Mammogram image quality as a potential contributor to disparities in breastcancer stage at diagnosis: an observational study

BMC Cancer

Garth H Rauscher²  Emily F Conant³  Jenna A Khan²  Michael L Berbaum¹ 

[1] Institute for Health Research and Policy University of Illinois at Chicago,M/C 275, 1747 West Roosevelt Road, Chicago, IL 60608, USA

[2] School of Public Health, Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics,University of Illinois at Chicago, M/C 923, Chicago, IL 60612, USA

[3] Department of Radiology/Breast Imaging, University of Pennsylvania, 3400Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA

关键词: Socioeconomic status;    Mammography;    Screening;    Disparities;    Breast cancer;   

Others  :  1079783
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2407-13-208

 received in 2013-02-04, accepted in 2013-04-18,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

In an ongoing study of racial/ethnic disparities in breast cancer stage at diagnosis, we consented patients to allow us to review their mammogram images, in order to examine the potential role of mammogram image quality on this disparity.

Methods

In a population-based study of urban breast cancer patients, a single breast imaging specialist (EC) performed a blinded review of the index mammogram that prompted diagnostic follow-up, as well as recent prior mammograms performed approximately one or two years prior to the index mammogram. Seven indicators of image quality were assessed on a five-point Likert scale, where 4 and 5 represented good and excellent quality. These included 3 technologist-associated image quality (TAIQ) indicators (positioning, compression, sharpness), and 4 machine associated image quality (MAIQ) indicators (contrast, exposure, noise and artifacts). Results are based on 494 images examined for 268 patients, including 225 prior images.

Results

Whereas MAIQ was generally high, TAIQ was more variable. In multivariable models of sociodemographic predictors of TAIQ, less income was associated with lower TAIQ (p < 0.05). Among prior mammograms, lower TAIQ was subsequently associated with later stage at diagnosis, even after adjusting for multiple patient and practice factors (OR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.65, 0.99).

Conclusions

Considerable gains could be made in terms of increasing image quality through better positioning, compression and sharpness, gains that could impact subsequent stage at diagnosis.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Rauscher et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Ansell D, Grabler P, Whitman S, Ferrans C, Burgess-Bishop J, Murray LR, Ruta Rao R, Marcus E: A community effort to reduce the black/white breast cancer mortality disparity in Chicago. Cancer Causes Control 2009, 20:1681-1688.
• [2]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, 151:727-737.
• [3]Woloshin S, Schwartz LM: The Benefits and Harms of Mammography Screening. JAMA 2010, 303(2):164-165.
• [4]U. S. Preventive Services Task Force: Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Ann Intern Med 2009, 151(10):716-726.
• [5]DeAngelis CD, Fontanarosa PB: US Preventive Services Task Force and Breast Cancer Screening. JAMA 2010, 303(2):172-173.
• [6]Brawley OW: American Cancer Society responds to changes to USPSTF mammography guidelines. http://www.cancer.org webcite
• [7]American Cancer Society: American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer. http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_2_3X_ACS_Cancer_Detection_Guidelines_36.asp webcite [accessed August 14, 2007
• [8]National Cancer Institute: NCI statement on mammography screening (February 21, 2002 Update). http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/newsfromnci/2002/mammstatement31jan02 webcite [accessed May 13, 2008]
• [9]Richardson LC, Rim SH, Plescia M: Vital Signs: Breast Cancer Screening Among Women Aged 50–74 Years -- United States. MMWR 2008, 59(26):813-816. 4p; (AN 52417752)
• [10]Sassi F, Luft HS, Guadagnoli E: Reducing racial/ethnic disparities in female breast cancer:screening rates and stage at diagnosis. Am J Public Health 2006, 96(12):2165-2172.
• [11]Rauscher GH, Allgood KL, Whitman S, Conant E: Unequal distribution of screening mammography services by race/ethnicity and health insurance. J Womens Health 2011, 21(2):154-160.
• [12]Fischmann A, Siegmann KC, Wersebe A, Claussen CD, Müller-Schimpfle M: Comparison of full-field digital mammography and film–screen mammography: image quality and lesion detection. Br J Radiol 2005, 78:312-315.
• [13]Taplin SH, Rutter CM, Finder C, Mandelson MT, Houn F, White E: Screening mammography: Clinical image quality and the risk of interval breast cancer. Am J Roentgenol 2002, 178:797-803.
• [14]Elmore JG, Nakano CY, Linden HM, Reisch LM, Ayanian JZ, Larson EB: Racial inequities in the timing of breast cancer detection, diagnosis, and initiation of treatment. Med Care 2005, 43(2):141-148.
• [15]Rauscher GH, Ferrans CE, Kaiser KK, Campbell RT, Calhoun E, Warnecke RB: Misconceptions about breast lumps and delayed medical presentation in urban breast cancer patients. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010, 19(3):640-647.
• [16]The American Association for Public Opinion Research: Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. 7th edition. 2011. [AAPOR]
• [17]Bassett LW, Farria DM, Bansal S, Farquhar MA, Wilcox PA, Feig SA: Reasons for Failure of a Mammography Unit at Clinical Image Review in the American College of Radiology Mammography Accreditation Program. Radiology 2000, 215:698-702.
• [18]Olsson U: Maximum likelihood estimation of the polychoric correlation coefficient. Psychometrika 1979, 44(4):443-460.
• [19]Destouet JM, Bassett LW, Yaffe MJ, Butler PF, Wilcox PA: The ACR’s Mammography Accreditation Program: Ten Years of Experience Since MQSA. J Am Coll Radiol 2005, 2(7):585-594.