Documentation Status and Self-Rated Physical Health Among Latinx Young Adult Immigrants: the Mediating Roles of Immigration and Healthcare Stress.

Previous research has demonstrated that undocumented Latinx immigrants in the USA report worse physical health outcomes than documented immigrants. Some studies suggest that immigration-related stress and healthcare related-stress may explain this relationship, but none have tested it empirically. The purpose of this study was to determine if immigration-related stress and healthcare-related stress in the USA explain the relationship between documentation status and physical health among Latinx immigrants in North Carolina. The conceptual model was tested utilizing baseline data from a longitudinal, observational, community-engaged research study of young adult (18-44 years) Latinx immigrants residing in North Carolina (N = 391). Structural equation modeling was used to determine relationships among documentation status, healthcare, and immigration stress in the past six months, and self-rated physical health. Goodness-of-fit measures indicated that data fit the model well (RMSEA = .008; CFI = 1.0; TLI = .999; SRMR = .02; CD = .157). Undocumented individuals were more likely to experience immigration stress than their documented counterparts ([Formula: see text] = - 0.37, p < 0.001). Both immigration stress ([Formula: see text] = - 0.22, p < 0.01) and healthcare stress ([Formula: see text] = - 0.14, p < 0.05) were negatively related to physical health. Additionally, immigration stress was positively related to healthcare stress ([Formula: see text] = 0.72, p < 0.001). Results demonstrate that documentation status is an important social determinant of health. Passage of inclusive immigration and healthcare policies may lessen the stress experienced by Latinx immigrants and subsequently improve physical health.

Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: A Scientific Review.

In this paper we provide an overview of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and a review of the published literature in order to provide a picture of the current state of the evidence on the performance of CEM. Clinical research was fairly sparse following the demonstration of the technique in research subjects about 18 years ago, but the number of publications rapidly increased following commercialization 9 years ago, and even more so in the last 5 years. Initial studies compared CEM with mammography, and clearly showed that CEM could detect cancers not visible on mammography. More recent studies have primarily focused on comparing the performance of CEM with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in selected cohorts. These studies have almost uniformly shown CEM and MRI to have similar sensitivities, with sensitivity and accuracy showing more variability from study to study. With increasing clinical use, a large number of retrospective reviews of CEM have appeared, showing utility of CEM in the diagnostic clinical setting. Most recently, a small number of papers have been published looking at CEM for high-risk and dense breast screening, two potentially large applications of the technique, showing it to outperform mammography in both populations. CEM has clearly been shown to have clinical utility, but more prospective studies, including screening studies, are needed to further evaluate its performance, especially in comparison with MRI.

Patient-Awareness Survey: Do Breast Implants Affect the Acquisition and Accuracy of Screening Mammography?

OBJECTIVE: Breast implant augmentation is the most common cosmetic surgical procedure performed in the United States. The purpose of this study was to determine if patients with breast augmentation surgery are aware of the effect of breast implants on the mammographic detection of cancer. METHODS: An institutional review board exempt patient awareness survey was distributed at a single breast imaging facility to women undergoing screening mammography. Comparative statistical analyses were performed between patients with and without breast implants. RESULTS: The respondents were divided into three groups: no prior breast surgery (74%; 524/711), breast surgery with implants (21%; 152/711), and breast surgery without implants (5%; 35/711). Patients with breast implants were more aware that implants decrease the amount of breast tissue seen on a mammogram (75%; 105/141) and that implants result in the need for more mammogram views (70%; 103/147), as compared with patients with no surgery (46%; 221/484 and 31%; 147/478, respectively) (P < 0.001). More women with breast implants reported learning from breast imaging staff rather than from their surgeon that implants decrease the amount of breast tissue seen on a mammogram (46%; 49/106 vs. 38%; 40/106). Of 137 respondents, 35% (n = 48) reported that the effect of implants on their mammogram was discussed preoperatively. Of those who did not recall a preoperative discussion, 42% (16/38) indicated this knowledge would have factored into their decision to get breast implants. CONCLUSION: This study highlights an opportunity for providers to engage in more education and shared decision-making with patients considering breast augmentation surgery to ensure preoperative counseling includes discussion of the effect of implants on mammography.