Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Availability of prior mammograms affects incomplete report rates in mobile screening mammography

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

Abstract

Purpose

Mobile mammography can improve access to screening mammography in rural areas and underserved populations. We evaluated the frequency of incomplete reports in mobile mammography screening and the relationships between prior mammograms and recall rates.

Methods

The frequency of incomplete mammogram reports, the subgroups of those needing prior comparison mammograms, recalls for additional imaging, and availability of prior mammograms of a mobile screening mammography unit were compared with fixed site mammography from January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2009. All mobile unit mammograms were full field digital mammography (FFDM). Differences between rates of recall, incomplete reports, and availability of prior mammograms were calculated using the Chi-Square statistic.

Results

Of 2640 mobile mammography cases, 21.9% (578) reports were incomplete, versus 15.2% (7653) (p ≤ 0.001) of 50325 fixed site reports. Of incomplete cases, recall for additional imaging occurred among 8.3% (218) of mobile mammography reports versus 11.3% (5708) (p ≤ 0.001) of fixed site reports. Prior mammograms were needed among 13.6% (360) of mobile mammography versus 3.9% (1945) (p ≤ 0.001) of fixed site reports. Mobile mammography recall rate varied with availability of prior mammograms: 16.0% (54) when no prior mammograms, 7.6% (127) when prior mammograms were elsewhere but unavailable and 5.9% (37) when prior FFDM were immediately available (p ≤ 0.001).

Conclusions

Incomplete reports were more frequent in mobile mammography than the fixed site. The availability of prior comparison mammograms at time of interpretation decreased the rate of incomplete mammogram reports. Recall rates were higher without prior comparison mammograms and lowest when comparison FFDM mammograms were available.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. White A, Richardson LC, Li C, Ekwueme DU, Kaur JS (2014) Breast cancer mortality among American Indian and Alaska Native women, 1990–2009. Am J Public Health 104(Suppl 3):S432–S438. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Espey D, Castro G, Flagg T, Landis K, Henderson JA, Benard VB, Royalty JE (2014) Strengthening breast and cervical cancer control through partnerships: American Indian and Alaska Native Women and the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. Cancer 120(Suppl 16):2557–2565. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.28824

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Espey DK, Wu XC, Swan J, Wiggins C, Jim MA, Ward E, Wingo PA, Howe HL, Ries LA, Miller BA, Jemal A, Ahmed F, Cobb N, Kaur JS, Edwards BK (2007) Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2004, featuring cancer in American Indians and Alaska Natives. Cancer 110(10):2119–2152. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wingo PA, King J, Swan J, Coughlin SS, Kaur JS, Erb-Alvarez JA, Jackson-Thompson J, Arambula Solomon TG (2008) Breast cancer incidence among American Indian and Alaska Native women: US, 1999–2004. Cancer 113(5 Suppl):1191–1202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cobb N, Espey D, King J (2014) Health behaviors and risk factors among American Indians and Alaska Natives, 2000–2010. Am J Public Health 104(Suppl 3):S481–S489. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.301879

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Roubidoux MA (2012) Breast cancer and screening in American Indian and Alaska Native women. J Cancer Educ 27(Suppl 1):S66–S72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-012-0323-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Watanabe-Galloway S, Flom N, Xu L, Duran T, Frerichs L, Kennedy F, Smith CB, Jaiyeola AO (2011) Cancer-related disparities and opportunities for intervention in Northern Plains American Indian communities. Public Health Rep 126(3):318–329

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Pandhi N, Guadagnolo BA, Kanekar S, Petereit DG, Smith MA (2010) Cancer screening in Native Americans from the Northern Plains. AM J Prev med 38(4):389–395

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Onega T, Smith M, Miglioretti DL, Carney PA, Geller BA, Kerlikowske K, Buist DS, Rosenberg RD, Smith RA, Sickles EA, Haneuse S, Anderson ML, Yankaskas B (2012) Radiologist agreement for mammographic recall by case difficulty and finding type. J Am Coll Radiol 9(11):788–794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2012.05.020

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Roen EL, Roubidoux MA, Joe AI, Russell TR, Soliman AS (2013) Adherence to screening mammography among American Indian women of the northern plains. Breast Cancer Res Treat 139(3):897–905

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Chen YR, Chang-Halpenny C, Kumarasamy NA, Venegas A, Braddock Iii CH (2016) Perspectives of mobile versus fixed mammography in Santa Clara County, California: a focus group study. Cureus 8(2):e494. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.494

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Mizuguchi S, Barkley L, Rai S, Pan J, Roland L, Crawford S, Riley EC (2014) Mobile mammography, race, and insurance: use trends over a decade at a comprehensive urban cancer center. J Oncol Pract 11(1):e75–e80. https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.2014.001477

