RetroSearch Browse

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3117095/ below:

Update on Mammography Trends: Comparisons of Rates in 2000, 2005, and 2008

. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2012 May 15.

Published in final edited form as:

Cancer. 2010 Nov 30;117(10):2209–2218. doi:

Mammography screening allows early detection of breast cancer, which helps reduce mortality from breast cancer, especially in women aged 50–69. This paper updates a previous analysis of trends in mammography using newly-available data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS).

METHODS

We used 2008 NHIS data to update trends in rates of US women having a mammogram within the two years prior to their interview, and compared two methods of calculating rates. We especially focused on 2000, 2005, and 2008 rates for women aged ≥40, 40–49, 50–64, and ≥65, by selected socio-demographic and health care access characteristics.

RESULTS

For women aged 50–64 and ≥65, patterns were similar: rates rose rapidly from 1987 to 2000, declined, or were stable and then declined, from 2000 to 2005, and increased from 2005 to 2008. Rates for women aged 40–49 rose rapidly from 1987 to 1992, and were relatively stable through 2008. There were large increases in mammography rates among immigrants who had been in the US less than 10 years, non-Hispanic Asians, and women aged ≥65 without ambulatory care insurance.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, mammography rates did not continue to decline between 2005 and 2008. Even so, in 2008, the percent of women aged ≥40 who had a recent mammogram fell below the Healthy People 2010 objective of 70%, met in 2000. However, women aged 50–64 exceeded the Healthy People objective in 2000, 2005 and 2008 and some groups with very low mammography rates are now catching up. These are important public health achievements.

Keywords: cancer screening, mammography, early detection of breast cancer, Healthy People objective, NHIS

INTRODUCTION

In 2005, after more than a decade of increasing use of mammography screening in the United States, the rate of mammography use declined.{Breen, 2007 15630 /id} Mammography screening detects breast cancer early and, with appropriate follow-up treatment, reduces mortality from breast cancer. The decline in rates raised the concern that mammography use, after many years of increase, was now on the decline in the US. This paper examines whether the decline continued in 2008.

The mortality benefit from mammography for average-risk women in different age groups has been the focus of ongoing discussion in the mammography literature for decades.{Fletcher, 1997 17055 /id;Miller, 1991 4373 /id;Fletcher, 1993 16823 /id;Hendrick, 1997 17056 /id;Smigel, 1993 17054 /id} We focus largely on United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines because they are based on the current best scientific evidence. USPSTF guidelines have consistently recommended routine screening for women aged 50–69 because a mortality benefit has been consistently found for this age group in clinical trials. For women aged 40–49 and women aged 70 and older (or more recently women aged 75 and older), the USPSTF guidelines have not recommended mammography routinely, but have encouraged patient-physician discussion to determine need and frequency for mammography.{U.S.Preventive Services Task Force, 2009 16825 /id;Kerlikowske, 2009 16824 /id} While relative risk of breast cancer for women aged 40–49 is about the same as for women aged 50–69, mammograms are not as accurate in younger women because, in general, younger women have denser breast tissue (more glandular, less fat). Breast tissue becomes less dense as women age, especially after menopause which on average occurs around age 50.

This difference in breast density leads to differences by age in the amount of breast cancer cases detected with mammography. Data pooled from clinical trials for the USPSTF analysis conducted for the most recently released mammography guidelines showed that the number of women needed to be invited to screening to prevent one cancer death was 1904 for women aged 39–49, 1339 for women aged 50–59, and 377 for women 60–69.{Nelson, 2009 17065 /id} A metaanalysis by Hendrick et al found a mortality benefit for women 40–49 only in clinical trials that had followed subjects for more than 10 years; the benefit was found only after the women had reached their 50s {16823}. Lack of recommendation for mass screening for older women has led to further inquiry,{Mandelblatt, 2003 13701 /id} but it has not led to controversy as it has for women aged 40–49.

DATA AND METHODS

We analyzed data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), a large-scale household interview survey of a statistically representative sample of the US civilian non-institutionalized population (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis.htm). The NHIS in-person interviews yield demographic and health data for all members of each participating family, and additional questions are asked about a randomly selected child (the “sample child”) and a randomly selected adult (the “sample adult”) in each family.

In the 2000, 2003, 2005, and 2008 NHIS (and in the 2010 NHIS, which was in the field at the time of writing), female sample adults aged 30 and older were asked, "Have you EVER HAD a mammogram?" Women who responded affirmatively were asked additional questions to determine the date of or time since their last mammogram. Three different formats were available for reporting that information so as to maximize the amount and precision of information obtained.

In the 2000 and 2003 NHIS, the questioning was as follows: "When did you have your MOST RECENT mammogram?" Respondents could answer using either Format 1 or Format 2:

Format 1. Respondents were asked to provide the DATE (month and year) of their last mammogram.
- --
  If the year was provided, this sequence of questions was ended, whether or not the month was provided.
- --
  If the year was not provided, questioning went on to use Format 3.
Format 2. Respondents were asked to provide the NUMBER OF TIME UNITS since their last mammogram (in days ago, weeks ago, months ago, or years ago).
- --
  If the number of time units was not provided, questioning went on to use Format 3.
Format 3. Respondents were asked to identify the TIME INTERVAL since their last mammogram (≤1 year ago, >1 year but ≤2 years ago, >2 years but ≤3 years ago, >3 years but ≤5 years ago, or >5 years ago).

In 2005 and later, extra questioning using Format 3 was added in some cases so as to obtain extra information:

--
If Format 1 was used, and the month was not reported, questioning went on to use Format 3.
--
If Format 2 was used, and the answer was reported in numbers of years ago, then questioning went on to use Format 3.

The following two methods were used in the present analysis to calculate rates of women having mammograms in the last 2 years:

Method I, which may be used for all data years, ignores any extra information resulting from questionnaire changes made starting in 2005, in the interest of using the same computational procedures across years. Also, if the year but not the month of the last mammogram was provided using Format 1, the month is imputed to be July.
Method II (used for 2005 and later): If Format 3 was used, use the resulting information to calculate rates, in the interest of using the most precise information available in each year.

Breen et al.{Breen, 2007 15630 /id} compared mammography rates in 2000 to mammography rates in 2005, using Method I for 2000 data and Method II for 2005 data.

To study temporal changes in mammography use in the US, we analyzed NHIS mammography data, which were available in 1987, 1992, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, and 2008. The 2008 estimates are being presented for the first time. We focused on patterns and changes in mammography rates over the years 2000, 2005, and 2008, using and comparing the two methods. For more information about use of the two methods, see:

We defined “recent” mammograms as mammograms received within the last two years. We calculated rates of women having recent mammograms in years 2000, 2005, and 2008 for four age groups (≥40, 40–49, 50–64, and ≥65) and by selected demographic, socioeconomic, and health care utilization characteristics (see list of characteristics in tables). These same characteristics were presented in Breen et al.{Breen, 2007 15630 /id} along with the rationale for choosing them.

To calculate family income as a percentage of the poverty level, family income values were imputed to replace unreported income values.{Schenker, 2006 17057 /id} This accounts for differences between sample sizes for mammography rates by poverty ratio in Breen et al.{Breen, 2007 15630 /id} (in which rates were calculated using only reported income values) and sample sizes in the present analysis. Both race/ethnicity and race irrespective of ethnicity are presented.

Slight differences between 2005 sample sizes in Breen et al.{Breen, 2007 15630 /id} using Method II and 2005 sample sizes in the present paper using Method II are due to deletion of 3 observations in the latter for minor technical reasons.

RESULTS

Figure 1 displays age-specific recent mammography rates in years between 1987 and 2008 for which NHIS mammography data are available, for four age groups (and Tables 1 and 2 provide those rates for 2000, 2005, and 2008). Confidence intervals are shown as vertical lines through the points. For women aged 50–64 and ≥65, patterns were very similar: rates rose rapidly from 1987 to 2000, declined, or were stable and then declined, from 2000 to 2005, and increased from 2005 to 2008. Rates for women aged 40–49 rose rapidly from 1987 to 1992, and were relatively stable through 2008. For all women aged ≥40 combined, rates declined from 2003 to 2005, and rose from 2005 to 2008. The only age group whose rates declined between 2005 and 2008 was women aged 40–49 years.

Figure 1.

Table 1.

Percent of women aged ≥40 who had a mammogram within the last two years, for selected characteristics, National Health Interview Survey 2000, 2005, and 2008, using Method I for all years

2000 NHIS (I) 2005 NHIS (I) 2008 NHIS (I) Difference Characteristic Unwtd.
No. Wtd.
% 95% CI Unwtd.
No. Wtd.
% 95% CI Unwtd.
No. Wtd.
% 95% CI 2000(I)
to
2005(I) 2005(I)
to
2008(I) 2000(I)
to
2008(I) Total (age adjusted) 10,212 70.1 69.0–71.2 10,076 68.3 67.2–69.5 7,415 68.5 67.2–69.8 −1.8^* 0.2 −1.6 Total (crude) 10,212 70.3 69.1–71.4 10,076 68.7 67.6–69.9 7,415 69.3 68.0–70.5 −1.6^* 0.6 −1.0 Age, years^† 10,212 10,076 7,415 40–49 3,308 64.2 62.2–66.1 3,087 65.1 63.1–67.0 2,089 62.9 60.3–65.5 0.9 −2.2 −1.3 50–64 3,349 78.6 76.8–80.2 3,727 74.0 72.3–75.6 2,775 75.9 74.0–77.8 −4.6^* 1.9 −2.7^* ≥65 3,555 68.0 66.2–69.7 3,262 66.0 64.0–68.0 2,551 67.1 65.0–69.1 −2.0 1.1 −0.9 Education 10,142 10,004 7,363 Less than high school 2,352 57.2 54.4–59.9 1,932 55.5 52.6–58.4 1,357 56.0 52.3–59.7 −1.7 0.5 −1.2 High school graduate 3,318 68.5 66.6–70.4 3,085 65.4 63.3–67.5 2,214 66.0 63.4–68.5 −3.1^* 0.6 −2.5 Some college or AA degree 2,536 72.6 70.7–74.5 2,697 71.3 69.4–73.2 2,064 70.1 67.8–72.4 −1.3 −1.2 −2.5 College graduate (BA/BS) 1,936 80.0 77.9–82.0 2,290 77.8 75.9–79.5 1,728 78.1 75.7–80.3 −2.2 0.3 −1.9 Family income as percentage of the poverty level, $ 10,212 10,076 7,415 <200 3,741 56.5 54.3–58.7 3,609 54.6 52.4–56.7 2,544 56.0 53.5–58.5 −1.9 1.4 −0.5 200–299 1,800 66.1 63.2–68.9 1,751 66.9 63.9–69.8 1,240 61.9 58.5–65.2 0.8 −5.0^* −4.2 300–399 1,290 71.1 67.0–75.0 1,349 70.5 66.8–74.0 1,039 68.4 64.4–72.1 −0.6 −2.1 −2.7 400–499 972 76.8 72.0–81.0 906 73.0 69.5–76.2 691 78.2 74.0–81.8 −3.8 5.2 1.4 ≥500 2,409 82.3 80.0–84.4 2,461 77.5 75.3–79.6 1,901 79.1 76.8–81.2 −4.8^* 1.6 −3.2^* Have a usual source of care 10,211 10,075 7,415 No 793 34.6 30.8–38.7 764 35.1 31.0–39.3 569 31.2 26.8–36.0 0.5 −3.9 −3.4 Yes 9,418 73.0 71.9–74.1 9,311 71.0 69.8–72.1 6,846 71.5 70.2–72.8 −2.0^* 0.5 −1.5 Health insurance, age <65 years 6,633 6,800 4,856 Private, HMO 1,978 77.5 75.2–79.6 1,544 76.8 74.4–79.1 941 77.1 73.8–80.0 −0.7 0.3 −0.4 Private, non-HMO 2,918 76.5 74.7–78.2 3,283 75.2 73.5–76.9 2,434 73.5 71.4–75.6 −1.3 −1.7 −3.0^* Public only 732 65.2 60.9–69.2 919 60.1 56.2–63.8 721 68.0 63.6–72.2 −5.1 7.9^* 2.8 Uninsured 1,005 41.4 37.7–45.2 1,054 40.5 37.1–44.1 760 