Cancer Causes & Control

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 41–48 | Cite as

Mammography rates after the 2009 revision to the United States Preventive Services Task Force breast cancer screening recommendation

  • Xuanzi Qin
  • Florence K.L. Tangka
  • Gery P. GuyJr.
  • David H. Howard
Original Paper

Abstract

Background

In 2009, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against routine mammography screening for women aged 40–49 years. This revised recommendation was widely criticized and has sparked off intense debate. The objectives of this study are to examine the impact of the revised recommendation on the proportion of women receiving mammograms and how the effect varied by age.

Methods

We identified women who had continuous health insurance coverage and who did not have breast cancer between 2008 and 2011 in the Truven Health MarketScan Commercial Claims Databases using mammogram procedure codes. Using women aged 50–59 years as a control group, we used a differences-in-differences approach to estimate the impact of the revised recommendation on the proportion of women ages 40–49 years who received at least one mammogram. We also compared the age-specific changes in the proportion of women ages 35–59 years who were screened before and after the release of the revised recommendation.

Results

The proportion of women screened among the 40–49 and 50–59 age groups were 58.5 and 62.5%, respectively, between 2008 and 2009, and 56.9 and 62.0%, respectively, between 2010 and 2011. After 2009, the proportion of women screened declined by 1.2 percentage point among women aged 40–49 years (P < 0.01). The proportion of women screened decreased for all ages, and decreases were larger among women closer to the 40-year threshold.

Conclusions

The 2009 USPSTF breast cancer recommendation was followed by a small reduction in the proportion of insured women aged 40–49 years who were screened. Reductions were larger among women at the younger end of the age range, who presumably had less prior experience with mammography than women nearing 50.

