Cancer Causes & Control

, Volume 21, Issue 10, pp 1585–1595 | Cite as

Inconsistent mammography perceptions and practices among women at risk of breast cancer following a pediatric malignancy: a report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study

  • Stephanie M. Smith
  • Jennifer S. Ford
  • William Rakowski
  • Chaya S. Moskowitz
  • Lisa Diller
  • Melissa M. Hudson
  • Ann C. Mertens
  • Annette L. Stanton
  • Tara O. Henderson
  • Wendy M. Leisenring
  • Leslie L. Robison
  • Kevin C. Oeffinger
Original paper

Abstract

Women treated with chest radiation for a pediatric cancer have low mammography screening rates despite their high risk for breast cancer. This study characterized the relationship between perceptions of mammography and screening practices. A cross-sectional survey was administered to 523 women in North America who were treated with chest radiation before 21 years of age. Women with inconsistent mammography perceptions and practices were identified using the Pros and Cons of Mammography for perceptions and Transtheoretical Model stages of adoption for prior and intended screening practices. Classification and regression tree (CART) analysis was used to identify barriers to and facilitators of screening among women with positive and negative perceptions. Nearly one-third of the cohort had inconsistent perceptions and practices: 37.4% had positive perceptions and were not having mammograms; 27.6% had negative/neutral perceptions and were having mammograms. Regardless of perceptions, a recent physician’s recommendation for mammography, age ≥ 40, and interest in routine health care were universally associated with mammography practices. For women with positive perceptions and a physician’s recommendation, barriers to screening included high acceptance coping, low active-planning coping, and high internal health locus of control. For women with negative perceptions, acknowledging the importance of asymptomatic screening was associated with mammography.

Keywords

Cancer survivorship Late effects Screening Transtheoretical model Stages of adoption 

