Prescription opioid analgesics for pain management in Australia: 20 years of dispensing.

BACKGROUND: Opioid prescribing/dispensing data can inform policy surrounding regulation by informing trends and types of opioid prescribed and geographic variations. In Australia so far only partial data on dispensing have been published, and data for states/territories remain unknown. AIM: Using a range of measures, this study examines 20-year (1992-2011) trends in prescription opioid analgesics in Australia - both nationally and for individual jurisdictions. METHODS: Dispensing data were obtained from the Drug Utilisation Sub-Committee and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) websites. Trends in numbers of prescriptions and daily defined dose (DDD)/1000 people/day were examined over time and across states/territories. Seasonal variations in PBS/Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (RPBS) items for nationwide dispensing were adjusted using a centred moving smoothing technique. RESULTS: In two decades, 165.32 million prescriptions for opioids were dispensed, with codeine and its derivatives the most prescribed formulation (50.1%) followed by tramadol (13.5%) and oxycodone derivatives (12.7%). In terms of DDD/1000 people/day, dispensing increased from 5.38 in 1992 to 14.46 in 2011. There are significant increasing trends for total, PBS/RPBS and under co-payment prescriptions (priced below patient co-payment). The DDD/1000 people/day for items dispensed through PBS/RPBS was highest in Tasmania. CONCLUSION: Prescription opioid dispensing increased substantially over the study period. With an ageing population, this trend is likely to continue in future. A growing concern about harms associated with opioid use warrants balanced control measures so that harms could be minimised without reducing effective pain treatment. Research examining utilisation in small geographic areas may help design spatially tailored interventions. A real-time drug-monitoring programme may reduce undue prescribing and dispensing.

Integrated pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and immunogenicity profiling of an anti-CCL21 monoclonal antibody in cynomolgus monkeys.

QBP359 is an IgG1 human monoclonal antibody that binds with high affinity to human CCL21, a chemokine hypothesized to play a role in inflammatory disease conditions through activation of resident CCR7-expressing fibroblasts/myofibroblasts. The pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of QBP359 in non-human primates were characterized through an integrated approach, combining PK, PD, immunogenicity, immunohistochemistry (IHC) and tissue profiling data from single- and multiple-dose experiments in cynomolgus monkeys. When compared with regular immunoglobulin typical kinetics, faster drug clearance was observed in serum following intravenous administration of 10 mg/kg and 50 mg/kg of QBP359. We have shown by means of PK/PD modeling that clearance of mAb-ligand complex is the most likely explanation for the rapid clearance of QBP359 in cynomolgus monkey. IHC and liquid chromatography mass spectrometry data suggested a high turnover and synthesis rate of CCL21 in tissues. Although lymphoid tissue was expected to accumulate drug due to the high levels of CCL21 present, bioavailability following subcutaneous administration in monkeys was 52%. In human disease states, where CCL21 expression is believed to be expressed at 10-fold higher concentrations compared with cynomolgus monkeys, the PK/PD model of QBP359 and its binding to CCL21 suggested that very large doses requiring frequent administration of mAb would be required to maintain suppression of CCL21 in the clinical setting. This highlights the difficulty in targeting soluble proteins with high synthesis rates.

Hereditary breast/ovarian and colorectal cancer genetics knowledge in a national sample of US physicians.

