Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37329206›Full record

ArticleCancer medicine2023

Predictors of nonadherence to breast cancer screening guidelines in a United States urban comprehensive cancer center.

Alexandra Wehbe, Madeleine R Gonte, Suzanne C O'Neill, Alit Amit-Yousif, Kristen Purrington, Mark Manning, Michael S Simon

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Alexandra WehbeHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9297-9786
Madeleine R GonteHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Suzanne C O'NeillDepartment of Oncology, Lombardi Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
Alit Amit-YousifCenter for Breast Health, Oakland Macomb Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rochester Hills, Michigan, USA.
Kristen PurringtonPopulation Studies and Disparities Research Program, Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, Michigan, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5710-1692
Mark ManningDepartment of Psychology, Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, USA.
Michael S SimonDepartment of Oncology, Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, Michigan, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3237-6761
Harvard University · USThe Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute · USGeorgetown University · USOakland University · USSt. John Macomb Oakland Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aimed to identify predictors of nonadherence to breast cancer screening guidelines in an urban screening clinic among high- and average-risk women in the United States.

methodsWe reviewed records of 6090 women who received ≥2 screening mammograms over 2 years at the Karmanos Cancer Institute to examine how breast cancer risk and breast density were associated with guideline-concordant screening. Incongruent screening was defined as receiving supplemental imaging between screening mammograms for average-risk women, and as not receiving recommended supplemental imaging for high-risk women. We used t-tests and chi-square tests to examine bivariate associations with guideline-congruent screening, and probit regression to regress guideline-congruence unto breast cancer risk, breast density, and their interaction, controlling for age and race.

resultsIncongruent screening was more likely among high- versus average-risk women (97.7% vs. 0.9%, p < 0.01). Among average-risk women, incongruent screening was more likely among those with dense versus nondense breasts (2.0% vs. 0.1%, p < 0.01). Among high-risk women, incongruent screening was more likely among those with nondense versus dense breasts (99.5% vs. 95.2%, p < 0.01). The significant main effects of density and high-risk on increased incongruent screening were qualified by a density by high-risk interaction, showing a weaker association between risk and incongruent screening among women with dense breasts (simple slope = 3.71, p < 0.01) versus nondense breasts (simple slope = 5.79, p < 0.01). Age and race were not associated with incongruent screening.

conclusionsLack of adherence to evidence-based screening guidelines has led to underutilization of supplementary imaging for high-risk women and potential overutilization for women with dense breasts without other risk factors.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMammographyMass ScreeningRisk FactorsUnited Statesbreast cancerbreast densitymammogramscreening

Identifiers

PMID37329206
PMCPMC10417068
OpenAlexW4381047047

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.