Disparities in Screening Mammography Services by Race/Ethnicity and Health Insurance
Publication: Journal of Women's Health
Volume 21, Issue Number 2
Abstract
Background: Black and Hispanic women are diagnosed at a later stage of breast cancer than white women. Differential access to specialists, diffusion of technology, and affiliation with an academic medical center may be related to this stage disparity.
Methods: We analyzed data from a mammography facility survey for the metropolitan region of Chicago, Illinois, to assess in part whether quality breast imaging services were equally accessed by non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, and Hispanic women and by women with and without private insurance. Of 49 screening facilities within the city of Chicago, 43 facilities completed the survey, and 40 facilities representing about 149,000 mammograms, including all major academic facilities, provided data on patient race/ethnicity.
Results: Among women receiving mammograms at the facilities we studied, white women were more likely than black or Hispanic women to have mammograms at academic facilities, at facilities that relied exclusively on breast imaging specialists to read mammograms, and at facilities where digital mammography was available (p<0.001). Women with private insurance were similarly more likely than women without private insurance to have mammograms at facilities with these characteristics (p<0.001).
Conclusions: Black and Hispanic women and women without private insurance are more likely than white women and women with private insurance to obtain mammography screening at facilities with less favorable characteristics. A disparity in use of high-quality mammography may be contributing to disparities in breast cancer mortality.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
American Cancer Society. American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancerwww.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_2_3X_ACS_Cancer_Detection_Guidelines_36.aspAugust142007. 1. American Cancer Society. American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer. Available at www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_2_3X_ACS_Cancer_Detection_Guidelines_36.asp Accessed August 14, 2007.
2.
National Cancer Institute. NCI statement on mammography screening (February 21, 2002 Update)www.cancer.gov/newscenter/mammstatement31jan02May132008. 2. National Cancer Institute. NCI statement on mammography screening (February 21, 2002 Update). Available at www.cancer.gov/newscenter/mammstatement31jan02 Accessed May 13, 2008.
3.
Vital signs: Breast cancer screening among women aged 50–74 years—United States, 2008MMWR201059813-816. 3. Vital signs: Breast cancer screening among women aged 50–74 years—United States, 2008. MMWR 2010;59:813–816.
4.
Sassi FLuft HSGuadagnoli E. Reducing racial/ethnic disparities in female breast cancer: Screening rates and stage at diagnosisAm J Public Health2006962165-2172. 4. 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;96:2165–2172.
5.
Hirschman JWhitman SAnsell D. The black:white disparity in breast cancer mortality:The example of ChicagoCancer Causes Control200718323-333. 5. Hirschman J, Whitman S, Ansell D. The black:white disparity in breast cancer mortality:The example of Chicago. Cancer Causes Control 2007;18:323–333.
6.
Ansell DGrabler PWhitman S et al. A community effort to reduce the black/white breast cancer mortality disparity in ChicagoCancer Causes Control2009201681-1688. 6. Ansell D, Grabler P, Whitman S, et al. A community effort to reduce the black/white breast cancer mortality disparity in Chicago. Cancer Causes Control 2009;20:1681–1688.
7.
Tehranifar PNeugut AIPhelan JC et al. Medical advances and racial/ethnic disparities in cancer survivalCancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev2009182701-2708. 7. Tehranifar P, Neugut AI, Phelan JC, et al. Medical advances and racial/ethnic disparities in cancer survival. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18:2701–2708.
8.
Miglioretti DLSmith-Bindman RAbraham L et al. Radiologist characteristics associated with interpretive performance of diagnostic mammographyJ Natl Cancer Inst2007991854-1863. 8. Miglioretti DL, Smith-Bindman R, Abraham L, et al. Radiologist characteristics associated with interpretive performance of diagnostic mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007;99:1854–1863.
9.
Elmore JGWells CKHoward DH. Does diagnostic accuracy in mammography depend on radiologists' experience?J Womens Health19987443-449. 9. Elmore JG, Wells CK, Howard DH. Does diagnostic accuracy in mammography depend on radiologists' experience? J Womens Health1998;7:443–449.
10.
Sickles EAWolverton DEDee KE. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: Specialist and general radiologistsRadiology2002224861-869. 10. Sickles EA, Wolverton DE, Dee KE. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: Specialist and general radiologists. Radiology 2002;224:861–869.
11.
Pisano EDGatsonis CHendrick E et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. (Erratum appears in N Engl J Med 2006;355:1840)N Engl J Med20053531773-1783. 11. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. (Erratum appears in N Engl J Med 2006;355:1840). N Engl J Med 2005;353:1773–1783.
12.
Pisano EDHendrick REYaffe MJ et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: Exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMISTRadiology2008246376-383. 12. Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: Exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology 2008;246:376–383.
13.
Unites States Census Bureau. American factfinder, decennial censusfactfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=enAugust272007. 13. Unites States Census Bureau. American factfinder, decennial census. Available at factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en Accessed August 27, 2007.
14.
Goldman LEHaneuse SJPAMiglioretti DL et al. An assessment of the quality of mammography care at facilities treating medically vulnerable populationsMed Care200846701-708. 14. Goldman LE, Haneuse SJPA, Miglioretti DL, et al. An assessment of the quality of mammography care at facilities treating medically vulnerable populations. Med Care 2008;46:701–708.
15.
Taplin SAbraham LBarlow WE et al. Mammography facility characteristics associated with interpretive accuracy of screening mammographyJ Natl Cancer Inst2008100876-887. 15. Taplin S, Abraham L, Barlow WE, et al. Mammography facility characteristics associated with interpretive accuracy of screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100:876–887.
16.
Carey LAPerou CMLivasy CA et al. Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer StudyJAMA20062952492-2502. 16. Carey LA, Perou CM, Livasy CA, et al. Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study. JAMA 2006;295:2492–2502.
17.
Coldman AJMajor DDoyle GP et al. Organized breast screening programs in Canada: Effect of radiologist reading volumes on outcomesRadiology2006238809-815. 17. Coldman AJ, Major D, Doyle GP, et al. Organized breast screening programs in Canada: Effect of radiologist reading volumes on outcomes. Radiology 2006;238:809–815.
18.
Kan LOlivotto IAWarren Burhenne LJSickles EAColdman AJ. Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening programRadiology2000215563-567. 18. Kan L, Olivotto IA, Warren Burhenne LJ, Sickles EA, Coldman AJ. Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening program. Radiology 2000;215:563–567.
19.
Rickard MTaylor RPage AEstoesta J. Cancer detection and mammogram volume of radiologists in a population-based screening programmeBreast20061539-43. 19. Rickard M, Taylor R, Page A, Estoesta J. Cancer detection and mammogram volume of radiologists in a population-based screening programme. Breast 2006;15:39–43.
20.
Theberge IHebert-Croteau NLanglois AMajor DBrisson J. Volume of screening mammography and performance in the Quebec population-based Breast Cancer Screening ProgramCan Med Assoc J2005172195-199. 20. Theberge I, Hebert-Croteau N, Langlois A, Major D, Brisson J. Volume of screening mammography and performance in the Quebec population-based Breast Cancer Screening Program. Can Med Assoc J 2005;172:195–199.
21.
Beam CAConant EFSickles EA. Association of volume and volume-independent factors with accuracy in screening mammogram interpretationJ Natl Cancer Inst200395282-290. 21. Beam CA, Conant EF, Sickles EA. Association of volume and volume-independent factors with accuracy in screening mammogram interpretation. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:282–290.
22.
Bauer KRBrown MCress RDParise CACaggiano V. Descriptive analysis of estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, progesterone receptor (PR)-negative, and HER2-negative invasive breast cancer, the so-called triple-negative phenotype: A population-based study from the California Cancer RegistryCancer20071091721-1728. 22. Bauer KR, Brown M, Cress RD, Parise CA, Caggiano V. Descriptive analysis of estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, progesterone receptor (PR)-negative, and HER2-negative invasive breast cancer, the so-called triple-negative phenotype: A population-based study from the California Cancer Registry. Cancer 2007;109:1721–1728.
23.
Elledge RMClark GMChamness GCOsborne CK. Tumor biologic factors and breast cancer prognosis among white, Hispanic, and black women in the United StatesJ Natl Cancer Inst199486705-712. 23. Elledge RM, Clark GM, Chamness GC, Osborne CK. Tumor biologic factors and breast cancer prognosis among white, Hispanic, and black women in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86:705–712.
24.
Gordon NH. Association of education and income with estrogen receptor status in primary breast cancerAm J Epidemiol1995142796-803. 24. Gordon NH. Association of education and income with estrogen receptor status in primary breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol 1995;142:796–803.
25.
Jones BAKasl SVHowe CL et al. African-American/white differences in breast carcinoma: p53 alterations and other tumor characteristicsCancer20041011293-1301. 25. Jones BA, Kasl SV, Howe CL, et al. African-American/white differences in breast carcinoma: p53 alterations and other tumor characteristics. Cancer 2004;101:1293–1301.
26.
Menendez-Tuckman ATRaventos-Suarez C. Re: Tumor biologic factors and breast cancer prognosis among white, Hispanic, and black women in the United StatesJ Natl Cancer Inst1994861352-1353. 26. Menendez-Tuckman AT, Raventos-Suarez C. Re: Tumor biologic factors and breast cancer prognosis among white, Hispanic, and black women in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86:1352–1353.
27.
Simon MSSeverson RK. Racial differences in breast cancer survival: The interaction of socioeconomic status and tumor biologyAm J Obstet Gynecol1997176S233-239. 27. Simon MS, Severson RK. Racial differences in breast cancer survival: The interaction of socioeconomic status and tumor biology. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997;176:S233–239.
28.
Porter PLEl-Bastawissi AYMandelson MT et al. Breast tumor characteristics as predictors of mammographic detection: Comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancersJ Natl Cancer Inst1999912020-2028. 28. Porter PL, El-Bastawissi AY, Mandelson MT, et al. Breast tumor characteristics as predictors of mammographic detection: Comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:2020–2028.
29.
Smith RACokkinides VEyre HJ. Cancer screening in the United States, 2007: A review of current guidelines, practices, and prospectsCA Cancer J Clin20075790-104. 29. Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Eyre HJ. Cancer screening in the United States, 2007: A review of current guidelines, practices, and prospects. CA Cancer J Clin 2007;57:90–104.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
Copyright 2012, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
History
Published in print: February 2012
Published online: 1 February 2012
Published ahead of print: 23 September 2011
Topics
Authors
Disclosure Statement
The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citation
Export citation
Select the format you want to export the citations of this publication.
View Options
Get Access
Access content
To read the fulltext, please use one of the options below to sign in or purchase access.⚠ Society Access
If you are a member of a society that has access to this content please log in via your society website and then return to this publication.