Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Accuracy of self-reported breast cancer among women undergoing mammography

  • Epidemiology
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study estimated the sensitivity and specificity of self-reported breast cancer and their associations with patient factors and pathologic findings using data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. We included 24,631 women with and 463,804 women without a prior diagnosis of breast cancer who completed a questionnaire (including breast cancer history) at participating US mammography facilities between 1996 and 2006. We determined “true” cancer status using cancer registries and pathology databases. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine associations with patient factors and pathologic findings. Sensitivity of self-reported breast cancer was higher for women with invasive cancer (96.9%) than for those with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (90.2%). Specificity was high overall (99.7%) but much lower for women with a history of lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) (65.0%). In multivariable models, women reporting older ages, a nonwhite race/ethnicity, or less education had lower sensitivities and specificities. Sensitivity was reduced when there was evidence of prior DCIS, especially when this diagnosis had been made more than 2 years before questionnaire completion. Women reporting a family history of breast cancer had higher sensitivity. Evidence of prior LCIS was associated with lower specificity. The accuracy of self-reported breast cancer depends on the respondent’s characteristics and prior diagnoses. Accuracy is lower among nonwhite women and women reporting less education. There appears to be uncertainty surrounding breast findings such as DCIS and LCIS. These results have important implications for research relying on self-report and for patient communication and care.

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.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Newell SA, Girgis A, Sanson-Fisher RW, Savolainen NJ, Hons BA (1999) The accuracy of self-reported health behaviors and risk factors relating to cancer and cardiovascular disease in the general population: a critical review. Am J Prev Med 17:211–229. doi:10.1016/S0749-3797(99)00069-0

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Schrijvers CT, Stronks K, van de Mheen DH, Coebergh JW, Mackenbach JP (1994) Validation of cancer prevalence data from a postal survey by comparison with cancer registry records. Am J Epidemiol 139:408–414

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bergmann MM, Byers T, Freedman DS, Mokdad A (1998) Validity of self-reported cancers in a prospective cohort study in comparison with data from state cancer registries. Am J Epidemiol 147:556–562

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Desai MM, Bruce ML, Desai RA, Druss BG (2001) Validity of self-reported cancer history: a comparison of health interview data and cancer registry records. Am J Epidemiol 153:299–306. doi:10.1093/aje/153.3.299

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Parikh-Patel A, Allen M, Wright WE, California Teachers Study Steering Committee (2003) Validation of self-reported cancers in the California Teachers Study. Am J Epidemiol 157:539–545. doi:10.1093/aje/kwg006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dominguez FJ, Lawrence C, Halpern EF et al (2007) Accuracy of self-reported personal history of cancer in an outpatient breast center. J Genet Couns 16:341–345. doi:10.1007/s10897-006-9067-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Poon EG, Haas JS, Puopolo AL et al (2004) Communication factors in the follow-up of abnormal mammograms. J Gen Intern Med 19:316–323. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.30357.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kerner JF, Yedidia M, Padgett D et al (2003) Realizing the promise of breast cancer screening: clinical follow-up after abnormal screening among Black women. Prev Med 37:92–101. doi:10.1016/S0091-7435(03)00087-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Barlow WE, White E, Ballard-Barbash R et al (2006) Prospective breast cancer risk prediction model for women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 98:1204–1214

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ballard-Barbash R, Taplin SH, Yankaskas BC et al (1997) Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database. AJR Am J Roentgenol 169:1001–1008

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, National Cancer Institute (2008) Available at: http://breastscreening.cancer.gov/. Accessed 3 Dec 2008

  12. United States Census 2000 (2007) Geographic products and information. Available at: http://www.census.gov/geo/www/census2k.html. Accessed 3 Dec 2008

  13. SAS Institute Inc (2002) SAS/STAT® users guide, version 9. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC

  14. Champion VL, Springston JK, Zollinger TW et al (2006) Comparison of three interventions to increase mammography screening in low income African American women. Cancer Detect Prev 30:535–544. doi:10.1016/j.cdp.2006.10.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Battaglia TA, Roloff K, Posner MA, Freund KM (2007) Improving follow-up to abnormal breast cancer screening in an urban population. A patient navigation intervention. Cancer 109(2 suppl):359–367. doi:10.1002/cncr.22354

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Elmore JG, Barton MB, Moceri VM, Polk S, Arena PJ, Fletcher SW (1998) Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. N Engl J Med 338:1089–1096. doi:10.1056/NEJM199804163381601

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wiechmann L, Kuerer HM (2008) The molecular journey from ductal carcinoma in situ to invasive breast cancer. Cancer 112:2130–2142. doi:10.1002/cncr.23430

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Nápoles-Springer AM, Livaudais JC, Bloom J, Hwang S, Kaplan CP (2007) Information exchange and decision making in the treatment of Latina and white women with ductal carcinoma in situ. J Psychosoc Oncol 25:19–36. doi:10.1300/J077v25n04_02

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Prinjha S, Evans J, McPherson A (2006) Women’s information needs about ductal carcinoma in situ before mammographic screening and after diagnosis: a qualitative study. J Med Screen 13:110–114. doi:10.1258/096914106778440581

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Li CI, Malone KE, Saltzman BS, Daling JR (2006) Risk of invasive breast carcinoma among women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ and lobular carcinoma in situ, 1988–2001. Cancer 106:2104–2112. doi:10.1002/cncr.21864

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cuzick J, Forbes JF, Sestak I, International Breast Cancer Intervention Study I Investigators et al (2007) Long-term results of tamoxifen prophylaxis for breast cancer—96-month follow-up of the randomized IBIS-I trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 99:272–282. doi:10.1093/jnci/djk049

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cronin KA, Yu B, Krapcho M et al (2005) Modeling the dissemination of mammography in the United States. Cancer Causes Control 16:701–712. doi:10.1007/s10552-005-0693-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the participating BCSC mammography facilities, radiologists, and women for the data they have provided for this study. A list of the BCSC investigators and procedures for requesting BCSC data for research purposes are provided at http://breastscreening.cancer.gov/.

Financial support

This research was supported by a National Cancer Institute-funded Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium cooperative agreement (U01CA63740, U01CA86076, U01CA86082, U01CA63736, U01CA70013, U01CA69976, U01CA63731, U01CA70040). The collection of cancer incidence data used in this study was supported in part by several state public health departments and cancer registries throughout the United States. For a full description of these sources, please see http://breastscreening.cancer.gov/work/acknowledgement.html.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Linn Abraham.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Abraham, L., Geller, B.M., Yankaskas, B.C. et al. Accuracy of self-reported breast cancer among women undergoing mammography. Breast Cancer Res Treat 118, 583–592 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-009-0375-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-009-0375-4

Keywords

Navigation