0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Investigation |

Information and Involvement Preferences of Women in Their 40s Before Their First Screening Mammogram FREE

Larissa Nekhlyudov, MD, MPH; Rong Li, MSc; Suzanne W. Fletcher, MD, MSc
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Department of Ambulatory Care and Prevention, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Boston, Mass.


Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(12):1370-1374. doi:10.1001/archinte.165.12.1370.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Background  Informed decision making regarding screening mammography is recommended for women in their 40s; however, what information women want and how much involvement in decision making they prefer are not known.

Methods  Surveys were mailed to women aged 40 to 44 scheduled for their first screening mammogram. Women were members of a large New England health maintenance organization and received medical care at a multispecialty practice in the greater Boston area. Outcome measures included information needs and decisional control preferences.

Results  Ninety-six women responded. Of 93 identifying their ethnicity, 62 (67%) were white, 18 (19%) were black, 10 (11%) were Asian, 2 (2%) were Hispanic, and 1 (1%) was other. Most (91% [85/93]) wanted their primary care provider to be the source of information regarding screening mammography. Information needs included the next steps to take if the mammogram result was abnormal (89%), how the woman would be contacted (75%), and how quickly (71%). Women also wanted to know about the harms of false-positive (84%) and false-negative (82%) results, benefits of screening in prolonging life (73%), and risk of getting breast cancer (69%). Most women preferred to make the screening decision after considering their medical provider’s opinion (38%) or together with their medical provider (46%); fewer than 10% preferred that the decision be made by the woman or her provider alone.

Conclusions  Women cited specific information needs before initiating screening mammography, including screening logistics and potential harms and benefits of screening. They also wanted to participate in the decision-making process. Effective methods should be developed for communicating desired information before screening.

While most groups recommend routine screening mammography for women starting at age 40, they also encourage primary care providers to inform women about the benefits and potential harms of the procedure and to engage the women in shared decision making.15 However, the literature suggests that women often overestimate their risk of breast cancer6 and the benefits of screening68 and are not aware of the possible harms.8,9 In addition, little is known about whether and to what extent women wish to be involved in decision making regarding initiating screening.10 We conducted a survey to determine what information women wanted before initiating screening and what are their preferences for involvement in the decision-making process.

STUDY SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

We surveyed women aged 40 to 44 who were members of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, a large New England health maintenance organization, and who received care at Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates (HVMA), a 14-site multispecialty clinical group practice in the greater Boston area, serving approximately 300 000 patients. Women were identified before their first screening mammogram scheduled at one of the HVMA radiology sites. During the study period, the health maintenance organization insured approximately 60% of HVMA patients; the health maintenance organization has a long history of offering quality cancer prevention services to its membership (totaling approximately 800 000).

The study sample was identified using an automated radiology appointment system at HVMA. We excluded women with a mammogram, breast cancer, or breast surgery in the prior 5 years and those without a primary care visit within 1 year of the mammogram appointment. As an incentive to participate, a $2 donation to a breast cancer organization of the woman’s choice was made for every completed survey. The human subjects committees of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care and HVMA approved the study.

MEASURES

To determine the women’s information needs about screening mammography, participants were asked to rate the importance on a 5-point Likert scale (1, not at all important; to 5, extremely important) of having 10 specific elements of information before undergoing screening. Examples of information items included “your chances of getting breast cancer in the next 10 years,” “the chances that your mammogram may not find cancer that is actually there,” and “whether there is pain or discomfort involved in getting a mammogram.” The items were based on prior qualitative work in this area.9 The scale performed reliably (α=.87).

Preferences for involvement in the decision-making process were measured using a modified decisional control preferences scale.11 This 5-item instrument asked women to identify their preferences for involvement in decision making regarding screening mammography. Responses included preferring the screening decision to be made by the woman alone, by the woman after considering her medical provider’s opinion, together with her provider, and by the medical provider alone. The last option was whether she preferred to have the medical provider make all medical decisions.

We measured patient demographic characteristics, including breast cancer risk factors. We also measured provider characteristics, such as age, specialty, sex, and length of the patient-provider relationship.

DATA COLLECTION

During 16 months, on a biweekly basis, we sent surveys to all potentially eligible women 2 to 4 weeks before their scheduled mammography appointment. A reminder letter was sent 1 to 2 weeks after the initial mailing. Given the temporal nature of the eligibility criteria (ie, women who had already undergone screening were not eligible for participation), no additional contact was made if surveys were not returned following the reminder. Responses were entered into a database by the research team, and all were verified for accuracy.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

We used descriptive statistics for all outcome measures. We categorized and analyzed the independent variables, such as patient characteristics as shown in Table 1. All analyses were conducted using SAS software, version 8.2 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).