42.4 38.4–46.6 −0.9 1.9 1.0 Health insurance, age ≥65 years 3,544 3,260 2,548 Medicare HMO 574 71.1 66.8–75.1 373 71.1 65.8–75.9 353 68.6 62.6–74.1 0.0 −2.5 −2.5 Private 2,007 71.0 68.7–73.2 1,775 69.7 67.3–72.0 1,266 72.0 69.3–74.6 −1.3 2.3 1.0 Medicaid, military, other government 374 57.9 52.6–63.1 407 57.5 51.8–63.1 357 54.5 48.0–60.8 −0.4 −3.0 −3.4 Medicare fee-for-service 539 56.1 51.3–60.8 672 60.0 55.5–64.5 541 62.6 57.8–67.2 3.9 2.6 6.5 Uninsured or Medicare Part A only 50 39.3 26.1–54.2 33 45.0 29.4–61.7 31 67.6 50.4–81.0 5.7 22.6 28.3^* Chronic disability 10,123 10,039 7,392 Yes 2,501 65.8 63.3–68.2 2,488 62.9 60.3–65.5 1,895 63.1 59.7–66.3 −2.9 0.2 −2.7 No 7,622 71.6 70.3–72.8 7,551 69.9 68.6–71.1 5,497 70.4 69.0–71.8 −1.7 0.5 −1.2 Race/ethnicity 10,195 10,057 7,397 Hispanic 1,258 60.7 57.4–63.8 1,265 60.9 57.5–64.2 978 62.8 58.7–66.7 0.2 1.9 2.1 Non-Hispanic white 7,253 72.0 70.7–73.2 7,113 69.9 68.6–71.2 4,852 69.4 67.8–70.9 −2.1^* −0.5 −2.6^* Non-Hispanic black 1,450 67.8 64.9–70.6 1,384 66.5 63.3–69.4 1,176 68.9 65.6–72.1 −1.3 2.4 1.1 Non-Hispanic AIAN 58 52.1 41.1–62.8 49 74.2 61.4–83.8 51 50.7 37.8–63.5 22.1^* −23.5^* −1.4 Non-Hispanic Asian 176 58.1 50.7–65.1 246 56.0 49.4–62.4 340 67.9 62.0–73.3 −2.1 11.9^* 9.8^* Race 9,921 10,050 7,386 White 8,197 71.2 70.0–72.4 8,325 69.0 67.7–70.2 5,735 68.6 67.1–70.0 −2.2^* −0.4 −2.6^* Black 1,472 67.6 64.7–70.4 1,407 66.0 62.9–69.0 1,219 68.7 65.5–71.8 −1.6 2.7 1.1 AIAN 72 52.3 41.7–62.7 69 72.8 62.3–81.2 76 54.4 42.6–65.7 20.5^* −18.4^* 2.1 Asian 180 58.7 51.4–65.7 249 56.1 49.5–62.4 356 67.6 61.8–72.9 −2.6 11.5^* 8.9 Immigration status 10,102 10,049 7,393 In U.S. <10 years 180 39.3 31.3–47.9 153 47.9 38.5–57.4 130 55.6 48.6–62.5 8.6 7.7 16.3^* In U.S. ≥10 years 1,040 64.7 61.2–67.9 1,169 65.4 62.1–68.5 942 67.9 64.2–71.4 0.7 2.5 3.2 Born in U.S. 8,882 71.3 70.2–72.5 8,727 69.0 67.8–70.2 6,321 68.9 67.5–70.3 −2.3^* −0.1 −2.4^* Saw/talked to general physician in past 12 mo 10,204 10,067 7,408 Yes 7,813 75.5 74.3–76.6 7,820 73.5 72.3–74.8 5,814 73.5 72.0–74.9 −2.0^* 0.0 −2.0^* No 2,391 52.6 50.2–55.0 2,247 50.0 47.5–52.4 1,594 51.9 48.9–54.9 −2.6 1.9 −0.7 Saw/talked to Ob/Gyn in past 12 mo 10,204 10,070 7,410 Yes 3,639 87.5 86.1–88.7 3,495 86.6 85.1–88.0 2,421 86.0 84.3–87.7 −0.9 −0.6 −1.5 No 6,565 59.6 58.1–61.0 6,575 56.9 55.4–58.4 4,989 58.7 56.9–60.4 −2.7^* 1.8 −0.9 Table 2.

Percent of women aged ≥40 who had a mammogram within the last two years, for selected characteristics, National Health Interview Survey 2005 and 2008, using Method I for 2000, and Method II for 2005 and 2008

2005 NHIS (II) 2008 NHIS (II) Difference Characteristic Unwtd.
No. Wtd.
% 95% CI Unwtd.
No. Wtd.
% 95% CI 2000^§(I)
to
2005(II) 2005(II)
to
2008(II) 2000^§(I)
to
2008(II) Total (age adjusted) 10,073 66.4 65.2–67.5 7,408 66.9 65.6–68.2 −3.7^* 0.5 −3.2^* Total (crude) 10,073 66.8 65.6–67.9 7,408 67.6 66.3–68.9 −3.5^* 0.8 −2.7^* Age, years^† 10,073 7,408 40–49 3,087 63.5 61.5–65.5 2,087 61.5 58.8–64.1 −0.7 −2.0 −2.7 50–64 3,725 71.8 70.1–73.4 2,774 74.2 72.2–76.0 −6.8^* 2.4 −4.4^* ≥65 3,261 63.8 61.7–65.9 2,547 65.4 63.3–67.5 −4.2^* 1.6 −2.6 Education 10,001 7,356 Less than high school 1,932 53.8 50.9–56.6 1,354 54.1 50.3–57.8 −3.4 0.3 −3.1 High school graduate 3,083 63.5 61.4–65.6 2,211 64.0 61.4–66.6 −5.0^* 0.5 −4.5^* Some college or AA degree 2,697 69.1 67.1–71.1 2,063 68.8 66.4–71.1 −3.5^* −0.3 −3.8^* College graduate (BA/BS) 2,289 76.3 74.4–78.2 1,728 77.0 74.6–79.3 −3.7^* 0.7 −3.0 Family income as percentage of the poverty level, $ 10,073 7,408 <200 3,608 52.4 50.2–54.6 2,540 54.1 51.5–56.7 −4.1 1.7 −2.4 200–299 1,750 64.8 61.7–67.8 1,237 60.0 56.4–63.4 −1.3 −4.8 −6.1 300–399 1,349 68.4 64.9–71.8 1,038 66.8 62.7–70.7 −2.7 −1.6 −4.3 400–499 906 72.0 68.5–75.2 691 76.7 72.5–80.5 −4.8 4.7 −0.1 ≥500 2,460 75.6 73.3–77.7 1,901 77.9 75.5–80.1 −6.7 2.3 −4.4 Have a usual source of care 10,072 7,408 No 764 34.1 30.1–38.3 569 28.8 24.6–33.5 −0.5 −5.3 −5.8 Yes 9,308 68.9 67.7–70.1 6,839 69.9 68.6–71.3 −4.1^* 1.0 −3.1^* Health insurance, age <65 years 6,798 4,853 Private, HMO 1,544 75.1 72.6–77.5 940 76.0 72.6–79.0 −2.4 0.9 −1.5 Private, non-HMO 3,281 73.5 71.8–75.2 2,434 72.1 70.0–74.1 −3.0^* −1.4 −4.4^* Public only 919 57.9 53.9–61.7 720 66.6 62.1–70.8 −7.3^* 8.7^* 1.4 Uninsured 1,054 38.0 34.7–41.5 759 39.7 35.7–43.8 −3.4 1.7 −1.7 Health insurance, age ≥65 years 3,259 2,544 Medicare HMO 373 69.2 63.8–74.2 353 66.6 60.7–72.1 −1.9 −2.6 −4.5 Private 1,774 67.4 64.9–69.9 1,264 70.9 68.1–73.5 −3.6^* 3.5 −0.1 Medicaid, military, other government 407 56.7 51.0–62.2 357 51.6 45.2–58.1 −1.2 −5.1 −6.3 Medicare fee-for-service 672 57.1 52.4–61.6 539 60.5 55.7–65.2 1.0 3.4 4.4 Uninsured or Medicare Part A only 33 44.6 29.0–61.4 31 62.2 44.4–77.3 5.3 17.6 22.9^* Chronic disability 10,036 7,385 Yes 2,487 60.5 57.8–63.2 1,891 61.2 57.7–64.5 −5.3^* 0.7 −4.6^* No 7,549 68.1 66.7–69.4 5,494 68.9 67.4–70.3 −3.5^* 0.8 −2.7^* Race/ethnicity 10,054 7,390 Hispanic 1,265 58.9 55.5–62.3 978 61.6 57.4–65.6 −1.8 2.7 0.9 Non-Hispanic white 7,110 68.0 66.6–69.3 4,849 67.8 66.2–69.4 −4.0^* −0.2 −4.2^* Non-Hispanic black 1,384 64.5 61.4–67.5 1,173 67.6 64.2–70.8 −3.3 3.1 −0.2 Non-Hispanic AIAN 49 67.2 57.2–75.8 51 51.2 38.2–64.1 15.1 −16.0 −0.9 Non-Hispanic Asian 246 54.0 47.5–60.4 339 64.8 58.7–70.4 −4.1 10.8^* 6.7 Race 10,047 7,379 White 8,322 67.0 65.7–68.3 5,732 67.0 65.5–68.5 −4.2^* 0.0 −4.2^* Black 1,407 64.1 61.0–67.1 1,216 67.4 64.1–70.5 −3.5 3.3 −0.2 AIAN 69 66.3 58.2–73.5 76 54.7 43.0–66.0 14.0^* −11.6 2.4 Asian 249 54.1 47.5–60.4 355 64.5 58.6–70.0 −4.6 10.4^* 5.8 Immigration status 10,046 7,386 In U.S. <10 years 153 47.0 37.6–56.6 130 53.0 46.4–59.5 7.7 6.0 13.7^* In U.S. ≥10 years 1,169 63.5 60.2–66.6 941 65.9 62.2–69.4 −1.2 2.4 1.2 Born in U.S. 8,724 67.0 65.8–68.3 6,315 67.4 65.9–68.8 −4.3^* 0.4 −3.9^* Saw/talked to general physician in past 12 mo 10,064 7,402 Yes 7,818 71.5 70.2–72.8 5,808 71.8 70.4–73.2 −4.0^* 0.3 −3.7^* No 2,246 47.8 45.3–50.3 1,594 50.6 47.5–53.6 −4.8^* 2.8 −2.0 Saw/talked to Ob/Gyn in past 12 mo 10,067 7,404 Yes 3,493 85.5 83.9–87.0 2,419 85.3 83.5–86.9 −2.0 −0.2 −2.2^* No 6,574 54.6 53.0–56.1 4,985 56.6 54.8–58.4 −5.0^* 2.0 −3.0^*

