Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Timeliness of follow-up after abnormal screening mammography

  • Guest editor's introduction
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Little information has been published concerning the timeliness of follow-up after abnormal mammography. This article presents data on follow-up after abnormal mammography, including differences in follow-up by age, race, mammographic interpretation, and type of tracking system. From unpublished data, the rate of timely follow-up 8 to 12 weeks after index abnormal mammography ranges from 69% to 99%. Women aged 65 and older, those of lower socioeconomic status, and those who are instructed to have repeat evaluations in four to six months have the highest proportion of untimely follow-up. With use of computer-based tracking systems, timely follow-up ranges from 89% to 99%. Computer-based tracking systems should be encouraged to promote timely follow-up of abnormal mammography. Further research is needed to better delineate those at risk for untimely follow-up after abnormal mammography, causes of untimely follow-up, the impact of untimely follow-up on breast cancer stage and mortality, and interventions that maximize timely follow-up.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Brown ML, Houn F, Sickles EA, Kessler LG: Screening mammography in community practice: Positive predictive value of abnormal findings and the yield of follow-up diagnostic procedures. Am J Roentgenol 165:1373–1377, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  2. Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Duffy SW, Day NE, Gas A, Grontoft O: Update of the Swedish two-county program of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 30:187–210, 1992

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Andersson I, Aspergren K, Janzon L, Landberg T, Lindholm K, Linell F, Ljungberg O, Ranstam J, Sigfusson B: Mammographic screening and mortality from breast cancer: the Malmo mammographic screening trial. BMJ 297:943–948, 1988

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Elwood JM, Cox B, Richardson AK: The effectiveness of breast cancer screening by mammography in younger women. On-line J Cur Clin Trials 2:Doc NR 32, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fletcher SW, Black W, Harris R, Rimer BK, Shapiro S: Report of the International Workshop on Screening for Breast Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 85:1644–1656, 1993

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Rubin SM, Sandrock C, Ernster VL: Efficacy of screening mammography: A meta-analysis. JAMA 273:149–154, 1995

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Moskowitz M: Breast cancer: age-specific growth rates and screening strategies. Radiology 161:37–41, 1986

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Spratt JS, Greenberg RA, Heuser LS: Geometry, growth rates, and duration of cancer and carcinoma in situ of the breast before detection by screening. Cancer Res 46:970–974, 1986

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Facione NC: Delay versus help seeking for breast cancer symptoms: a critical review of the literature on patient and provider delay: Soc Sci Med 36:1521–1534, 1993

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Caplan LS, Helzlsouer KJ: Delay in breast cancer: A review of the literature. Public Health Rev 20:187–214, 1992/93

    Google Scholar 

  11. Vernon SW, Tilley B, Neale AV, Steinfeldt L: Ethnicity, survival, and delay in seeking treatment for symptoms of breast cancer. Cancer 55:1563–1571, 1985

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Charlson ME: Delay in the treatment of carcinoma of the breast. Surg Gynecol Obstet 160:393–399, 1985

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Afzelius P, Zedeler K, Sommer H, Mouridsen HT, Blichert-Toft M: Patient's and doctor's delay in primary breast cancer. Acta Oncologica 33:345–351, 1994

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Machiavelli M, Leone B, Romero A, Perez J, Vallejo C, Bianco A, Rodriguez R: Relation between delay and survival in 596 patients with breast cancer. Oncology 46:78–82, 1989

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Neave LM, Mason BH, Kay RG: Does delay in diagnosis of breast cancer affect survival? Breast Cancer Res Treat 15:103–108, 1990

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles E, Eaton A, Ernster V: Positive predictive value of screening mammography by age and family history of breast cancer. JAMA 270:2444–2450, 1993

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Houn F, Brown ML: Current practice of screening mammography in the United States: data from the National Survey of Mammography Facilities. Radiology 190:209–215, 1994

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. CDC: Results from the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, October 31, 1991–September 30, 1993. MMWR 43:530–534, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  19. CDC: Public health focus: mammography. MMWR 41:454–459, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  20. Webber P, Fox P, Pond M, Zhang X: An examination of differential follow-up rates in breast cancer screening. Journal of Community Health 21:123–132, 1996

