Skip to main content

Guideline-Inconsistent Breast Cancer Screening for Women over 50: A Vignette-Based Survey

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND

Professional organizations have issued guidelines recommending breast cancer screening for women 50 years of age.

OBJECTIVE

This study examines the percent of U.S. primary care physicians who report breast cancer screening practices that are not consistent with guidelines, and the characteristics of physicians who reported offering extra test modalities.

DESIGN

We analyzed a subset of a 2008 cross-sectional Women’s Health Care survey sent to primary care physicians randomly selected from the national American Medical Association (AMA) Physician Masterfile. A subset of physicians received a survey that presented a vignette of a health maintenance visit for an asymptomatic 51-year-old woman who was not at high risk for breast cancer. Responses were weighted to represent physicians nationally.

PARTICIPANTS

1,654 U.S. family physicians, general internists, and obstetrician-gynecologists under age 65, who practiced in office or hospital based settings (62.8 % response rate). After exclusions, 553 study physicians remained for analysis.

MAIN MEASURE

Physician self-report of breast cancer screening practices that are not consistent with the recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG), and the American Cancer Society (ACS), defined as almost always offering mammography.

KEY RESULTS

36.0 % (95 % CI: 31.8 %–40.5 %) of physicians reported offering breast cancer screening tests inconsistent with national guidelines, with most offering extra tests (magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] and/or ultrasound) (33.2 %, 95 % CI 29.1 %–37.6 %). In adjusted analysis, risk-averse physicians and those who believed in the clinical effectiveness of MRI were more likely to offer extra breast cancer screening tests.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians often report offering breast cancer screening test modalities beyond those recommended for a 51-year-old woman. Strategies, such as academic detailing regarding appropriate use of technology and provision of clinical decision support for breast cancer screening, could decrease overuse of resources.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Figure 1.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.

    American Cancer Society. Cancer facts & figures 2013. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Andersson I, Aspegren K, Janzon L, et al. Mammographic screening and mortality from breast cancer: the malmo mammographic screening trial. BMJ. 1988;297(6654):943–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Duffy SW, Day NE, Gad A, Grontoft O. Update of the swedish two-county program of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am. 1992;30(1):187–210.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Roberts MM, Alexander FE, Anderson TJ, et al. Edinburgh trial of screening for breast cancer: mortality at seven years. Lancet. 1990;335(8684):241–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Frisell J, Eklund G, Hellstrom L, Lidbrink E, Rutqvist LE, Somell A. Randomized study of mammography screening–preliminary report on mortality in the stockholm trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1991;18(1):49–56.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Hewitson P, Glasziou P, Watson E, Towler B, Irwig L. Cochrane systematic review of colorectal cancer screening using the fecal occult blood test (hemoccult): an update. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103(6):1541–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Clasen CM, Vernon SW, Mullen PD, Jackson GL. A survey of physician beliefs and self-reported practices concerning screening for early detection of cancer. Soc Sci Med. 1994;39(6):841–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Richards C, Klabunde C, O'Malley M. Physicians’ recommendations for colon cancer screening in women. too much of a good thing? Am J Prev Med. 1998;15(3):246–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Beydoun HA, Beydoun MA. Predictors of colorectal cancer screening behaviors among average-risk older adults in the United States. Cancer Causes Control. 2008;19(4):339–59.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Coughlin SS, Breslau ES, Thompson T, Benard VB. Physician recommendation for papanicolaou testing among U.S. women, 2000. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005;14(5):1143–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Roetzheim RG, Fox SA, Leake B. Physician-reported determinants of screening mammography in older women: the impact of physician and practice characteristics. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1995;43(12):1398–402.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin. clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists. number 42, april 2003. breast cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101(4):821–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    American College of Radiology. ACR practice guideline for the performance of screening and diagnostic mammography. Available at: http://www.acr.org/∼/media/3484CA30845348359BAD4684779D492D.pdf. Accessed July 10th, 2013.

  14. 14.

    Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Eyre HJ. American cancer society guidelines for the early detection of cancer, 2006. CA Cancer J Clin. 2006;56(1):11–25. quiz 49–50.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;15(10):716–26. W-236.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al. American cancer society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57(2):75–89.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    American College of Obstetricians-Gynecologists. Practice bulletin no. 122: Breast cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(2 Pt 1):372–82.