References

  1. 1.
    Bhatia S, Yasui Y, Robison LL et al (2003) High risk of subsequent neoplasms continues with extended follow-up of childhood Hodgkin’s disease: report from the late effects study group. J Clin Oncol 21(23):4386–4394CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Constine LS, Tarbell N, Hudson MM et al (2008) Subsequent malignancies in children treated for Hodgkin’s disease: associations with gender and radiation dose. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 72(1):24–33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guibout C, Adjadj E, Rubino C et al (2005) Malignant breast tumors after radiotherapy for a first cancer during childhood. J Clin Oncol 23(1):197–204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kenney LB, Yasui Y, Inskip PD et al (2004) Breast cancer after childhood cancer: a report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. Ann Intern Med 141(8):590–597PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Metayer C, Lynch CF, Clarke EA et al (2000) Second cancers among long-term survivors of Hodgkin’s disease diagnosed in childhood and adolescence. J Clin Oncol 18(12):2435–2443PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Taylor AJ, Winter DL, Stiller CA, Murphy M, Hawkins MM (2007) Risk of breast cancer in female survivors of childhood Hodgkin’s disease in Britain: a population-based study. Inter J Cancer 120(2):384–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wolden SL, Lamborn KR, Cleary SF, Tate DJ, Donaldson SS (1998) Second cancers following pediatric Hodgkin’s disease. J Clin Oncol 16(2):536–544PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Landier W, Bhatia S, Eshelman DA et al (2004) Development of risk-based guidelines for pediatric cancer survivors: the Children’s Oncology Group long-term follow-up guidelines from the Children’s Oncology Group late effects committee and nursing discipline. J Clin Oncol 22(24):4979–4990CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Long-Term Follow-Up Guidelines for Survivors of Childhood, Adolescent, and Young Adult Cancers (2007) Children’s Oncology Group. [Online]. Updated October 2008 [cited 2009 April 17]; Available from: www.survivorshipguidelines.org
  10. 10.
    Oeffinger KC, Ford JS, Moskowitz CS et al (2009) Breast cancer surveillance practices among women previously treated with chest radiation for a childhood cancer. JAMA 301(4):404–414CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sohl SJ, Moyer A (2007) Tailored interventions to promote mammography screening: a meta-analytic review. Prev Med 45(4):252–261CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Spencer L, Pagell F, Adams T (2005) Applying the transtheoretical model to cancer screening behavior. Am J Health Behav 29(1):36–56PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rakowski W, Andersen MR, Stoddard AM et al (1997) Confirmatory analysis of opinions regarding the pros and cons of mammography. Health Psychol 16(5):433–441CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rakowski W, Dube CA, Goldstein MG (1996) Considerations for extending the transtheoretical model of behavior change to screening mammography. Health Educ Res 11(1):77–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rakowski W, Fulton JP, Feldman JP (1993) Women’s decision making about mammography: a replication of the relationship between stages of adoption and decisional balance. Health Psychol 12(3):209–214CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Clark MA, Rakowski W, Ehrich B et al (1998) Stages of adopting regular screening mammography: do women differ in decisional balance within stages? J Health Psychol 3(4):491–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Velicer WF, Hughes SL, Fava JL, Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC (1995) An empirical typology of subjects within stage of change. Addict Behav 20(3):299–320CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lemon SC, Roy J, Clark MA, Friedmann PD, Rakowski W (2003) Classification and regression tree analysis in public health: methodological review and comparison with logistic regression. Ann Behav Med 26(3):172–181CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Breiman L, Friedman J, Olshen R, Stone C (1984) Classification and regression trees. Wadsworth, Pacific GroveGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cook EF, Goldman L (1984) Empiric comparison of multivariate analytic techniques: advantages and disadvantages of recursive partitioning analysis. J Chron Dis 37(9/10):721–731CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Calvocoressi L, Kasl SV, Lee CH, Stolar M, Claus EB, Jones BA (2004) A prospective study of perceived susceptibility to breast cancer and nonadherence to mammography screening guidelines in African American and White women ages 40–79 years. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 13(12):2096–2105PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Robison LL, Mertens AC, Boice JD et al (2002) Study design and cohort characteristics of the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study: a multi-institutional collaborative project. Med Pediatr Oncol 38(4):229–239CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Leisenring WM, Mertens AC, Armstrong GT et al (2009) Pediatric cancer survivorship research: experience of the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. J Clin Oncol 27(14):2319–2327CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Robison LL, Armstrong GT, Boice JD et al (2009) The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study: a National Cancer Institute-supported resource for outcome and intervention research. J Clin Oncol 27(14):2308–2318CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rakowski W, Clark MA, Pearlman DN et al. (1997) Integrating pros and cons for mammography and Pap testing: extending the construct of decisional balance to two behaviors. Prev Med 26(5 Pt 1):664–673Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rakowski W, Dube CA, Marcus BH, Prochaska JO, Velicer WF, Abrams DB (1992) Assessing elements of women’s decisions about mammography. Health Psychol 11(2):111–118CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Carver CS, Scheier MF, Weintraub JK (1989) Assessing coping strategies: a theoretically based approach. J Pers Soc Psychol 56(2):267–283CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pui CH, Pei D, Sandlund JT et al (2005) Risk of adverse events after completion of therapy for childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. J