Keywords

Breast cancer USPSTF Mammography screening Prevention guideline Claims data 

References

  1. 1.
    US Preventive Services Task Force (2009) Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 151(10):716–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    US Preventive Services Task Force (2002) Screening for breast cancer: recommendations and rationale. Am Fam Physician 65(12):2537–2544Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nelson HD, Pappas M, Cantor A, Griffin J, Daeges M, Humphrey L (2016) Harms of breast cancer screening: systematic review to update the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Ann Intern Med 164(4):256–267CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Siu AL, Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, LeFevre ML (2016) Convergence and Divergence Around Breast Cancer Screening. Ann Intern Med 164(4):301–302CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Siu AL (2016) Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement Screening for Breast Cancer. Ann Intern Med 164(4):279–296CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Woolf SH (2010) The 2009 breast cancer screening recommendations of the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA 303(2):162–163CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    DeAngelis CD, Fontanarosa PB (2010) US Preventive Services Task Force and breast cancer screening. JAMA 303(2):172–173CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kopans DB (2010) The recent US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines are not supported by the scientific evidence and should be rescinded. J Am Coll Radiol 7(4):260–264CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hendrick RE, Helvie MA (2011) United States Preventive Services Task Force screening mammography recommendations: science ignored. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196(2):W112–W116CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee CH, Dershaw DD, Kopans D, Evans P, Monsees B, Monticciolo D et al (2010) Breast cancer screening with imaging: recommendations from the Society of Breast Imaging and the ACR on the use of mammography, breast MRI, breast ultrasound, and other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer. J Am Coll Radiol 7(1):18–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    American Cancer Society (2009) American Cancer Society Responds to Changes to USPSTF Mammography Guidelines [Internet]. [cited 2013 Sep 22]. http://pressroom.cancer.org/index.php?s=43&item=201
  12. 12.
    American College of Radiology (2009) USPSTF mammography recommendations will result in countless unnecessary breast cancer deaths each year [Internet]. [cited 2013 Sep 22]. http://www.acr.org/About-Us/Media-Center/Position-Statements/Position-Statements-Folder/USPSTF-Mammography-Recommendations-Will-Result-in-Countless-Unnecessary-Breast-Cancer-Deaths
  13. 13.
    Society of Breast Imaging (2009) ACR-SBI call for exclusion of USPSTF recommendations from healthcare reform Legislation [Internet]. [cited 2013 Sep 22]. http://sbi-online.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=119
  14. 14.
    Oeffinger KC, Fontham EH, Etzioni R et al (2015) Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. JAMA 314(15):1599–1614CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kiviniemi MT, Hay JL (2012) Awareness of the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force recommended changes in mammography screening guidelines, accuracy of awareness, sources of knowledge about recommendations, and attitudes about updated screening guidelines in women ages 40-49 and 50+. BMC Public Health 12:899CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Block LD, Jarlenski MP, Wu AW, Bennett WL (2009) Mammography use among women ages 40–49 after the, US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation. J Gen Intern Med 2013:1–7Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pace LE, He Y, Keating NL (2013) Trends in mammography screening rates after publication of the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations. Cancer 119(14):2518–2523CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Howard DH, Adams EK (2012) Mammography rates after the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force breast cancer screening recommendation. Prev Med 55(5):485–487CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wharam JF, Landon B, Zhang F, Xu X, Soumerai S, Ross-Degnan D. (2015) Mammography Rates 3 Years After the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force Guidelines Changes. J Clin Oncol [Internet]. 9 Feb 2015 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25667290
  20. 20.
    Wang AT, Fan J, Van Houten HK, Tilburt JC, Stout NK, Montori VM et al (2014) Impact of the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines on screening mammography rates on women in their 40s. PLoS ONE 9(3):e91399CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dehkordy SF, Hall KS, Roach AL, Rothman ED, Dalton VK, Carlos RC (2015) Trends in Breast Cancer Screening: impact of U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations. Am J Prev Med 49(3):419–422CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thomson Reuters (2012) Thomson Reuters Marketscan Research Databases. Thomson Reuters, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Howard DH, Huang YL (2012) Serious health events and discontinuation of routine cancer screening. Med Decis Mak 32(4):627–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fenton JJ, Zhu W, Balch S, Smith-Bindman R, Fishman P, Hubbard RA (2014) Distinguishing screening from diagnostic mammograms using Medicare claims data. Med Care 52(7):e44–e51CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Randolph WM, Mahnken JD, Goodwin JS, Freeman JL (2002) Using Medicare data to estimate the prevalence of breast cancer screening in older women: comparison of different methods to identify screening mammograms. Health Serv Res 37(6):1643–1657CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, Fong A, Burnand B, Luthi JC et al (2005) Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care 43(11):1130–1139CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Burchill KTC. (2006) Elixhauser Comorbidity Index Macro-ICD9CM Codes [Internet]. 2006. http://mchp-appserv.cpe.umanitoba.ca/Upload/SAS/_ElixhauserICD9CM.sas.txt
  28. 28.
    Fiscella K, Holt K, Meldrum S, Franks P (2006) Disparities in preventive procedures: comparisons of self-report and Medicare claims data. BMC Health Serv Res 6:122CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rauscher GH, Johnson TP, Cho YI, Walk JA (2008) Accuracy of self-reported cancer-screening histories: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 17(4):748–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Freeman JL, Klabunde CN, Schussler N, Warren JL, Virnig BA, Cooper GS (2002) Measuring breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening with medicare claims data. Med Care 40(8):36–42Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Howard DH, Tangka FK, Guy GP, Ekwueme DU, Lipscomb J (2013) Prostate cancer screening in men ages 75 and older fell by 8 percentage points after task force recommendation. Health Aff Millwood 32(3):596–602CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Calvocoressi L, Sun A, Kasl SV, Claus EB, Jones BA (2008) Mammography screening of women in their 40s: impact of changes in screening guidelines. Cancer 112(3):473–480CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Health Policy and ManagementUniversity of Minnesota Twin CitiesMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.Division of Cancer Prevention and ControlCenters for Disease Control and PreventionAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Health Policy and ManagementEmory UniversityAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations