Timeliness of follow-up after abnormal screening mammography

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

Volumn 40, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 53-64

  Kerlikowske, Karla ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b SAN FRANCISCO VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Follow up; Mammography; Screening; Tracking

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; BREAST CANCER; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER SCREENING; COMPUTER SYSTEM; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RACE DIFFERENCE; REVIEW; SOCIAL STATUS;

EID: 0029813825     PISSN: 01676806     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF01806002     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. Brown ML, Houn F, Sickles EA, Kessler LG: Screening mammography in community practice: Positive predictive value of abnormal findings and the yield of follow-up diagnostic procedures. Am J Roentgenol 165:1373-1377, 1995
2. Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Duffy SW, Day NE, Gas A, Grontoft O: Update of the Swedish two-county program of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 30:187-210, 1992
3. Andersson I, Aspergren K, Janzon L, Landberg T, Lindholm K, Linell F, Ljungberg O, Ranstam J, Sigfusson B: Mammographic screening and mortality from breast cancer: the Malmo mammographic screening trial. BMJ 297:943-948, 1988
4. Elwood JM, Cox B, Richardson AK: The effectiveness of breast cancer screening by mammography in younger women. On-line J Cur Clin Trials 2:Doc NR 32, 1993
5. Fletcher SW, Black W, Harris R, Rimer BK, Shapiro S: Report of the International Workshop on Screening for Breast Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 85:1644-1656, 1993
6. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Rubin SM, Sandrock C, Ernster VL: Efficacy of screening mammography: A meta-analysis. JAMA 273:149-154, 1995
7. Moskowitz M: Breast cancer: age-specific growth rates and screening strategies. Radiology 161:37-41, 1986
8. Spratt JS, Greenberg RA, Heuser LS: Geometry, growth rates, and duration of cancer and carcinoma in situ of the breast before detection by screening. Cancer Res 46:970-974, 1986
9. Facione NC: Delay versus help seeking for breast cancer symptoms: a critical review of the literature on patient and provider delay: Soc Sci Med 36:1521-1534, 1993
10. Caplan LS, Helzlsouer KJ: Delay in breast cancer: A review of the literature. Public Health Rev 20:187-214, 1992/93
11. Vernon SW, Tilley B, Neale AV, Steinfeldt L: Ethnicity, survival, and delay in seeking treatment for symptoms of breast cancer. Cancer 55:1563-1571, 1985
12. Charlson ME: Delay in the treatment of carcinoma of the breast. Surg Gynecol Obstet 160:393-399, 1985
13. Afzelius P, Zedeler K, Sommer H, Mouridsen HT, Blichert-Toft M: Patient's and doctor's delay in primary breast cancer. Acta Oncologica 33:345-351, 1994
14. Machiavelli M, Leone B, Romero A, Perez J, Vallejo C, Bianco A, Rodriguez R: Relation between delay and survival in 596 patients with breast cancer. Oncology 46:78-82, 1989
15. Neave LM, Mason BH, Kay RG: Does delay in diagnosis of breast cancer affect survival? Breast Cancer Res Treat 15:103-108, 1990
16. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles E, Eaton A, Ernster V: Positive predictive value of screening mammography by age and family history of breast cancer. JAMA 270:2444-2450, 1993
17. Houn F, Brown ML: Current practice of screening mammography in the United States: data from the National Survey of Mammography Facilities. Radiology 190:209-215, 1994
18. CDC: Results from the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, October 31, 1991-September 30, 1993. MMWR 43:530-534, 1994
19. CDC: Public health focus: mammography. MMWR 41:454-459, 1992
20. Webber P, Fox P, Pond M, Zhang X: An examination of differential follow-up rates in breast cancer screening. Journal of Community Health 21:123-132, 1996
21. Sickles EA: Quality assurance. How to audit your own practice. Radiol Clin North Am 30:265-275, 1992
22. Ciatto S, Cecchini S, Rosselli Del Turco M, Grazzini G, Iossa A, Bartoli D: Referral policy and positive predictive value of call for surgical biopsy in the Florence Breast Cancer Screening Program. J Clin Epidemiol 43:419-423, 1990
23. Bird RE: Low-cost screening mammography: report on finances and review of 21,716 consecutive cases. Radiology 171:87-90, 1989
24. Pillsbury SG, Link JS, Roux S: Improved mammographic accuracy. Obstet Gynecol 164:1643-1646, 1991
25. Sickles EA, Ominsky SH, Sollitto RA, Galvin HB, Monticciolo DL: Medical audit of a rapid-throughput mammography screening practice: methodology and results of 27,114 examinations. Radiology 175:323-327, 1990
26. D'Orsi CJ, Kopans DB: Mammographic feature analysis. Seminars in Roentgenology 28:204-230, 1993
27. McCarthy BD, Boohaker EA, Ulcickas M, Wilcock CH, Ward RE: Inadequate follow-up of abnormal mammograms. J Gen Int Med 9(April Supplement 2):33, 1994
28. Clay MG, Hislop TG, Kan L, Olivotto IA, Burhenne LJW: Screening mammography in British Columbia: 1988-1993. Am J Surg 167:490-492, 1994
29. Burhenne LJW: 1990 Annual Report of Screening Mammography Program in British Columbia, p 32
30. Helvie MA, Pennes DR, Rebner M, Adler DD: Mammographic follow-up of low-suspicion lesions: compliance rate and diagnostic yield. Radiology 178:155-158, 1991
31. Fox SA, Roetzheim RG: Screening mammography and older women. Cancer 74:2028-2033, 1994
32. Richardson JL, Marks G, Solis JM, Collins L, Birba L, Hisserich JC: Frequency and adequacy of breast cancer screening among elderly Hispanic women. Prev Med 16:761-774, 1987
33. Breen N, Kessler L: Changes in the use of screening mammography: evidence from the 1987 and 1990 National Health Interview Survey. Am J Public Health 84:62-67, 1994
34. Lacey LL, Whitfield J, DeWhite W, Ansell D, Whitman S, Chen E, Phillips C: Referral adherence in an inner city breast and cervical cancer screening program. Cancer 72:950-955, 1993
35. Manfredi C, Lacey L, Warnecke R: Results of an intervention to improve compliance with referrals for evaluation of suspected malignancies at neighborhood public health centers. Am J Public Health 80:85-87, 1990
36. Sickles EA: Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology 179:463-468, 1991
37. Sickles EA: Nonpalpable, circumscribed, noncalcified solid breast masses: likelihood of malignancy based on lesion size and age of patient. Radiology 192:439-442, 1994
38. Mandelblatt J, Traxler M, Lakin P, Kanetsky P, Thomas L, Chauhan P, Matseoane S, Ramsey E, and the Harlem Study Team: Breast and cervical cancer screening of poor, elderly, black women: clinical results and implications. Am J Prev Med 9:133-138, 1993
39. Lerman C, Miller SM, Scarborough R, Hanjani P, Nolte S, Smith D. Adverse psychologic consequences of positive cytologic cervical screening. Am J Obstet Gynecol 165:658-662, 1991
40. Spratt JA, von Fournier D, Spratt JS, Weber EE: Mammographic assessment of human breast cancer growth and duration. Cancer 71:2020-2026, 1993
41. Kern KA: Causes of breast cancer malpractice litigation. Arch Surg 127:542-547, 1992
42. Kern KA: Medicolegal analysis of the delayed diagnosis of cancer in 338 cases in the United States. Arch Surg 129:397-404, 1994
43. Mitnick JS, Vazquez MF, Plesser KP, Rosess DF: Breast cancer malpractice litigation in New York state. Radiology 189:673-676, 1993