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sickles EA: Quality assurance. How to audit your own practice. Radiol Clin North Am 30:265–275, 1992

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ciatto S, Cecchini S, Rosselli Del Turco M, Grazzini G, Iossa A, Bartoli D: Referral policy and positive predictive value of call for surgical biopsy in the Florence Breast Cancer Screening Program. J Clin Epidemiol 43:419–423, 1990

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bird RE: Low-cost screening mammography: report on finances and review of 21,716 consecutive cases. Radiology 171:87–90, 1989

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Pillsbury SG, Link JS, Roux S: Improved mammographic accuracy. Obstet Gynecol 164:1643–1646, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  25. Sickles EA, Ominsky SH, Sollitto RA, Galvin HB, Monticciolo DL: Medical audit of a rapid-throughput mammography screening practice: methodology and results of 27,114 examinations. Radiology 175:323–327, 1990

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. D'Orsi CJ, Kopans DB: Mammographic feature analysis. Seminars in Roentgenology 28:204–230, 1993

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. McCarthy BD, Boohaker EA, Ulcickas M, Wilcock CH, Ward RE: Inadequate follow-up of abnormal mammograms. J Gen Int Med 9(April Supplement 2):33, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  28. Clay MG, Hislop TG, Kan L, Olivotto IA, Burhenne LJW: Screening mammography in British Columbia: 1988–1993. Am J Surg 167:490–492, 1994

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Burhenne LJW: 1990 Annual Report of Screening Mammography Program in British Columbia, p 32

  30. Helvie MA, Pennes DR, Rebner M, Adler DD: Mammographic follow-up of low-suspicion lesions: compliance rate and diagnostic yield. Radiology 178:155–158, 1991

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Fox SA, Roetzheim RG: Screening mammography and older women. Cancer 74:2028–2033, 1994

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Richardson JL, Marks G, Solis JM, Collins L, Birba L, Hisserich JC: Frequency and adequacy of breast cancer screening among elderly Hispanic women. Prev Med 16:761–774, 1987

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Breen N, Kessler L: Changes in the use of screening mammography: evidence from the 1987 and 1990 National Health Interview Survey. Am J Public Health 84:62–67, 1994

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Lacey LL, Whitfield J, DeWhite W, Ansell D, Whitman S, Chen E, Phillips C: Referral adherence in an inner city breast and cervical cancer screening program. Cancer 72:950–955, 1993

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Manfredi C, Lacey L, Warnecke R: Results of an intervention to improve compliance with referrals for evaluation of suspected malignancies at neighborhood public health centers. Am J Public Health 80:85–87, 1990

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Sickles EA: Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology 179:463–468, 1991

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Sickles EA: Nonpalpable, circumscribed, noncalcified solid breast masses: likelihood of malignancy based on lesion size and age of patient. Radiology 192:439–442, 1994

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Mandelblatt J, Traxler M, Lakin P, Kanetsky P, Thomas L, Chauhan P, Matseoane S, Ramsey E, and the Harlem Study Team: Breast and cervical cancer screening of poor, elderly, black women: clinical results and implications. Am J Prev Med 9:133–138, 1993

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Lerman C, Miller SM, Scarborough R, Hanjani P, Nolte S, Smith D. Adverse psychologic consequences of positive cytologic cervical screening. Am J Obstet Gynecol 165:658–662, 1991

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Spratt JA, von Fournier D, Spratt JS, Weber EE: Mammographic assessment of human breast cancer growth and duration. Cancer 71:2020–2026, 1993

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Kern KA: Causes of breast cancer malpractice litigation. Arch Surg 127:542–547, 1992

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kern KA: Medicolegal analysis of the delayed diagnosis of cancer in 338 cases in the United States. Arch Surg 129:397–404, 1994

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Mitnick JS, Vazquez MF, Plesser KP, Rosess DF: Breast cancer malpractice litigation in New York state. Radiology 189:673–676, 1993

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Karla Kerlikowske MD

  2. General Internal Medicine Section, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Karla Kerlikowske MD

Authors
  1. Karla Kerlikowske MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karla Kerlikowske MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kerlikowske, K. Timeliness of follow-up after abnormal screening mammography. Breast Cancer Res Tr 40, 53–64 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01806002

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01806002

Key words

Search

Navigation