Skip to main content
Log in

Mammography and physician breast exams after the diagnosis of breast cancer in a twin or non-twin sister

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Cancer Causes & Control Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Reports of breast-cancer-screening behavior were collected from 591 twin sisters of women with breast cancer and 182 non-twin sisters of the same women, and compared with the patterns found by national surveys. Timeline plots indicate that prior to the diagnosis of breast cancer in a sister, these women were being screened at prevailing rates. In the year after diagnosis, the annual frequency of use by them of both mammograms and physician breast exams increased by approximately 25 percent, but in subsequent years these rates dropped to a plateau no more than 10 to 15 percent higher than the baseline. The sisters over age 60 were screened with unusually low frequency, as were those with no partner in the home, those with no regular source of medical care, and especially the siblings of cases that died soon after the diagnosis. The relatively infrequent adoption of a long-term, annual, screening pattern in the face of certain knowledge of personal high risk gives cause for concern about the effectiveness of any intervention program requiring recognition of personal high risk for effectiveness. One cause for optimism is that higher screening rates prevail among those with co-twins diagnosed since 1980, suggesting that the increase in publicity and public education in recent decades has had a beneficial impact.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Anderson D. A genetic study of human breast cancer. JNCI 1972; 48: 1029–34.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson D. Genetic study of breast cancer: Identification of a high risk group. Cancer 1974; 34: 1090–7.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Henderson BE, Powell D, Rosario I et al. An epidemiologic study of breast cancer. JNCI 1974; 53: 609–14.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Albert S, Child M. Familial cancer in the general population. Cancer 1977; 40: 1674–9.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bain C, Speizer FE, Rosner B, Belanger C, Hennekens CH. Family history of breast cancer as a risk indicator of the disease. Am J Epidemiol 1980; 111: 301–8.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Macklin MD. Comparison of number of breast cancer deaths observed in relatives of breast cancer patients and the number expected on the basis of mortality rates. JNCI 1959; 22: 927–51.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ottman R, Pike MC, King MC, Cassagrande JT, Henderson BE. Familial breast cancer in a population based series. Am J Epidemiol 1986; 123: 15–20.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Holm NV, Hauge M, Jensen M. Studies of cancer aetiology in a complete population: breast cancer, colorectal cancer and leukemia. Cancer Surv 1982; 1: 17–32.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Schottenfeld D. Cancer detection programs. In: Fraumeni JF Jr, ed. Persons at High Risk of Cancer—An Approach to Cancer Etiology and Control. New York: Academic Press Inc, 1975: 399–413.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Anderson DE, Romsdahl MM. Family history: a criterion for selective screening. In: Mulvihill JJ, Miller RW, Fraumeni JF Jr, eds, Genetics of Human Cancer. New York: Raven Press, 1977: 257–62.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Vogel VG, Graves DS, Vernon SW, Lord JA, Winn RJ, Peters GN. Mammographic screening of women with increased risk of breast cancer. Cancer 1990; 66: 1613–20.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Krischer JP, Cook B, Weiner RS. Identification and screening of women at high risk of breast cancer. Cancer Detect Prev 1988; 13: 65–74.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kaplan KM, Weinberg GV, Small A, Herndon JL. Breast cancer screening among relatives of women with breast cancer. Am J Public Health 1991; 81: 1174–9.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dworsky R, Paganini-Hill A, Spicer D. Breast cancer screening and education in high risk women. Adv Cancer Control 1989; 115–24.

  15. Hayward RA, Shapiro MF, Freeman HE, Corey CR. Who gets screened for cervical and breast cancer? Results from a new national survey. Arch Intern Med 1988; 148: 1177–81.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Provisional estimates from the national health interview survey supplement on cancer control. MMWR 1988; 37: 417–20.

  17. National Center for Health Statistics. Current Estimates From the National Health Interview Survey, 1982: Vital and Health Statistics. Washington DC: Public Health Service, 1985; DHHS Pub. (PHS) 85–1578, Series 10, No. 150.

    Google Scholar 

  18. National Center for Health Statistics, The National Health Interview Survey Design, 1973–1983: Vital and Health Statistics. Washington DC: Public Health Service, 1985; DHHS Pub. (PHS) 85–1320, Series 1, No. 18.

    Google Scholar 

  19. NCI Breast Cancer Screening Consortium. Screening mammography: a missed clinical opportunity? Results of the NCI breast cancer screening consortium and national health interview survey studies. JAMA 1990; 264: 54–8.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Bondy ML, Vogel VG, Halabi S, Lustbader ED. Identification of women at increased risk for breast cancer in a population-based screening program. Cancer Epid Biomark Prev 1992; 1: 143–7.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Houts PS, Wojtkowiak SL, Simmonds MA, Weinberg GB, Heitjan DF. Using a state cancer registry to increase screening behaviors of sisters and daughters of breast cancer patients. Am J Public Health 1991; 81: 386–8.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Zapka JG, Hosmer D, Costanza ME, Harris DR, Stoddard A. Changes in mammography use: economic, need and service factors. Am J Public Health 1992; 82: 1345–51.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Stefanek ME, Wilcox P. First degree relatives of breast cancer patients: screening practices and provision of risk information. Cancer Detect Prev 1991; 15: 379–85.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Deapen D, Escalante A, Weinrib L, et al. A revised estimate of twin concordance in systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 1992; 35: 311–8.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Lerman C, Rimer BK, Engstrom PF. Cancer risk notification: psychosocial and ethical implications. J Clin Oncol 1991; 9: 1275–82.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Shapiro S, Venet W, Straz P, Venet L, Roeser R. Selection, follow-up and analysis in the Health Insurance Plan Study: a randomized trial with breast cancer screening. NCI Monogr 1985; 67: 65–74.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Andersson I, Aspegren K, Janzon L, et al. Mammographic screening and mortality from breast cancer: the Malmö mammographic screening trial. Br Med J 1988; 297: 943–8.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Peeters PHM, Verbeek ALM, Hendriks JHCL, van Bon MJH. Screening for breast cancer in Nijmegen. Report of 6 screening rounds. 1975–1986. Int J Cancer 1989; 43; 226–30.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Vernon SW, Laville EA, Jackson GL. Participation in breast screening programs: a review. Soc Sci Med 1990; 30: 1107–18.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Additional information

Authors are with the Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA. Address correspondence to Dr Richardson, Department of Preventive Medicine, USC School of Medicine, 1420 San Pablo St, A-301, Los Angeles, CA 90033, USA. This work was supported by grants #CA01203 from the US National Institutes of Health and #PBR-67992 from the American Cancer Society to the first author and grant #CA42581 from the NIH to the last author.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Richardson, J.L., Danley, K., Mondrus, G.T. et al. Mammography and physician breast exams after the diagnosis of breast cancer in a twin or non-twin sister. Cancer Causes Control 4, 251–260 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00051320

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00051320

Key words

Navigation