STUDY PARTICIPANTS

Surveys were sent to 291 potentially eligible women identified using our automated radiology systems. Among the 144 who responded, 96 were included in the analysis, 7 returned blank surveys or declined participation, and 41 declared they were not eligible for participation because they had had prior mammograms (that were not captured by our automated radiology record data). Due to the high rate of ineligibility (41/144 or 28%), we manually searched the computerized radiology records of a random 30% sample (n = 44) of the 147 nonrespondents and found that 11 (25%) were also ineligible because of prior mammograms, mostly done at outside facilities. Based on the 25% to 30% noneligibility rates, we estimate that 40 of the 147 nonrespondents were ineligible. This leads to an overall response rate of 47% (n=96) among 203 eligible women. Respondents and nonrespondents were similar in age (mean age, 41.0 and 41.3 years, respectively), time since their primary care appointment (mean, 135 and 133 days, respectively), and clinical center, a surrogate for area of residence and likely socioeconomic status (data not shown).

Most study participants were white, had an annual income of at least $40 000, and had some college education (Table 1). Four participants had a family history of breast cancer, and most had used oral contraceptives. The mammograms were ordered by 55 primary care providers, mostly physicians (n=37 or 67%), internists (n=35 or 64%), and women (n=46 or 84%). The length of the patient-provider relationships was variable, with 22 (23%) of 94 women reporting less than 1 year, 34 (36%) reporting 1 to 5 years, and 38 (40%) reporting more than 5 years. Most women reported 1 visit with the provider per year.

INFORMATION NEEDS

Most women (91%) preferred their primary care provider to be the source of information regarding screening mammography. As seen in Table 2, women were particularly interested in the logistical information before their first mammogram, such as which steps to take following an abnormal mammogram (89%), how they will be contacted (75%), and how quickly (71%). They were also interested in information about the harms of screening, such as chances of false-positive (84%) and false-negative (82%) mammogram results. Being informed about the benefits of screening and about breast cancer risk was also important (73% and 69%, respectively). Pain and cost were least-desired information items.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Women’s Information Needs Before Their First Screening Mammogram
PREFERENCES FOR INVOLVEMENT

When asked about their preferences for involvement in screening decisions, 7 (8%) preferred that the decision be made by the woman herself, 35 (38%) preferred that the decision be made by the woman after considering her medical provider’s opinion, 43 (46%) preferred that the woman and her medical provider share the decision, and 8 (9%) preferred that the medical provider make the screening decision. None preferred the provider to make all medical decisions.

While screening mammography for women in their 40s has been debated for decades, most national guidelines recommend routine screening for women in this age group but emphasize that women should be informed about its benefits and harms and engage in informed decision making.2,5 For women younger than 50, informed decision making regarding screening mammography is considered especially important because the risk for breast cancer is low, the benefits of screening appear to be slow, and the adverse effects are potentially significant.2,5,12 However, to our knowledge, what information women want before initiating screening mammography has not been previously published; preferences for involvement in decision making regarding screening have only been addressed in a Swiss study10 of women aged 50 to 69. Our findings suggest that women have information needs about screening that include the logistics of follow-up, the chances of having false-positive and false-negative results, and their risk of breast cancer. Most also wanted to participate in the decision making regarding initiating screening.

We found that having the logistical information, such as what are the next steps to take if the mammogram result is abnormal, how they will be contacted, and how quickly, was important to most women. There has been little emphasis on this type of information in the medical literature, although such information was included in a mammography clinical practice guideline developed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (formerly the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research).13 Whether the logistical information is best provided by the mammography technicians at the time of the procedure or by the primary care provider is unclear. If the former, primary care clinicians may be able to provide some anticipatory guidance. Online resources are available.14,15

Women were also interested in the harms of mammography, such as the chances of false-positive and false-negative results. A study12 in community-based mammography settings showed that, although the rate of false-positive results was low for a single mammogram (6.5%), the cumulative rate of experiencing at least 1 false-positive mammogram result during 10 years was 50% for a woman undergoing annual screening beginning at age 40. Although women value receiving information about the likelihood of false-positive results before screening, their anxiety following a false-positive result may not be reduced.16

Finally, we found that women wanted information about the risk of breast cancer. The overestimation of breast cancer risk has been documented6; therefore, estimating women’s actual risk and counseling them accordingly are needed.

We did not specifically ask about the importance of knowing about ductal carcinoma in situ before screening. It is estimated that more than 55 700 cases of ductal carcinoma in situ are diagnosed in the United States annually,17 a dramatic increase following the implementation of screening mammography.18 We (L.N., unpublished data, January 6, 2004) and others7 have found that most women undergoing screening are unaware of ductal carcinoma in situ; therefore, the possibility of being diagnosed with this disease is an additional issue that should be addressed.

Guidelines have placed a responsibility on primary care providers to engage women in informed decision making regarding screening mammography. Our study further strengthens this need from the perspective of the patients, who want to know their breast cancer risk and be advised about the benefits and potential harms of screening. However, because of lack of time or training, many providers are not equipped to provide this information and need further guidance.1923 Risk assessment and communication tools have the potential to assist medical providers, yet most have been developed for research purposes.2430 Several clinically applicable risk assessment tools30,31 and decision aids that provide women with information about screening and incorporate patient values32,33 are available online. Such tools may be helpful to providers and their patients before or during a discussion about screening; clinical office staff may assist in this process.