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    DuBard CA, Schmid D, Yow A, Rogers AB, Lawrence WW. Recommendation for and receipt of cancer screenings among medicaid recipients 50 years and older. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(18):2014–21.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Coughlin SS, Leadbetter S, Richards T, Sabatino SA. Contextual analysis of breast and cervical cancer screening and factors associated with health care access among United States women, 2002. Soc Sci Med. 2008;66(2):260–75.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Swan J, Breen N, Coates RJ, Rimer BK, Lee NC. Progress in cancer screening practices in the United States: results from the 2000 national health interview survey. Cancer. 2003;97(6):1528–40.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Meissner HI, Klabunde CN, Han PK, Benard VB, Breen N. Breast cancer screening beliefs, recommendations and practices: primary care physicians in the United States. Cancer. 2011;117(14):3101–11.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Goff BA, Matthews B, Andrilla CH, et al. How are symptoms of ovarian cancer managed?: A study of primary care physicians. Cancer. 2011;117(19):4414–23.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Trivers KF, Baldwin LM, Miller JW, et al. Reported referral for genetic counseling or BRCA 1/2 testing among United States physicians: A vignette-based study. Cancer. 2011;117(23):5334–43.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Goff BA, Miller JW, Matthews B, et al. Involvement of gynecologic oncologists in the treatment of patients with a suspicious ovarian mass. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(4):854–62.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Kadivar H, Goff BA, Phillips WR, Andrilla CH, Berg AO, Baldwin LM. Nonrecommended breast and colorectal cancer screening for young women: A vignette-based survey. Am J Prev Med. 2012;43(3):231–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Peabody JW, Luck J, Glassman P, Dresselhaus TR, Lee M. Comparison of vignettes, standardized patients, and chart abstraction: a prospective validation study of 3 methods for measuring quality. JAMA. 2000;283(13):1715–22.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Peabody JW, Luck J, Glassman P, et al. Measuring the quality of physician practice by using clinical vignettes: a prospective validation study. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(10):771–80.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Dresselhaus TR, Peabody JW, Luck J, Bertenthal D. An evaluation of vignettes for predicting variation in the quality of preventive care. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19(10):1013–8.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Henderson JT, Weisman CS, Grason H. Are two doctors better than one? Women’s physician use and appropriate care. Womens Health Issues. 2002;12(3):138–49.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Stovall DW, Loveless MB, Walden NA, Karjane N, Cohen SA. Primary and preventive healthcare in obstetrics and gynecology: a study of practice patterns in the mid-atlantic region. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2007;16(1):134–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar D, et al. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast-cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989;81(24):1879–86. doi:10.1093/jnci/81.24.1879.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Benichou J, Gail M, Mulvihill J. Graphs to estimate an individualized risk of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14(1):103–10.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    National Cancer Institute. Breast cancer risk assessment tool. Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool Web site. Available at: http://www.cancer.gov/bcrisktool/. Accessed July 10th, 2013.

  34. 34.

    Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading: Addison-Wesley; 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Ajzen I. Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2002;32(4):665–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Millstein S. Utility of the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior for predicting physician behavior: a prospective analysis. Heal Psychol. 1996;15(5):398–402.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Molenaar S, Sprangers M, Postma-Schuit F, et al. Feasibility and effects of decision aids. Medical Decision Making. 2000;20(1):112–27.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Pearson SD, Goldman L, Orav EJ, et al. Triage decisions for emergency department patients with chest pain: do physicians’ risk attitudes make the difference? J Gen Intern Med. 1995;10(10):557–64.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Katz DA, Williams GC, Brown RL, et al. Emergency physicians’ fear of malpractice in evaluating patients with possible acute cardiac ischemia. Ann Emerg Med. 2005;46(6):525–33.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Franks P, Williams GC, Zwanziger J, Mooney C, Sorbero M. Why do physicians vary so widely in their referral rates? J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15(3):163–8.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Morrill R, Cromartie J, Hart LG. Metropolitan, urban, and rural commuting areas: toward a better depiction of the US settlement system. Urban Geography. 1999;20(8):727–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Economic Research Service. Measuring rurality: Rural–urban commuting area codes. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/Rurality/RuralUrbanCommutingAreas/. Accessed July 10th, 2013.

  43. 43.

    Bieler GS, Brown GG, Williams RL, Brogan DJ. Estimating model-adjusted risks, risk differences, and risk ratios from complex survey data. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;171(5):618–23.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Miller JW, King JB, Joseph DA, Richardson LC. Breast cancer screening among adult women--behavioral risk factor surveillance system, United States. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2012;15(61):46–50.

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Hillman BJ. Government health policy and the diffusion of new medical devices. Health Serv Res. 1986;21(5):681–711.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Geigle R. Federal efforts at reducing health care costs: the effect on technology, part 2. Biomed Instrum Technol. 1990;24(4):249–53.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Pines JM, Isserman JA, Szyld D, Dean AJ, McCusker CM, Hollander JE. The effect of physician risk tolerance and the presence of an observation unit on decision making for ED patients with chest pain. Am J Emerg Med. 2010;28(7):771–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Pines JM, Hollander JE, Isserman JA, et al. The association between physician risk tolerance and imaging use in abdominal pain. Am J Emerg Med. 2009;27(5):552–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Klingman D, Localio AR, Sugarman J, et al. Measuring defensive medicine using clinical scenario surveys. J Health Polit Policy Law. 1996;21(2):185–217.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Wertman BG, Sostrin SV, Pavlova Z, Lundberg GD. Why do physicians order laboratory tests? A study of laboratory test request and use patterns. JAMA. 1980;243(20):2080–2.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Williams SV, Eisenberg JM, Pascale LA, Kitz DS. Physicians’ perceptions about unnecessary diagnostic testing. Inquiry. 1982;19(4):363–70.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Hermer LD, Brody H. Defensive medicine, cost containment, and reform. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(5):470–3.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Baldor RA, Quirk ME, Dohan D. Magnetic resonance imaging use by primary care physicians. J Fam Pract. 1993;36(3):281–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Boetes C. Update on screening breast MRI in high-risk women. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2011;38(1):149–58.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Yau EJ, Gutierrez RL, DeMartini WB, Eby PR, Peacock S, Lehman CD. The utility of breast MRI as a problem-solving tool. Breast J. 2011;17(3):273–80.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    DeMartini WB, Ichikawa L, Yankaskas BC, et al. Breast MRI in community practice: equipment and imaging techniques at facilities in the breast cancer surveillance consortium. J Am Coll Radiol. 2010;7(11):878–84.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Smith-Bindman R, Miglioretti DL, Larson EB. Rising use of diagnostic medical imaging in a large integrated health system. Health Aff (Millwood). 2008;27(6):1491–502.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Lehnert BE, Bree RL. Analysis of appropriateness of outpatient CT and MRI referred from primary care clinics at an academic medical center: how critical is the need for improved decision support? J Am Coll Radiol. 2010;7(3):192–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Oxman AD, Thomson MA, Davis DA, Haynes RB. No magic bullets: A systematic review of 102 trials of interventions to improve professional practice. CMAJ. 1995;153(10):1423–31.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Roshanov PS, You JJ, Dhaliwal J, et al. Can computerized clinical decision support systems improve practitioners’ diagnostic test ordering behavior? A decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review. Implement Sci. 2011;6:88.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Souza NM, Sebaldt RJ, Mackay JA, et al. Computerized clinical decision support systems for primary preventive care: a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review of effects on process of care and patient outcomes. Implement Sci. 2011;6:87.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Garg AX, Adhikari NKJ, McDonald H, et al. Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes - A systematic review. JAMA. 2005;293(10):1223–38.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Shea S, DuMouchel W, Bahamonde L. A meta-analysis of 16 randomized controlled trials to evaluate computer-based clinical reminder systems for preventive care in the ambulatory setting. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1996;3(6):399–409.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Flottorp S, Oxman A, Havelsrud K, Treweek S, Herrin J. Cluster randomised controlled trial of tailored interventions to improve the management of urinary tract infections in women and sore throat. Br Med J. 2002;325(7360):367–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Roshanov PS, Fernandes N, Wilczynski JM, et al. Features of effective computerised clinical decision support systems: Meta-regression of 162 randomised trials. Br Med J. 2013;346:f657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Tierney W, Miller M, McDonald C. The effect on test ordering of informing physicians of the charges for outpatient diagnostic-tests. N Engl J Med. 1990;322(21):1499–504.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Contributors: We thank Barbara Matthews, MBA (University of Washington [UW]) and Denise Lishner, MSW (UW) for their administrative help; Barbara Mathews, MBA (UW) for providing the database; Blythe Ryerson, MPH (CDC) for her early contributions to the development of the Women’s Health Survey study’s methods; and Donna Berry, RN PhD (Dana Farber Cancer Institute), Barbara Matthews, MBA (UW), Denise Lishner, MSW (UW), Katrina F. Trivers, PhD (CDC), and Jacqueline W. Miller, MD (CDC) for their contributions to the development of the Women’s Health Survey. Gilmore Research Group in Seattle, Washington conducted the survey.

Funders: This project was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) through the University of Washington Health Promotion Research Centers Cooperative Agreement U48DP001911, and through the Alliance for Reducing Cancer, Northwest (ARC NW), funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; Grant U48DP001911, V. Taylor, PI), the National Cancer Institute (NCI), and the University of Washington Primary Care Research (NRSA) Fellowship, funded by HRSA. The findings and conclusions of this journal article are those of the authors and do not represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Cancer Institute, or the University of Washington.

Prior presentations: Kadivar H, Goff B, Phillips W, Berg A, Andrilla H, Baldwin LM. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force-Inconsistent Screening for Breast and Colorectal Cancer. Poster presentation, Academy Health Annual Research, Seattle, Washington. June 13, 2011.

Conflict of Interest

All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and reported no conflicts related to this work.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hajar Kadivar MD, MPH.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 18 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kadivar, H., Goff, B.A., Phillips, W.R. et al. Guideline-Inconsistent Breast Cancer Screening for Women over 50: A Vignette-Based Survey. J GEN INTERN MED 29, 82–89 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-013-2567-1

Download citation

KEY WORDS

  • breast cancer
  • cancer screening
  • guidelines
  • physician behavior
  • primary care
  • prevention
  • malpractice
  • risk assessment