA A Cancer J Clinicians

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From the mid‐20th century, accumulating evidence has supported the introduction of screening for cancers of the cervix, breast, colon and rectum, prostate (via shared decisions), and lung. The opportunity to detect and treat precursor lesions and invasive disease at a more favorable stage has contributed substantially to reduced incidence, morbidity, and mortality. However, as new discoveries portend advancements in technology and risk‐based screening, we fail to fulfill the greatest potential of the existing technology, in terms of both full access among the target population and the delivery of state‐of‐the art care at each crucial step in the cascade of events that characterize successful cancer screening. There also is insufficient commitment to invest in the development of new technologies, incentivize the development of new ideas, and rapidly evaluate promising new technology. In this report, the authors summarize the status of cancer screening and propose a blueprint for the nation to further advance the contribution of screening to cancer control.

show abstract

“…27 Braithwaite et al 45 found that the benefits of screening decrease with increasing age and co-morbidity. Their sample of women aged 65 years or above without severe comorbidity showed only a slight improvement in life expectancy.…”

Section: Lung Cancer Screeningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cancer screening for older people: to screen or not to screen

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Benefits and Harms of Screening Mammography by Comorbidity and Age: A Qualitative Synthesis of Observational Studies and Decision Analyses

Cited by 36 publications

References 53 publications

Mammography decision making: Trends and predictors of provider communication in the Health Information National Trends Survey, 2011 to 2014

Mammography decision making: Trends and predictors of provider communication in the Health Information National Trends Survey, 2011 to 2014

A blueprint for cancer screening and early detection: Advancing screening’s contribution to cancer control

Cancer screening for older people: to screen or not to screen

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About