Table 1 presents age-standardized recent mammography rates for women aged ≥40 in 2000, 2005, and 2008, for selected demographic socio-economic and health care access characteristics. All estimates were calculated using Method 1, i.e., using the same computational method for all three survey years. From 2005 to 2008, the overall rate did not change significantly. Significant changes over that time period were experienced by only six of the subgroups; mammography rates rose for three subgroups and fell for three others. Declines occurred among women with family incomes of 200%–299% of the federal poverty level (FPL), who experienced a five percentage point decline in rates, and among American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) women, regardless of whether race/ethnicity or race alone was used to categorize them. Rates among non-Hispanic AIAN women dropped by almost 24 percentage points, and rates among all AIAN women dropped by 18 percentage points. Rates increased by about eight percentage points for women aged 64 or less with public health insurance only. They increased by almost 12 percentage points for Asian women; whether race/ethnicity or race alone was used to measure Asian-Americans, this finding was consistent.

Table 1 also compares mammography rates in 2000, when rates for ages 50+ peaked after years of increasing (see Figure 1), to rates in 2008. Overall mammography rates did not change significantly from 2000 to 2008. Seven subgroups experienced declines in mammography rates, and three had increases. Women aged 50–64 had declines of about three percentage points. Declines of a similar size were noted for women with family incomes of ≥500% of the FPL; for women aged less than 65 with private, non-HMO health insurance; for non-Hispanic white women; and for white women. Rates for women born in the US, and for women who had seen or talked to a physician in the past 12 months declined by two percentage points. Women in three smaller subgroups experienced increases in mammography use. Among women aged ≥65, most of whom are covered by Medicare, mammography use rose by 28 percentage points for the small group (unweighted sample sizes = 50 in 2000 and 31 in 2008) without insurance or with Medicare Part A only. Rates rose by nearly 10 percentage points for non-Hispanic Asians, and by 16 percentage points among immigrants who had lived in the US for less than 10 years.

Table 2 shows age-standardized rates for the same ages and characteristics as in Table 1. However, results in Table 2 were calculated using Method II for 2005 and 2008, i.e., using the most possible available information each of the three years. Table 2 replicates the comparisons of 2000 to 2005 as reported in Breen et al.{Breen, 2007 15630 /id}

It is noteworthy that results were consistent between the two tables, in the sense that whenever a difference in one table was significant, the corresponding difference in the other table, whether significant or not, was in the same direction. For example, the overall mammography rates in Table 2 declined significantly by 3.7 percentage points from 2000 to 2005 and declined significantly by 3.2 percentage points from 2000 to 2008; the respective changes in Table 1 were a significant decline of 1.8 percentage points and an insignificant decline. Also, Table 2 shows more significant differences than Table 1; e.g., Table 2 shows 17 significant decreases among the subgroups from 2000 to 2005 and 13 significant decreases from 2000 to 2008, whereas Table 1 shows only 9 and 7 decreases, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Whether mammography rates had peaked and would subsequently fall was a concern when a decline in rates was discovered in the 2005 data. We assessed trends in mammography rates using recently released 2008 NHIS data. To do this, we used two analytic methods and compared them. We would use Method 2 in the future, because we prefer to use the most information available and the most precise information available. But for this paper, we did not want our new conclusions about changes over time to be confounded by changes in the analytic methods used, so we looked at results of both methods. The 2008 NHIS data indicate that overall, using either method, with exceptions for some subgroups, mammography rates did not continue to decline between 2005 and 2008. Even so, the 2008 recent mammography rates for women aged ≥40 were below the Healthy People 2010 objective of 70% that was met when mammography rates peaked in 2000.

The re-analysis of trends in mammography rates attenuated the drop previously reported between 2000 and 2005, and declines previously reported for some subgroups of women became insignificant. However, both methods also showed a significant decline in mammography use among women aged 50–64 between 2000 and 2008.

Mammography use for women aged 40–49 years has been relatively stable since 1992 despite periodic controversy in the literature{Berry, 1998 11965 /id;Elmore, 2007 15557 /id} that made print-news headlines from time to time{Kolata, 1997 17058 /id;Winger, 2009 17059 /id}; the more relaxed guidelines for women ages 40–49 may help explain the stability of lower rates of mammography use in this age group.

It may be surprising to some that mammography rates declined by at least three percentage points between 2000 and 2008 for women aged 40–64 with private non-HMO health insurance, while they increased or were stable for private HMO insurance. However, prevailing evidence suggests that HMOs provide better cancer screening coverage{Klabunde, 2004 13758 /id;Makuc, 1994 6810 /id} and treatment.{Shavers, 2002 12908 /id}

Logistic diffusion theory posits that people adopt new ideas or techniques in an ordered sequence. The rate of adoption over time in a social system can be displayed as an S-shaped cumulative curve.{Breen, 1997 9407 /id;Rogers, 1971 4228 /id} Historically, women with health insurance, a usual source of care, and higher incomes and educational attainments have been early adopters of mammography.{Breen, 1994 4694 /id} Between 2000 and 2008, mammography use dropped about three percentage points among those who had been early adopters of mammography, including women in the categories ages 50–64, family income ≥500% of FPL, private non-HMO insurance for women aged 40–64, and white race. Also surprising was a two percentage point drop for women born in the US and for women who had contact with a general physician in the past year. A leading hypothesis for the drop in mammography use is that some women who had visited their doctor for hormone therapy (HT) prescriptions, which led to mammography referrals, stopped these visits when evidence showed an increased risk of breast cancer associated with HT.{Borrayo, 2009 16746 /id;Hersh, 2004 16705 /id;Buist, 2004 16704 /id} It will be useful to have data from the 2010 cancer supplement on the NHIS to learn more about use of mammography among these early adopters of mammography.

The few increases in mammography use between 2000 and 2008 are worth noting because they were all 10 percentage points or more. Mammography rates rose among immigrants who had been in the US less than 10 years and among non-Hispanic Asians. There was also an increase among women aged ≥65 who were uninsured or who had Medicare Part A only. While these groups comprise small portions of the US population, their initial rates were low and their increases were all large (10+ percentage points). Moreover, increases in these groups may be particularly important because evidence suggests that the major reason women are diagnosed with late-stage breast cancer is that they have never been screened.{Taplin, 2004 15966 /id} Therefore, increasing rates of screening among populations with very low rates is estimated to have larger benefits than increasing frequency of screening among those regularly screened.{Mandelblatt, 2009 16839 /id}

Public debate over the value of mammography in women ages 40–49 may or may not translate into reduced rates. We found that rates of mammography use in women aged 40–49 have been stable since 2000 at about 64%. Rates of mammography use in women aged 65 and older have also been stable since 2000, but at a higher level—about 67%. Whether the new mammography guidelines will affect future use remains to be seen.

In conclusion, mammography use has increased by large magnitudes in several small groups with growing populations and has declined by a small amount in large groups that historically have been early adopters. Recent changes in guidelines also may affect utilization. If women and their physicians—and health care insurance companies—apply the new guidelines, it would lead to a decline in use among women aged 40–49 and an increase in use among women aged 70–74. In terms of their distribution in the US civilian noninstitutionalized population of all women aged ≥40, women are divided roughly equally among the age groups 40–49 (31% in 2008), 50–64 (39%), and ≥65 (30%). This makes it difficult to predict the direction that mammography will take in the future. We look forward to the 2010 NHIS estimates, which will permit us to observe the direction that mammography utilization will take.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors thank Timothy McNeel of Information Management Services, Inc. for expert consultation on programming and help with updating figures and tables. We thank Penny Randall-Levy for expert assistance with references. We also thank Rachel Ballard-Barbash for providing a very helpful review of the MS.

Footnotes

There are no financial disclosures from any authors

The findings and conclusions in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Cancer Institute, NIH or the National Center for Health Statistics, CDC.

REFERENCES

1.Breen N, Cronin KA, Meissner HI, et al. Reported drop in mammography: is this cause for concern? Cancer. 2007;109:2405–2409. doi: 10.1002/cncr.22723. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Fletcher SW. Whither scientific deliberation in health policy recommendations? Alice in the Wonderland of breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:1180–1183. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199704173361612. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Miller AB. Is routine mammography screening appropriate for women 40–49 years of age? Am J Prev Med. 1991;7:55–62. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Fletcher SW, Black W, Harris R, Rimer BK, Shapiro S. Report of the International Workshop on Screening for Breast Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85:1644–1656. doi: 10.1093/jnci/85.20.1644. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Hendrick RE, Smith RA, Rutledge JH, III, Smart CR. Benefit of screening mammography in women aged 40–49: a new meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1997:87–92. doi: 10.1093/jncimono/1997.22.87. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Smigel K. NCI's proposed breast cancer screening guidelines. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85:1627. doi: 10.1093/jnci/85.20.1627. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. [accessed January 21, 2010];U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: screening for breast cancer. 2009 December; Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/USpstf/uspsbrca.htm.
8.Kerlikowske K. Evidence-based breast cancer prevention: the importance of individual risk. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:750–752. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-10-200911170-00012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, Bougatsos C, Chan BK, Humphrey L. Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:727–742. doi: 10.1059/0003-4819-151-10-200911170-00009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Mandelblatt J, Saha S, Teutsch S, et al. The cost-effectiveness of screening mammography beyond age 65 years: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139:835–842. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-139-10-200311180-00011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Schenker N, Raghunathan TE, Chiu PL, Makuc DM, Zhang G, Cohen AJ. Multiple imputation of missing income data in the National Health Interview Survey. J Am Stat Assoc. 2006;101:924–933. [Google Scholar]
12.Berry DA. Benefits and risks of screening mammography for women in their forties: a statistical appraisal. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:1431–1439. doi: 10.1093/jnci/90.19.1431. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Elmore J, Choe J. Breast cancer screening for women in their 40s: moving from controversy about data to helping individual women. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146:529–531. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-146-7-200704030-00010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Kolata G. Stand on mammograms greeted by outrage. New York Times; 1997. Jan 28, C1. [Google Scholar]
15.Winger P. The myth of the mammogram: why many women are resolutely rejecting the new mammogram recommendations, despite mixed reaction in the medical community. Newsweek. 2009 Nov 20; [Google Scholar]
16.Klabunde CN, Riley GF, Mandelson MT, Frame PS, Brown ML. Health plan policies and programs for colorectal cancer screening: a national profile. Am J Manag Care. 2004;10:273–279. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Makuc DM, Freid VM, Parsons PE. Advance Data From Vital and Health Statistics of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, No. 254. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 1994. Health Insurance and Cancer Screening Among Women. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Shavers VL, Brown ML. Racial and ethnic disparities in the receipt of cancer treatment. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:334–357. doi: 10.1093/jnci/94.5.334. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Breen N, Feuer EJ, Depuy S, Zapka JG. The effect of Medicare reimbursement for screening mammography on utilization and payment. Public Health Rep. 1997;112:423–432. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Rogers EM, Shoemaker FF. Communication of Innovations. New York: The Free Press; 1971. [Google Scholar]
21.Breen N, Kessler L. Changes in the use of screening mammography: evidence from the 1987 and 1990 National Health Interview Surveys. Am J Public Health. 1994;84:62–67. doi: 10.2105/ajph.84.1.62. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Borrayo EA, Hines L, Byers T, et al. Characteristics associated with mammography screening among both Hispanic and non-Hispanic white women. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2009;18:1585–1594. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2008.1009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Hersh AL, Stefanick ML, Stafford RS. National use of postmenopausal hormone therapy: annual trends and response to recent evidence. JAMA. 2004;291:47–53. doi: 10.1001/jama.291.1.47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Buist DS, Newton KM, Miglioretti DL, et al. Hormone therapy prescribing patterns in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104:1042–1050. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000143826.38439.af. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Taplin SH, Ichikawa L, Yood MU, et al. Reason for late-stage breast cancer: absence of screening or detection, or breakdown in follow-up? J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96:1518–1527. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djh284. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Mandelblatt JS, Cronin KA, Bailey S, et al. Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: model estimates of potential benefits and harms. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:738–747. doi: 10.1059/0003-4819-151-10-200911170-00010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.3