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Browder C, Eberth JM, Schooley B, Porter NR (2015) Mobile mammography: an evaluation of organizational, process, and information systems challenges. Healthcare 3(1):49–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hjdsi.2014.12.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Peek ME, Han JH (2009) Compliance and self-reported barriers to follow-up of abnormal screening mammograms among women utilizing a county mobile mammography van. Health Care Women Int 30(10):857–870. https://doi.org/10.1080/07399330903066350

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Pisano ED, Yankaskas BC, Ghate SV, Plankey MW, Morgan JT (1995) Patient compliance in mobile screening mammography. Acad Radiol 2(12):1067–1072

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Stanley E, Lewis MC, Irshad A, Ackerman S, Collins H, Pavic D, Leddy RJ (2017) Effectiveness of a mobile mammography program. AJR Am J Roentgenol 209(6):1426–1429. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.17670

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rosenberg RD, Yankaskas BC, Abraham LA, Sickles EA, Lehman CD, Geller BM, Carney PA, Kerlikowske K, Buist DS, Weaver DL, Barlow WE, Ballard-Barbash R (2006) Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. Radiology 241(1):55–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. American College of Radiology (ACR) (2003) ACR BI-RADS—Mammography—Assessment Categories. In: D’Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, Berg WA et al. (eds) ACR breast imaging reporting and data system, breast imaging atlas, 4th edn. American College of Radiology (ACR), Reston, p 194

    Google Scholar 

  19. Rao AA, Feneis J, Lalonde C, Ojeda-Fournier H (2016) A pictorial review of changes in the BI-RADS fifth edition. Radiographics 36(3):623–639. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2016150178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Yankaskas BC, Cleveland RJ, Schell MJ, Kozar R (2001) Association of recall rates with sensitivity and positive predictive values of screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 177(3):543–549. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.177.3.1770543

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Yankaskas BC, May RC, Matuszewski J, Bowling JM, Jarman MP, Schroeder BF (2011) Effect of observing change from comparison mammograms on performance of screening mammography in a large community-based population. Radiology 261(3):762–770. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11110653

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Schell MJ, Yankaskas BC, Ballard-Barbash R, Qaqish BF, Barlow WE, Rosenberg RD, Smith-Bindman R (2007) Evidence-based target recall rates for screening mammography. Radiology 243(3):681–689. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2433060372

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sala M, Comas M, Macia F, Martinez J, Casamitjana M, Castells X (2009) Implementation of digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening program: effect of screening round on recall rate and cancer detection. Radiology 252(1):31–39. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2521080696

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Burnside ES, Sickles EA, Sohlich RE, Dee KE (2002) Differential value of comparison with previous examinations in diagnostic versus screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179(5):1173–1177. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.179.5.1791173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Roelofs AA, Karssemeijer N, Wedekind N, Beck C, van Woudenberg S, Snoeren PR, Hendriks JH, Rosselli del Turco M, Bjurstam N, Junkermann H, Beijerinck D, Seradour B, Evertsz CJ (2007) Importance of comparison of current and prior mammograms in breast cancer screening. Radiology 242(1):70–77. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2421050684

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rothschild J, Lourenco AP, Mainiero MB (2013) Screening mammography recall rate. Does practice site matter? Radiology 269(2):348–353. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13121487

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Indian Health Service (IHS) (2018) Frequently asked questions. https://www.ihs.gov/forpatients/faq/#q1. Accessed 15 Jun 2018

  28. Indian Health Service (IHS) Chap. 1- Eligibility for services. The Federal Health Program for American Indians and Alaska Natives. https://www.ihs.gov/IHM/pc/part-2/p2c1. Accessed 18 Jun 2018

  29. Indian Health Service (IHS) (2015) UDS summary report final—FY2015 https://http://www.ihs.gov/urban/includes/themes/responsive2017/display_objects/documents/2015_UIHP_UDS_Summary_Report_Final.pdf. Accessed 15 Jun 2018

  30. Indian Health Service (IHS) (2018) Find Healthcare. https://www.ihs.gov/findhealthcare/?CFID=86249348&CFTOKEN=23388283. Accessed 15 Jun 2018

  31. Indian Health Service (IHS) (2016) Great Plains Area Indian Health Service, The Federal Health Program for the American Indians and Alaska Natives. https://www.ihs.gov/greatplains/. Accessed 3 Jun 2016

  32. Gur D, Wallace LP, Klym AH, Hardesty LA, Abrams GS, Shah R, Sumkin JH (2005) Trends in recall, biopsy, and positive biopsy rates for screening mammography in an academic practice. Radiology 235(2):396–401. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2352040422

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lee J, Hardesty LA, Kunzler NM, Rosenkrantz AB (2016) Direct interactive public education by breast radiologists about screening mammography: impact on anxiety and empowerment. J Am Coll Radiol 13(1):12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2015.07.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Bolejko A, Hagell P, Wann-Hansson C, Zackrisson S (2015) Prevalence, long-term development, and predictors of psychosocial consequences of false-positive mammography among women attending population-based screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 24(9):1388–1397. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0060

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Bassett LW, Shayestehfar B, Hirbawi I (1994) Obtaining previous mammograms for comparison: usefulness and costs. AJR Am J Roentgenol 163(5):1083–1086. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.163.5.7976879

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Sala M, Salas D, Belvis F, Sanchez M, Ferrer J, Ibanez J, Roman R, Ferrer F, Vega A, Laso MS, Castells X (2011) Reduction in false-positive results after introduction of digital mammography: analysis from four population-based breast cancer screening programs in Spain. Radiology 258(2):388–395. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10100874

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Hofvind S, Skaane P, Elmore JG, Sebuodegard S, Hoff SR, Lee CI (2014) Mammographic performance in a population-based screening program: before, during, and after the transition from screen-film to full-field digital mammography. Radiology 272(1):52–62. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14131502

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Sumkin JH, Holbert BL, Herrmann JS, Hakim CA, Ganott MA, Poller WR, Shah R, Hardesty LA, Gur D (2003) Optimal reference mammography: a comparison of mammograms obtained 1 and 2 years before the present examination. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180(2):343–346. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.180.2.1800343

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Feig SA, Reitherman R, Pruthi S (2015) Dense breast tissue: the emerging role of supplementary screening. Am J Roentgenol 205(6):1365–1371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hakim CM, Catullo VJ, Chough DM, Ganott MA, Kelly AE, Shinde DD, Sumkin JH, Wallace LP, Bandos AI, Gur D (2015) Effect of the availability of prior full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis images on the interpretation of mammograms. Radiology 276(1):65–72. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.15142009

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Wilson TE, Nijhawan VK, Helvie MA (1996) Normal mammograms and the practice of obtaining previous mammograms: usefulness and costs. Radiology 198(3):661–663. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.198.3.8628851

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. American College of Radiology (ACR) (2003) ACR BI-RADS®—mammography. In: D’Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, Berg WA et al (eds) ACR breast imaging and reporting data system, breast imaging Atlas, 4th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston

    Google Scholar 

  43. Bassett LW, Hendrick RE, Bassford TL (1994) Quality determinants of mammography: clinical practice guideline, vol 13. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville

    Google Scholar 

  44. Hayward JH, Ray KM, Wisner DJ, Kornak J, Lin W, Joe BN, Sickles EA (2016) Improving screening mammography outcomes through comparison with multiple prior mammograms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 207(4):918–924. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.15.15917

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Jones J (2013) Open access: maine launches the nation’s first statewide image archive to improve patient care. ACR Bull 68(4):16–18

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Great Plains Indian Health Service, Spirit of Eagles Network. Kuanwong Watcharotone for statistical evaluations. Scientific presentation at the 2011 RSNA meeting. R25CA112383 and UL1RR024986 from the National Cancer Institute. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Cancer Institute or the National Institutes of Health.

Funding

Funding was received by Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute (Grand No. R25 CA112383-06).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Breast Imaging, Department of Radiology, Michigan Medicine - University of Michigan, University of Michigan Health System, 2910H Taubman Center, SPC 5326, 1500 East Medical Center Drive, 2902TC, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA

    Marilyn A. Roubidoux & Annette I. Joe

  2. University of Michigan School of Public Health, 1415 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA

    Joel A. Begay

  3. Kaiser Permanente, South Sacramento Medical Group, 6600 Bruceville Rd, 1st Floor, Sacramento, CA, 95823, USA

    Peggy Shih-Pei Wu

  4. Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, 3333 Greenbay Rd, North Chicago, IL, 60064, USA

    Emily L. Roen Nolte

Authors
  1. Marilyn A. Roubidoux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peggy Shih-Pei Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Emily L. Roen Nolte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Joel A. Begay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Annette I. Joe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marilyn A. Roubidoux.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Marilyn A. Roubidoux is a paid consultant for Delphinus Corp. This work is entirely unrelated to this study. Peggy Shih-Pei Wu, Emily L. Roen Nolte, and Annette I. Joe declare no conflict of interest. Joel A. Begay declares Grant Support 2017: National Cancer Institute R25 CA112383-06 Cancer Epidemiology Education in Special Populations.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional review board (IRB) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

This was a retrospective study. For this type of study, formal consent is not required by the IRB.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Roubidoux, M.A., Shih-Pei Wu, P., Nolte, E.L.R. et al. Availability of prior mammograms affects incomplete report rates in mobile screening mammography. Breast Cancer Res Treat 171, 667–673 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4861-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4861-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation