Advertisement

Cancer Causes & Control

, Volume 12, Issue 5, pp 431–442 | Cite as

Patterns and predictors of the breast cancer detection methods in women under 45 years of age (United States)

  • Ralph J. Coates
  • Robert J. Uhler
  • Donna J. Brogan
  • Marilie D. Gammon
  • Kathleen E. Malone
  • Christine A. Swanson
  • Elaine W. Flagg
  • Louise A. Brinton
Article

Abstract

Objectives: Few studies have examined methods by which breast cancers are detected, and only one study has been published on predictors of those methods. This study examined patterns and predictors of breast cancer detection methods during 1990–1992 among women age 20–44.

Methods: In-person interview and medical record data were obtained during a population-based case–control study of 1619 women newly diagnosed with breast cancer in three areas of the United States (US).

Results: Seventy-one percent of the cancers were identified by self-detection, 9% by routine clinical breast exam (CBE), and 20% by routine mammography. Cancers detected by mammography and CBE, but not those detected by breast self-exam, were much more likely to be early-stage. Detection by mammography increased with age, and a history of mammography use was associated with detection by mammography or CBE. Several commonly studied predictors of screening utilization in the US population were associated with CBE detection, but were less clearly related to or unrelated to mammography detection.

Conclusion: Findings suggest that, during the 1990s in the US, most breast cancers among women under age 45, including those age 40–44, were self-detected. Few factors other than age and prior screening are verified predictors of method of breast cancer detection.