Clin Oncol 23(31):7936–7941CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Baker KS, Ness KK, Steinberger J et al (2007) Diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular events in survivors of hematopoietic cell transplantation: a report from the bone marrow transplantation survivor study. Blood 109(4):1765–1772CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wallston KA (2005) The validity of the multidimensional health locus of control scales. J Health Psychol 10(5):623–631CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Steinberg D, Colla P (1997) CART—classification and regression trees. Salford Systems, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Steinberg D, Golovnya M (2006) CART 6.0 user’s manual. Salford Systems, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Breiman L (1996) Technical note: some properties of splitting criteria. Machine Learning 24:41–47Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Harrell FE Jr (2001) Regression modeling strategies. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rimer BK, Keintz MK, Kessler HB, Engstrom PF, Rosan JR (1989) Why women resist screening mammography: patient-related barriers. Radiology 172(1):243–246PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yabroff KR, Mandelblatt JS (1999) Interventions targeted toward patients to increase mammography use. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 8(9):749–757PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Glenn BL, Moore LA (1990) Relationship of self-concept, health locus of control, and perceived cancer treatment options to the practice of breast self-examination. Cancer Nurs 13(6):361–365CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Holm CJ, Frank DI, Curtin J (1999) Health beliefs, health locus of control, and women’s mammography behavior. Cancer Nurs 22(2):149–156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Magai C, Consedine N, Neugut AI, Hershman DL (2007) Common psychosocial factors underlying breast cancer screening and breast cancer treatment adherence: a conceptual review and synthesis. J Womens Health 16(1):11–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Murray M, McMillan C (1993) Health beliefs, locus of control, emotional control and women’s cancer screening behaviour. Br J Clin Psychol 32(Pt 1):87–100PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Masters K, Wallston K (2005) Canonical correlation reveals important relations between health locus of control, coping, affect and values. J Health Psychol 10(5):719–731CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wallston K (1991) The importance of placing measures of health locus of control beliefs in a theoretical context. Health Educ Res 6(2):251–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wallston K (1992) Hocus-pocus, the focus isn’t strictly on locus: Rotter’s Social Learning Theory modified for health. Cognit Ther Res 16(2):183–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Di Gallo A, Amsler F, Gwerder C, Burgin D (2003) The years after: a concept of the psychological integration of childhood cancer. Support Care Cancer 11(10):666–673CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Greenberg HS, Kazak AE, Meadows AT (1989) Psychologic functioning in 8- to 16-year-old cancer survivors and their parents. J Pediatr 114(3):488–493CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hill JM, Kornblith AB, Jones D et al (1998) A comparative study of the long term psychosocial functioning of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia survivors treated by intrathecal methotrexate with or without cranial radiation. Cancer 82(1):208–218CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Olson AL, Boyle WE, Evans MW, Zug LA (1993) Overall function in rural childhood cancer survivors. The role of social competence and emotional health. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 32(6):334–342Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Jamison R, Lewis S, Burish T (1986) Psychological impact of cancer on adolescents: self-image, locus of control, perception of illness and knowledge of cancer. J Chron Dis 39(8):609–617CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Schwartz MD, Taylor KL, Willard KS, Siegel JE, Lamdan RM, Moran K (1999) Distress, personality, and mammography utilization among women with a family history of breast cancer. Health Psychol 18(4):327–332CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Schwartz MD, Taylor KL, Willard KS (2003) Prospective association between distress and mammography utilization among women with a family history of breast cancer. J Behav Med 26(2):105–117CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Williams-Piehota P, Schneider TR, Pizarro J, Mowad L, Salovey P (2004) Matching health messages to health locus of control beliefs for promoting mammography utilization. Psychol Health 19(4):407–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Castellino SM, Casillas J, Hudson MM et al (2005) Minority adult survivors of childhood cancer: a comparison of long-term outcomes, health care utilization and health related behaviors. J Clin Oncol 23(27):6499–6507CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephanie M. Smith
    • 1
    • 11
  • Jennifer S. Ford
    • 2
  • William Rakowski
    • 3
  • Chaya S. Moskowitz
    • 4
  • Lisa Diller
    • 5
  • Melissa M. Hudson
    • 6
  • Ann C. Mertens
    • 7
  • Annette L. Stanton
    • 8
  • Tara O. Henderson
    • 9
  • Wendy M. Leisenring
    • 10
  • Leslie L. Robison
    • 6
  • Kevin C. Oeffinger
    • 12
  1. 1.Department of PediatricsMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Departments of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences and PediatricsMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of Community HealthBrown UniversityProvidenceUSA
  4. 4.Department of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  5. 5.Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Childrens Hospital BostonBostonUSA
  6. 6.St. Jude Children’s Research HospitalMemphisUSA
  7. 7.Emory UniversityAtlantaUSA
  8. 8.University of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  9. 9.University of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  10. 10.Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research CenterSeattleUSA
  11. 11.Stanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA
  12. 12.Departments of Pediatrics and MedicineMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations