Timeliness of follow-up after abnormal screening mammography
- 78 Downloads
Little information has been published concerning the timeliness of follow-up after abnormal mammography. This article presents data on follow-up after abnormal mammography, including differences in follow-up by age, race, mammographic interpretation, and type of tracking system. From unpublished data, the rate of timely follow-up 8 to 12 weeks after index abnormal mammography ranges from 69% to 99%. Women aged 65 and older, those of lower socioeconomic status, and those who are instructed to have repeat evaluations in four to six months have the highest proportion of untimely follow-up. With use of computer-based tracking systems, timely follow-up ranges from 89% to 99%. Computer-based tracking systems should be encouraged to promote timely follow-up of abnormal mammography. Further research is needed to better delineate those at risk for untimely follow-up after abnormal mammography, causes of untimely follow-up, the impact of untimely follow-up on breast cancer stage and mortality, and interventions that maximize timely follow-up.
Key wordsfollow-up screening mammography tracking
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 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, 1995Google Scholar
- 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, 1993Google Scholar
- 10.Caplan LS, Helzlsouer KJ: Delay in breast cancer: A review of the literature. Public Health Rev 20:187–214, 1992/93Google Scholar
- 18.CDC: Results from the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, October 31, 1991–September 30, 1993. MMWR 43:530–534, 1994Google Scholar
- 19.CDC: Public health focus: mammography. MMWR 41:454–459, 1992Google Scholar
- 24.Pillsbury SG, Link JS, Roux S: Improved mammographic accuracy. Obstet Gynecol 164:1643–1646, 1991Google Scholar
- 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, 1994Google Scholar
- 29.Burhenne LJW: 1990 Annual Report of Screening Mammography Program in British Columbia, p 32Google Scholar