BACKGROUND: Clinically relevant genetics knowledge is essential for appropriate assessment and management of inherited cancer risk, and for effective communication with patients. This national physician survey assessed knowledge regarding basic cancer genetics concepts early in the process of introduction of predictive genetic testing for breast/ovarian and hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) syndromes. METHODS: A stratified random sample was selected from the American Medical Association Masterfile of all licensed physicians. In total, 1251 physicians (820 in primary care, 431 in selected subspecialties) responded to a 15 minute questionnaire (response rate 71%) in 1999-2000. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify demographic and practice characteristics associated with accurate response to three knowledge questions. RESULTS: Of the study population, 37.5% was aware of paternal inheritance of BRCA1/2 mutations, and 33.8% recognised that these mutations occur in <10% of breast cancer patients. Only 13.1% accurately identified HNPCC gene penetrance as >or=50%. Obstetrics/gynaecology physicians, oncologists, and general surgeons were significantly more likely than general and family practitioners to respond accurately to the breast/ovarian questions, as were gastroenterologists to the HNPCC question. CONCLUSIONS: These nationally representative data indicate limited physician knowledge about key cancer genetics concepts in 1999-2000, particularly among general primary care physicians. Specialists were more knowledgeable about syndromes they might treat or refer elsewhere. Recent dissemination of practice guidelines and continued expansion of relevant clinical literature may enhance knowledge over time. In addition to educational efforts to assist physicians with the growing knowledge base, more research is needed to characterise the organisational changes required within the healthcare system to provide effective cancer genetics services.

Genetic testing for breast cancer: where are health care providers in the decision process?

PURPOSE: To identify BRCA1/2 knowledge, genetic testing intentions, and communication patterns in breast cancer survivors (survivors). METHODS: A population-based survey was conducted of 276 female survivors diagnosed between the ages of 40 and 49 and living 5 to 10 years postdiagnosis. RESULTS: Of the 79% who responded, 8% spoke with health care providers and 53% spoke with relatives about testing. Few (26%) correctly answered over half the BRCA knowledge questions. Intention to obtain testing varied (26-67%), depending on insurance coverage. CONCLUSION: Health care providers and survivors seldom discuss BRCA testing. Providing information to survivors would increase their ability to make informed testing decisions.

Variation in mammographic breast density by race.

PURPOSE: Because of the observed racial differences in risk of developing breast cancer, the authors conducted a study to determine the variation in breast density, a strong predictor of breast cancer risk, by race and age. METHODS: Study subjects were women enrolled in Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, Seattle, WA, aged 20-79 years, who had a screening mammogram between 6/1/96 and 8/1/97. Women with increased breast density (BI-RADS "heterogeneously dense" and "extremely dense") (n = 14,178) were compared to those with fatty breasts (BI-RADS "almost entirely fat" and "scattered fibroglandular tissue") (n = 14,323). Logistic regression was used with adjustment for age, parity, age at first birth, menopausal status, current use of hormone replacement therapy, and body mass index. RESULTS: The odds ratio (OR) for having dense breasts versus fatty breasts, comparing Asian to White women, increased from 1.2 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.9-1.6] for women age <45 to 1.6 (95% CI 1.3-2.2) for women over 65. Conversely, the OR for Black compared to White women was highest for the women age 65 and younger (OR 1.7 (1.2-2.3), 1.3(1.0-1.7), and 1.7 (1.2-2.3) for women age <45, 46-55, and 56-65, respectively), whereas Black women over 65 had similar density as Whites. Hispanic women had similar density compared to Whites for all ages. CONCLUSIONS: These racial differences in breast density generally do not conform to differences in race and age-specific breast cancer incidence rates.

Cost comparison of mastectomy versus breast-conserving therapy for early-stage breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Choice of treatment for early-stage breast cancer depends on many factors, including the size and stage of the cancer, the woman's age, comorbid conditions, and perhaps the costs of treatment. We compared the costs of all medical care for women with early-stage breast cancer cases treated by breast-conserving therapy (BCT) or mastectomy. METHODS: A total of 1675 women 35 years old or older with incident early-stage breast cancer were identified in a large regional nonprofit health maintenance organization in the period 1990 through 1997. The women were treated with mastectomy only (n = 183), mastectomy with adjuvant hormonal therapy or chemotherapy (n = 417), BCT with radiation therapy (n = 405), or BCT with radiation therapy and adjuvant hormonal therapy or chemotherapy (n = 670). The costs of all medical care for the period 1990 through 1998 were computed for each woman, and monthly costs were analyzed by treatment, adjusting for age and cancer stage. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: At 6 months after diagnosis, the mean total medical care costs for the four groups differed statistically significantly (P:<.001), with BCT being more expensive than mastectomy. The adjusted mean costs were $12 987, $14 309, $14 963, and $15 779 for mastectomy alone, mastectomy with adjuvant therapy, BCT plus radiation therapy, and BCT plus radiation therapy with adjuvant therapy, respectively. At 1 year, the difference in costs was still statistically significant (P:<.001), but costs were influenced more by the use of adjuvant therapy than by type of surgery. The 1-year adjusted mean costs were $16 704, $18 856, $17 344, and $19 081, respectively, for the four groups. By 5 years, BCT was less expensive than mastectomy (P:<.001), with 5-year adjusted mean costs of $41 930, $45 670, $35 787, and $39 926, respectively. Costs also varied by age, with women under 65 years having higher treatment costs than older women. CONCLUSIONS: BCT may have higher short-term costs but lower long-term costs than mastectomy.

Changes in breast density associated with initiation, discontinuation, and continuing use of hormone replacement therapy.

CONTEXT: Initiation of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) has been shown to increase breast density. Evidence exists that increased breast density decreases mammographic sensitivity. The effects on breast density of discontinuing and continuing HRT have not been studied systematically. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of initiation, discontinuation, and continued use of HRT on breast density in postmenopausal women. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational cohort study of 5212 naturally postmenopausal women aged 40 to 96 years and enrolled in a large health maintenance organization in western Washington State who had 2 screening mammograms between 1996 and 1998. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Breast density, assessed using the clinical radiologists' BI-RADS 4-point scale, compared among women who did not use HRT before either mammogram (nonusers); who used HRT before the first but not before the second mammogram (discontinuers); who used HRT before the second but not before the first mammogram (initiators); and who used HRT prior to both mammograms (continuing users). RESULTS: Relative to nonusers, women who initiated HRT were more likely to show increases in breast density (relative risk [RR], 2.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.12-3.08), while women who discontinued HRT use were more likely to show decreases in density (RR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.06-2.98) and women who continued to use HRT were more likely to show both increases in density (RR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.13-1.55) and sustained high density (RR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.33-1.58). CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that breast density changes associated with HRT are dynamic, increasing with initiation, and decreasing with discontinuation.

Quality assurance for screening mammography: an international comparison.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: In 1998, the International Breast Cancer Screening Network (IBSN) sponsored an assessment of quality assurance policies and practices to define their scope for population-based screening mammography programmes across IBSN countries. DESIGN: Analysis of data from a survey designed to assess multiple elements of screening programme quality assurance, including organisation of quality assurance activities, mechanisms for site visits and accreditation, requirements for quality control and data systems, and inclusion of treatment, follow up, and programme evaluation in screening mammography quality assurance activities. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: IBSN representatives in 23 countries completed a comprehensive questionnaire between May and December 1998. MAIN RESULTS: Completed questionnaires were obtained from all 23 countries. Responses indicated that countries vary in their approaches to implementing quality assurance, although all monitor components of structure, process, and outcome. Nearly all have in place laws, surveillance mechanisms, or standards for quality assurance. In all countries, quality assurance activities extend beyond the screening mammography examination. CONCLUSIONS: The assessment has enhanced understanding of the organisation of screening mammography programmes across countries, as well as the comparability of screening mammography data. All countries have established mechanisms for assuring the quality of screening mammography in population-based programmes, although these mechanisms vary across countries.

Performance of screening mammography among women with and without a first-degree relative with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Although it is recommended that women with a family history of breast cancer begin screening mammography at a younger age than average-risk women, few studies have evaluated the performance of mammography in this group. OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of screening mammography in women with a first-degree family history of breast cancer and women of similar age without such history. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Mammography registries in California (n = 1), New Hampshire (n = 1), New Mexico (n = 1), Vermont (n = 1), Washington State n = 2), and Colorado (n = 1). PARTICIPANTS: 389 533 women 30 to 69 years of age who were referred for screening mammography from April 1985 to November 1997. MEASUREMENTS: Risk factors for breast cancer; results of first screening examination captured for a woman by a registry; and any invasive cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ identified by linkage to a pathology database, the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program, or a state tumor registry. RESULTS: The number of cancer cases per 1000 examinations increased with age and was higher in women with a family history of breast cancer than in those without (3.2 vs. 1.6 for ages 30 to 39 years, 4.7 vs. 2.7 for ages 40 to 49 years, 6.6 vs. 4.6 for ages 50 to 59 years, and 9.3 vs. 6.9 for ages 60 to 69 years). The sensitivity of mammography increased significantly with age (P = 0.001 [chi-square test for trend]) in women with a family history and in those without (63.2% [95% CI, 41. 5% to 84.8%] vs. 69.5% [CI, 57.7% to 81.2%] for ages 30 to 39 years, 70.2% [CI, 61.0% to 79.5%] vs. 77.5% [CI, 73.3% to 81.8%] for ages 40 to 49 years, 81.3% [CI, 73.3% to 89.3%] vs. 80.2% [CI, 76.5% to 83.9%] for ages 50 to 59 years, and 83.8% [CI, 76.8% to 90.9%] vs. 87.7% [CI, 84.8% to 90.7%] for ages 60 to 69 years). Sensitivity was similar for each decade of age regardless of family history. The positive predictive value of mammography was higher in women with a family history than in those without (3.7% vs. 2.9%; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Cancer detection rates in women who had a first-degree relative with a history of breast cancer were similar to those in women a decade older without such a history. The sensitivity of screening mammography was influenced primarily by age.

Effect of variations in operational definitions on performance estimates for screening mammography.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The Mammography Quality Standards Act requires practices to measure limited aspects of their performance. The authors conducted this study to calculate the differences in measurements of sensitivity and specificity due only to differences in the definitions used in the analysis. This included definitions for case inclusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from the New Mexico Mammography Project for January 1991 to December 1995 on 136,540 women who underwent screening mammography were analyzed. A starting definition was created for each performance measure. The components of the definition were varied, and estimates of sensitivity and specificity for the different definitions were calculated. RESULTS: Sensitivity was lower and specificity was higher when assessed on the basis of the results of all imaging performed in the screening work-up rather than on the initial screening examination alone. Sensitivity was higher and specificity was lower in women who did not undergo rather than in women who did recently undergo a previous examination. When the definition of a positive examination included cases that were recommended for short-term follow-up, the work-up sensitivity was slightly higher and the work-up specificity was considerably lower. Longer follow-up times for determining the diagnosis of cancer were associated with decreasing sensitivity, particularly when the follow-up period extended beyond 12 months. CONCLUSION: Variations in the operational definitions for measures of mammographic performance affect these estimates. To facilitate valid comparisons, reports need to be explicit regarding the definitions and methods used.

Current medicolegal and confidentiality issues in large, multicenter research programs.

The convenience of fast computers and the Internet have encouraged large collaborative research efforts by allowing transfers of data from multiple sites to a single data repository; however, standards for managing data security are needed to protect the confidentiality of participants. Through Dartmouth Medical School, in 1996-1998, the authors conducted a medicolegal analysis of federal laws, state statutes, and institutional policies in eight states and three different types of health care settings, which are part of a breast cancer surveillance consortium contributing data electronically to a centralized data repository. They learned that a variety of state and federal laws are available to protect confidentiality of professional and lay research participants. The strongest protection available is the Federal Certificate of Confidentiality, which supersedes state statutory protection, has been tested in court, and extends protection from forced disclosure (in litigation) to health care providers as well as patients. This paper describes the careful planning necessary to ensure adequate legal protection and data security, which must include a comprehensive understanding of state and federal protections applicable to medical research. Researchers must also develop rules or guidelines to ensure appropriate collection, use, and sharing of data. Finally, systems for the storage of both paper and electronic records must be as secure as possible.

Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers.

BACKGROUND: Screening mammography is the best method to reduce mortality from breast cancer, yet some breast cancers cannot be detected by mammography. Cancers diagnosed after a negative mammogram are known as interval cancers. This study investigated whether mammographic breast density is related to the risk of interval cancer. METHODS: Subjects were selected from women participating in mammographic screening from 1988 through 1993 in a large health maintenance organization based in Seattle, WA. Women were eligible for the study if they had been diagnosed with a first primary invasive breast cancer within 24 months of a screening mammogram and before a subsequent one. Interval cancer case subjects (n = 149) were women whose breast cancer occurred after a negative or benign mammographic assessment. Screen-detected control subjects (n = 388) were diagnosed after a positive screening mammogram. One radiologist, who was blinded to cancer status, assessed breast density by use of the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. RESULTS: Mammographic sensitivity (i.e., the ability of mammography to detect a cancer) was 80% among women with predominantly fatty breasts but just 30% in women with extremely dense breasts. The odds ratio (OR) for interval cancer among women with extremely dense breasts was 6.14 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.95-19.4), compared with women with extremely fatty breasts, after adjustment for age at index mammogram, menopausal status, use of hormone replacement therapy, and body mass index. When only those interval cancer cases confirmed by retrospective review of index mammograms were considered, the OR increased to 9.47 (95% CI = 2.78-32.3). CONCLUSION: Mammographic breast density appears to be a major risk factor for interval cancer.

Accuracy of screening mammography using single versus independent double interpretation.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted an analysis among 31 community radiologists to identify the average change in screening mammography interpretive accuracy afforded by independent double interpretation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We assessed interpretive accuracy using a stratified random sample of test mammograms that included 30 women with cancer and 83 without. Radiologists were unaware of clinical information and of each other's assessments. We describe accuracy for individual radiologists and for double interpretation, including average sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic likelihood ratios positive and negative, and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. We also assessed weighted and nonweighted kappa statistics among all 465 pairs of radiologists and 31,465 pairs of unique pairs. The assessment for double interpretations used the "highest" (i.e., most abnormal) assessment of the two radiologists. We calculated the difference between each radiologist's individual accuracy and the average accuracy across that radiologist's 30 double interpretations. RESULTS: We found the following average accuracy statistics for individual radiologists: sensitivity, 79%; specificity, 81%; diagnostic likelihood ratio positive, 5.53; diagnostic likelihood ratio negative, 0.26; and area under the ROC curve, 0.85. The mean kappa statistic among radiologists for cancer cases increased with double interpretation from 0.59 to 0.70, and for noncancer cases from 0.30 to 0.34. Double interpretation resulted in an average increase in sensitivity of 7%, an average decrease in specificity of 11%, a decrease in diagnostic likelihood ratio positive of 2.35, a decrease in diagnostic likelihood ratio negative of 0.06, and an increase in area under the ROC curve of 0.02. CONCLUSION: Independent double interpretation does not increase accuracy as measured by the area under the ROC curve.

Assessing mammographers' accuracy. A comparison of clinical and test performance.

Direct estimation of mammographers' clinical accuracy requires the ability to capture screening assessments and correctly identify which screened women have breast cancer. This clinical information is often unavailable and when it is available its observational nature can cause analytic problems. Problems with clinical data have led some researchers to evaluate mammographers using a single set of films. Research based on these test film sets implicitly assumes a correspondence between mammographers' accuracy in the test setting and their accuracy in a clinical setting. However, there is no evidence supporting this basic assumption. In this article we use hierarchical models and data from 27 mammographers to directly compare accuracy estimated from clinical practice data to accuracy estimated from a test film set. We found moderate positive correlation [ rho; = 0.206 with 95% credible interval (-0.142-0. 488)] between mammographers' overall preponderance to call a mammogram positive. However, we found no evidence of correlation between clinical and test accuracy [ rho; = -0.025 with 95% credible interval (-0.484-0.447)]. This study is limited by the relatively small number of mammographers evaluated, by the somewhat restricted range of observed sensitivities and specificities, and by differences in the types of films evaluated in test and clinical datasets. Nonetheless, these findings raise important questions about how mammographer accuracy should be measured.

Testing reminder and motivational telephone calls to increase screening mammography: a randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Prospective randomized trials have demonstrated that motivational telephone calls increase adherence to screening mammography. To better understand the effects of motivational calls and to maximize adherence, we conducted a randomized trial among women aged 50-79 years. METHODS: We created a stratified random sample of 5062 women due for mammograms within the Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, including 4099 women with prior mammography and 963 without it. We recruited and surveyed 3743 (74%) of the women before mailing a recommendation. After 2 months, 1765 (47%) of the 3743 women had not scheduled a mammogram and were randomly assigned to one of three intervention groups: a reminder post-card group (n = 590), a reminder telephone call group (n = 585), and a motivational telephone call addressing barriers group (n = 590). The telephone callers could schedule mammography. We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for documented mammography use by 1 year. RESULTS: Women who received reminder calls were more likely to get mammograms (HR = 1.9; 95% CI = 1.6-2.4) than women who were mailed postcards. The motivational and reminder calls (average length, 8.5 and 3.1 minutes, respectively) had equivalent effects (HR = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.8-1.2). After we controlled for the intervention effect, women with prior mammography (n = 1277) were much more likely to get a mammogram (HR = 3.4; 95% CI = 2.7-4.3) than women without prior use (n = 488). Higher income, but not race or more education, was associated with higher adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Reminding women to schedule an appointment was as efficacious as addressing barriers. Simple intervention groups should be included as comparison groups in randomized trials so that we better understand more complex intervention effects.

Reproductive and hormonal factors associated with mammographic breast density by age (United States).

OBJECTIVES: We determined the association of certain reproductive and hormonal factors with breast density over decades of life. METHODS: Subjects were women age 20-79 years who had a screening mammogram between 1 June 1996 and 1 August 1997, in Seattle, Washington. Women with increased breast density (upper two categories of BI-RADS terminology) (n = 14,432) were compared to those with fatty breasts (lower two categories (n = 14,552). Unconditional logistic regression was used with adjustment for age at mammogram, parity, age at first birth, menopausal status, current use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT), and body mass index. RESULTS: The association of nulliparity with density was evident for women at all ages (odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.5 (1.3-1.7) and 1.6 (1.4-1.9) for women age < or = 45 and > 65, respectively). Older age at first birth was more strongly associated with density among women > 55 than among younger women. The association of current use of HRT with density, but not of former use, increased with age when compared to never users (OR = 1.4 (1.2-1.7) and 2.2 (2.0-2.5) for women age 46-55 and > 65, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that pregnancy at an early age has a permanent beneficial association with density, while HRT has a transitory adverse association.

Cost-effectiveness of strategies to enhance mammography use.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of three strategies to increase breast cancer screening with mammography (reminder postcard, reminder telephone call, and motivational telephone call). DESIGN: Cost accounting for each strategy followed by cost-effectiveness analysis. DATA SOURCE FOR EFFECTIVENESS: Randomized trial of three strategies conducted at Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound (GHC). TARGET POPULATION: Women 50 to 79 years of age who were enrolled in GHC's breast cancer screening program who did not schedule screening mammography within 2 months after it was recommended by letter. PERSPECTIVE: Health plan. OUTCOME MEASURE: Marginal cost-effectiveness of each additional woman screened. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Because of its high cost (about $26 per call) and intermediate effectiveness, the motivational call was the least cost-effective strategy. If it was assumed that 50% of the women who scheduled mammography after receiving the reminder postcard would have scheduled mammography within 10 months even without it, marginal cost-effectiveness for the postcard among all women was $22 per woman screened versus $92 for the reminder call. Among women with no previous mammography, the marginal cost-effectiveness for the postcard was $70 versus $100 for the reminder call. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Among women with no previous mammography, the choice between the reminder postcard and the reminder call was sensitive to assumptions about the percentage of women expected to receive mammography in the absence of other promotional strategies. CONCLUSIONS: A simple reminder postcard is the most cost-effective way to increase mammography. Choices about how to promote mammography will ultimately depend on plan values and willingness to invest in promotional strategies that increase participation at higher unit costs.

Breast tumor characteristics as predictors of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers.

BACKGROUND: Although mammographic screening is useful for detecting early breast cancer, some tumors are detected in the interval between screening examinations. This study attempted to characterize fully the tumors detected in the two different manners. METHODS: Our study utilized a case-control design and involved a cohort of women undergoing mammographic screening within the defined population of a health maintenance organization (the Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound). Women were classified as having "interval" or "interval-detected" cancers (n = 150) if their diagnosis was made within 24 months after a negative-screening mammogram or one that indicated a benign condition. Cancers were classified as "screen detected" (n = 279) if the diagnosis occurred after a positive assessment by screening mammography. Tumors from women in each group were evaluated for clinical presentation, histology, proliferative characteristics, and expression of hormone receptors, p53 tumor suppressor protein, and c-erbB-2 protein. RESULTS: Interval-detected cancers occurred more in younger women and were of larger tumor size than screen-detected cancers. In unconditional logistic regression models adjusted for age and tumor size, tumors with lobular (odds ratio [OR] = 1.9; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.9-4.2) or mucinous (OR = 5.5; 95% CI = 1.5-19.4) histology, high proliferation (by either mitotic count [OR = 2.9; 95% CI = 1.5-5.7] or Ki-67 antigen expression [OR = 2.3; 95% CI = 1.3-4.1]), high histologic grade (OR = 2.1; 95% CI = 1.2-4.0), high nuclear grade (OR = 2.0; 95% CI = 1.0-3.7), or negative estrogen receptor status (OR = 1.8; 95% CI = 1.0-3.1) were more likely to surface in the interval between screening examinations. Tumors with tubular histology (OR = 0.2; 95% CI = 0.0-0.8) or with a high percentage of in situ components (50%) (OR = 0.5; 95% CI = 0.2-1.2) were associated with an increased likelihood of screen detection. CONCLUSIONS: Our data from a large group of women in a defined population indicate that screening mammography may miss tumors of lobular or mucinous histology and some rapidly proliferating, high-grade tumors.

Women's knowledge and attitudes about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility.

OBJECTIVE: To assess female primary care patients' knowledge about breast cancer genetics and attitudes toward genetic testing. DESIGN: Self-administered survey. PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of 91 female patients awaiting appointments at a large primary care clinic of Group Health Cooperative in Seattle, Washington. RESULTS: Forty-seven percent of women had read or heard almost nothing about genetic susceptibility testing, and most did not know the answers to questions that assessed knowledge about breast cancer genetics. Eighty-one percent "somewhat" or "strongly" agreed that testing should be offered to everyone; women who had heard or read about genetic testing for breast cancer were more likely to agree that genetic testing should be offered only to people who have a reason to think that they have an altered gene. When asked whether they planned to have genetic testing for breast cancer, many women said "probably or definitely yes" (71% would do so if insurance covered the cost; 44% would do so even if they had to pay out-of-pocket). CONCLUSIONS: Although most women knew little about genetic testing, many expressed interest in being tested and believed that it should be offered to everyone. Primary care providers may be asked to educate women about cancer genetics and appropriate use of susceptibility testing.