breast cancer detection mammography screening young women 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    US Preventive Services Task Force (1996) Guide to Clinical Preventive Services, 2nd edn. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Leitch AM, Dodd GD, Constanza M, et al. (1997) American cancer society guidelines for early detection of breast cancer: update 1997. CA-Cancer J Clin 47: 150–153.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rimer BK, Schildkraut J, Hiatt RA (2000) Cancer screening. In: DeVita VT, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA, eds. Cancer Principles and Practices of Oncology, 6th edn. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Feig SA (1987) Mammography screening: published guidelines and actual practice. Recent Results Cancer Res 105: 78–84.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    King AS (1989) Not everyone agrees with new mammographic screening guidelines designed to end confusion. JAMA 262: 1154–1155.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dodd GD (1992) American Cancer Society guidelines on screening for breast cancer: an overview. Cancer 69s: 1885s–1887s.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eastman P (1997) NCI adopts new mammography screening guidelines for women. J Natl Cancer Inst 89: 538–540.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baines CJ, Miller AB (1997) Mammography versus clinical examination of the breasts. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 22: 125–129.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barton MB, Harris R, Fletcher SW (1999) Does this patient have breast cancer? The screening clinical breast examination: should it be done? How? JAMA 282: 1270–1280.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Howard J (1987) Using mammography for cancer control: an unrealized potential. CA Cancer J Clin 37: 33–48.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    White E, Urban N, Taylor V (1993) Mammography utilization, public health impact, and cost-effectiveness in the United States. Annu Rev Publ Health 14: 605–633.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Breen N, Kessler L (1996) Trends in cancer screening — United States, 1987 and 1992. Oncology 10: 328–330.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Blackman DK, Bennett EM, Miller DS (1999) Trends in self-reported use of mammograms (1989–1997) and Papanicolaou tests (1991–1997) — United States. In: CDC Surveillance Summaries, MMWR 48(SS-6): 1–23.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vernon SW, Laville EA, Jackson GL (1990) Participation in breast screening programs: a review. Soc Sci Med 30: 1107–1118.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Anderson LM, May DS (1995) Has the use of cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening increased in the United States? Am J Public Health 85: 840–842.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ackerman SP, Brackbill RM, Bewerse BA, Cheal NE, Sanderson LM (1992) Cancer screening behaviors among US women: breast cancer, 1987–1989, and cervical cancer, 1988–1989. In: CDC Surveillance Summaries, MMWR 41: 17–34.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bastani R, Kaplan CP, Maxwell AE, Nisenbaum R, Pearce J, Marcus AC (1995) Initial and repeat mammography screening in a low income multi-ethnic population in Los Angeles. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 4: 161–167.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Beaulieu M-D, Beland F, Roy D, Falardeau M, Hebert G (1996) Factors determining compliance with screening mammography. Can Med Assoc J 154: 1335–1343.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bloom JR, Grazier K, Hodge F, Hayes WA (1991) Factors affecting the use of screening mammography among African American women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1: 75–82.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Costanza ME, Stoddard A, Gaw VP, Zapka JG (1992) The risk factors of age and family history and their relationship to screening mammography utilization. J Am Geriatr Soc 40: 774–778.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Frazier EL, Jiles RB, Mayberry R (1996) Use of screening mammography and clinical breast examinations among black, Hispanic, and white women. Prev Med 25: 118–125.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Horton JA, Cruess DF, Romans MC (1996) Compliance with mammography screening guidelines: 1995 Mammography Attitudes and Usage Study Report. Women's Health Issues 6: 239–245.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jepson C, Kessler LG, Portnoy B, Gibbs T (1991) Black-white differences in cancer prevention knowledge and behavior. Am J Public Health 81: 501–504.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kaplan KM, Weinberg GB, Small A, Herndon JL (1991) Breast cancer screening among relatives of women with breast cancer. Am J Public Health 81: 1174–1179.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lerman C, Daly M, Sands C, et al. (1993) Mammography adherence and psychological distress among women at risk for breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 85: 1074–1080.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Phillips KA, Kerlikowske K, Baker LC, Chang SW, Brown ML (1998) Factors associated with women's adherence to mammography screening guidelines. Health Serv Res 33: 29–53.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rakowski W, Pearlman D, Rimer BK, Ehrich B (1995) Correlates of mammography among women with low and high socioeconomic resources. Prev Med 24: 149–158.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rakowski W, Clark MA (1998) Do groups of women aged 50 to 75 match the national average mammography rate? Am J Prev Med 15: 187–197.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rimer BK, Trock B, Engstrom PF (1991) Why do some women get regular mammograms? Am J Prev Med 7: 69–74.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schoen RE, Marcus M, Braham RL (1994) Factors associated with the use of screening mammography in a primary care setting. J Commun Health 19: 239–252.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Casey S, Plomer K, Tenney M (1995) Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening: Barriers and Use among Specific Populations. Denver, CO: AMC Cancer Research Center.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yabroff KR, Mandelblatt JS (1999) Interventions targeted toward patients to increase mammography use. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 8: 749–757.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mandelblatt JS, Yabroff KR (1999) Effectiveness of interventions designed to increase mammography use: a meta-analysis of provider-targeted strategies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 8: 759–767.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wyatt SW, Long DM, Lee NC, et al. (1996) State legislation related to breast cancer: 1980–1994. J Public Health Manage Pract 2: 64–69.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Henson RM, Wyatt SW, Lee NC (1996) The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program: a comprehensive public health response to two major health issues for women. J Public Health Manage Pract 2: 36–47.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    US Department of Health and Human Services (1995) Healthy People 2000 Midcourse Review and 1995 Revisions. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kessler LG, Feuer EJ, Brown ML (1991) Projections of the breast cancer burden to US women: 1990–2000. Prev Med 20: 170–182.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Miller BA, Feuer EJ, Hankey BF (1991) The increasing incidence of breast cancer since 1982: relevance of early detection. Cancer Causes Control 2: 67–74.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Liff JM, Sung JFC, Chow W-H, Greenberg RS, Flanders WD (1991) Does increased detection account for the rising incidence of breast cancer? Am J Public Health 81: 462–465.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ballard-Barbash R, Taplin SH, Yankaskas BC, et al. (1997) Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography and outcomes database. Am J Roentgenol 169: 1001–1008.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Senie RT, Lesser M, Kinner DW, Rosen PP (1994) Method of tumor detection influences disease-free survival of women with breast carcinoma. Cancer 73: 1666–1672.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Nemoto T, Natarajan N, Smart CR, Mettlin C, Murphy GP (1982) Patterns of breast cancer detection in the United States. J Surg Oncol 21: 183–188.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Reeves MJ, Newcomb PA, Remington PL, Marcus PM (1995) Determinants of breast cancer detection among Wisconsin (United States) women, 1988–90. Cancer Causes Control 6: 103–111.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    McPherson CP, Swenson KK, Jolitz G, Murray CL (1997) Survival of women ages 40–49 years with breast carcinoma according to method of detection. Cancer 79: 1923–1932.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Spratt JS, Greenberg RA, Heuser LS (1986) Geometry, growth rates, and duration of cancer and carcinoma in situ of the breast before detection by screening. Cancer Res 46: 970–974.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Brekelmans CTM, Peeters PHM, Faber JAJ, Deurenberg JJM, Collette HJA (1994) The epidemiological profile of women with an interval cancer in the DOM screening programme. Breast Cancer Res Treat 30: 223–232.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Chen HH, Duffy SW, Gad A (1996) Tumour development, histology and grade of breast cancers: prognosis and progression. Int J Cancer 66: 413–419.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wohlfahrt J, Andersen PK, Mouridsen HT, Adami H-O, Melbye M (1999) Reproductive history and stage of breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol 150: 1325–1330.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Weiss HA, Brinton LA, Brogan D, et al. (1996) Epidemiology of in situ and invasive breast cancer in women aged under 45. Br J Cancer 73: 1298–1305.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Panel (1997) National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference statement: breast cancer screening for women ages 40–49, January 21–23, 1997. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 22: vii–xii.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Berry DA (1998) Benefits and risks of screening mammography for women in their forties: a statistical appraisal. Commentary. J Natl Cancer Inst 90: 1431–1439.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Forrest AP, Alexander FI (1995) A question that will not go away: at what age should mammographic screening begin [editorial]. J Natl Cancer Inst 87: 1195–1197.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Taubes G (1997) The breast-screening brawl. Science 275: 1056–1059.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    National Cancer Advisory Board (1997) National Cancer Advisory Board (NCAB) Mammography Recommendations for Women ages 40–49. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Hendrick RE, Smith RA, Rutledge JH, Smart CR (1997) Benefit of screening mammography in women aged 40–49: a new metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 22: 87–92.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kerelikowske K (1997) Efficacy of screening mammography among women aged 40 to 49 years and 50 to 69 years: comparison of relative and absolute benefit. Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 22: 79–86.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Dickersin K (1999) Breast screening in women aged 40–49 years: what next? Lancet 353: 1896–1897.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    US Department of Health and Human Services (2000) Healthy People 2010 (Conference Edition). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    US Preventive Services Task Force (1989) Guide to Clinical Preventive Services. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Auvinen A, Elovainio L, Hakama M (1996) Breast self-examination and survival from breast cancer: a prospective follow-up study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 38: 161–168.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Thomas DB, Gao DL, Self SG, et al. (1997) Randomized trial of breast self-examination in Shanghai: methodology and preliminary results. J Natl Cancer Inst 89: 355–365.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    UK Trial of Early Detection of Breast Cancer Group (1999) 16-year mortality from breast cancer in the UK Trial of Early Detection of Breast Cancer. Lancet 353: 1909–1914.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Brinton LA, Daling JR, Liff J, et al. (1995) Oral contraceptives and breast cancer risk among younger women. J Natl Cancer Inst 87: 827–835.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Stange KC, Flocke SA, Goodwin MA (1998) Opportunistic preventive services delivery. J Fam Pract 46: 419–424.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    US Department of Commerce (1980) Standard Occupational Classification Manual, 1980. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    US Department of Health and Human Services (1991) Annual update of the HHS poverty income guidelines. Fed Reg 56: 6859–6861.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Ries LAG, Eisner MP, Kosary CL, et al., eds (2000) SEER Cancer Statisties Review, 1973–1994. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (1989) Applied Logistic Regression. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    SAS Institute, Inc (1990) SAS User's Guide, Version 6, 4th edn. Cary, NC: SAS.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Hellman S (1994) Natural history of small breast cancers. J Clin Oncol 12: 2229–2234.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Mickey RM, Greenland S (1989) The impact of confounder selection criteria on effect estimation. Am J Epidemiol 129: 125–137.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Newell SA, Girgis A, Sanson-Fisher RW, Savolainen NJ (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.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Page DL, Dupont WD, Rogers LW, Jensen RA, Schuyler PA (1995) Continued local recurrence of carcinoma 15 years after a diagnosis of low grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast treated only by biopsy. Cancer 75: 1197–1200.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Chen VW, Correa P, Kurman RJ, et al. (1994) Histological characteristics of breast carcinoma in blacks and whites. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 3: 127–135.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Schiller PL, Levin JS (1988) Is there a religious factor in health care utilization? A review. Soc. Sci Med 27: 1369–1379.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Fink R, Shapiro S, Lewison J (1968) The reluctant participant in a breast cancer screening program. Public Health Rep 83: 479–490.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Haynes MA, Smedley BD, eds (1999) The Unequal Burden of Cancer. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Helzlsouer KJ (1995) Early detection and prevention of breast cancer. In: Greenwald P, Kramer BS, Weed DL, eds. Cancer Prevention and Control. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ralph J. Coates
    • 1
  • Robert J. Uhler
    • 1
  • Donna J. Brogan
    • 2
  • Marilie D. Gammon
    • 3
  • Kathleen E. Malone
    • 4
  • Christine A. Swanson
    • 5
  • Elaine W. Flagg
    • 6
  • Louise A. Brinton
    • 5
  1. 1.Division of Cancer Prevention and ControlCDCAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiostatisticsEmory UniversityAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.Division of EpidemiologyColumbia School of Public HealthNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.Division of Public Health SciencesFred Hutchinson Cancer Research CenterSeattleUSA
  5. 5.Division of Cancer Epidemiology and GeneticsNational Cancer InstituteBethesdaUSA
  6. 6.Department of MedicineEmory UniversityAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations