Text-Based Intervention Increases Mammography Uptake at an Urban Safety-Net Hospital.

BACKGROUND: The low mammography rates at the authors' safety-net hospital (SNH) are associated with higher rates of late-stage disease. Previously, they showed that a phone call-based intervention with reminder and scheduling components significantly increased mammography uptake by 12% in their population, but implementation was resource-heavy. This study analyzed whether a text-based intervention with reminder and scheduling components could increase mammography uptake at 3 months compared with usual care. METHODS: This randomized controlled study analyzed 1277 women ages 50 to 65 years who were overdue for a mammogram but had established care at a primary-care clinic within an urban SNH. The patients received intervention 1 (a text reminder with specific scheduling options), intervention 2 (a text reminder with open-ended scheduling options), or usual care (control). Differences in the percentage of mammography uptake at 3 months were compared between the intervention and control groups using a two-tailed chi-square test. RESULTS: The patients receiving a text-based reminder and scheduling opportunity were significantly more likely to receive mammograms within 3 months than those in the usual-care control group (10.2% vs 6.2%; χ2 = 5.6279; p = 0.03). In the intervention group, 10.3% of the participants scheduled an appointment for a mammogram via text, and 63% of these participants received a mammogram. Finally, mammography compliance did not differ by the type of scheduling offered (specific vs general) or by primary care clinic. CONCLUSIONS: Leveraging technology for reminders and scheduling via two-way text messaging is effective in increasing mammography uptake in an urban safety-net setting and may be used as part of a multi-tiered intervention to increase breast cancer screening in a safety-net setting.

Mammography Positioning Standards in the Digital Era: Is the Status Quo Acceptable?

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to evaluate positioning of full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) compared with film-screen (FS) mammography positioning standards. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted of consecutive patients who underwent screening FFDM in 2010-2012 and DBT in 2012-2013 at an academic institution. Examinations were performed by five experienced technologists who underwent updated standardized positioning training. Positioning criteria were assessed by consensus reads among three breast radiologists and compared with FS mammography data from a 1993 study by Bassett and colleagues. RESULTS: One hundred seventy patients (n = 340 examinations) were analyzed, showing significant differences between FFDM and DBT examinations (p < 0.05) for medial or inferior skin folds (FFDM vs DBT: craniocaudal [CC] view, 16% [n = 56] vs 23% [n = 77]; mediolateral oblique [MLO] view, 35% [n = 118] vs 45% [n = 154]), inclusion of lateral glandular tissue on CC view (FFDM vs DBT, 73% [n = 247] vs 81% [n = 274]), and concave pectoralis muscle shape (FFDM vs DBT, 36% [n = 121] vs 28% [n = 95]). In comparison with Bassett et al. data, all positioning criteria for both FFDM and DBT examinations were significantly different (p < 0.05). The largest differences were found in visualization of the pectoralis muscle on CC views and the inframammary fold on MLO views, inclusion of posterior or lateral glandular tissue, and inclusion of skin folds, with DBT and FFDM more frequently exhibiting all criteria than originally reported Bassett et al. CONCLUSION: DBT and FFDM mammograms more frequently include posterior or lateral tissue, the inframammary fold on MLO views, the pectoralis muscle on CC views, and skin folds than FS mammograms. Inclusion of more breast tissue with newer technologies suggests traditional positioning standards, in conjunction with updated standardized positioning training, are still applicable at the expense of including more skin folds.