To our knowledge, none of the existing tools provide information on the newer potential screening technologies, such as ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging, although the emergence of such technologies,34,35 as well as new science about the most appropriate interval for screening36 and genetic markers,37 makes it even more important that providers are equipped to communicate information to women.

Finally, we found that most women wanted an active or collaborative involvement in decisions regarding screening. This finding is consistent with a recent Swiss study10 that surveyed women aged 50 to 69 and reinforces the need to better equip clinicians to provide women with information and engage them in the decision-making process.

Our study has limitations. First, the response rate of 47% was low, and respondents may have differed from nonrespondents. Because our intention was to survey women immediately before their first mammogram, there was a short time frame in which to respond to the survey. We did not contact the nonrespondents beyond the reminder letter, as the additional delay would have led to a response following the mammogram, thus potentially altering the woman’s information needs and preferences for involvement. In assessing the differences among the respondents and nonrespondents, we found the 2 groups similar by age, time since their primary care appointment, and clinical center. In addition, we found that many nonrespondents already had had a mammogram. Others may have postponed their appointments.

Even so, it is possible that nonrespondents may have had lesser or greater information needs than respondents. To address this possibility, we conducted a worst case/best case analysis using 1 SD from the mean percentage of women who indicated an item to be important. For example, the item most respondents thought important (mean ± SD, 89% ± 31%) was “What are the next steps if the mammogram shows an abnormality?” Assuming the mean response of nonrespondents was 1 SD higher or lower, 72% to 96% of the entire group would have thought the item important. Likewise, for the least important item among respondents (mean ± SD, 57% ± 50%), “Whether there is pain or discomfort involved in getting a mammogram,” the worst-case and best-case range is 30% to 79%. These results suggest that the effect of the nonrespondents would not significantly alter the overall rating of importance of these information items. Given the similarities between the respondents and nonrespondents, we believe that a more drastic difference in responses would be unlikely.

Finally, although our patient population had high representation of nonwhite women, the distribution of incomes was similar to the Massachusetts 2000 census data.38 Therefore, we believe that our study is generalizable to women in other clinical settings.

Women have specific information needs before initiating screening mammography, including the logistics, harms, and benefits, and prefer to participate in the decision-making process. Effective methods for communicating desired information and involving women in the decision-making process should be developed. It needs to be determined when the information should be provided and by whom.

Correspondence: Larissa Nekhlyudov, MD, MPH, Department of Ambulatory Care and Prevention, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, 133 Brookline Ave, Sixth Floor, Boston, MA 02215 (larissa_nekhlyudov@harvardpilgrim.org).

Accepted for Publication: February 21, 2005.

Financial Disclosure: None.

Funding/Support: This study was supported by cancer prevention training grant 5-R25-CA57711-10 from the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Md (Dr Nekhlyudov).

Previous Presentation: This study was presented in part at the 26th Annual Meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine; May 3, 2003; Vancouver, British Columbia.

Acknowledgment: We are grateful to Clarence Braddock, MD, MPH, for reviewing early drafts of the manuscript. We also acknowledge the assistance of Lynn Bergquist, RT(R), of the Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates.

Fletcher  SWElmore  JG Mammographic screening for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2003;3481672- 1680
PubMed Link to Article
Humphrey  LLHelfand  MChan  BKWoolf  SH Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002;137347- 360
PubMed Link to Article
Baines  CJ Mammography screening: are women really giving informed consent? (countering the counterpoint). J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;951512- 1513
PubMed Link to Article
Berg  AO Mammography screening: are women really giving informed consent? (counterpoint). J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;951511- 1512
PubMed Link to Article
Smith  RASaslow  DSawyer  KA  et al.  American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 2003;53141- 169
PubMed Link to Article
Black  WCNease  RF  JrTosteson  AN Perceptions of breast cancer risk and screening effectiveness in women younger than 50 years of age. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87720- 731
PubMed Link to Article
Schwartz  LMWoloshin  SSox  HCFischhoff  BWelch  HG US women’s attitudes to false positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: cross sectional survey. BMJ 2000;3201635- 1640
PubMed Link to Article
Lewis  CLPignone  MPSheridan  SLDowns  SMKinsinger  LS A randomized trial of three videos that differ in the framing of information about mammography in women 40 to 49 years old. J Gen Intern Med 2003;18875- 883
PubMed Link to Article
Nekhlyudov  LRoss-Degnan  DFletcher  SW Beliefs and expectations of women under 50 years old regarding screening mammography: a qualitative study. J Gen Intern Med 2003;18182- 189
PubMed Link to Article
Chamot  ECharvet  APerneger  TV Women’s preferences for doctor’s involvement in decisions about mammography screening. Med Decis Making 2004;24379- 385
PubMed Link to Article
Degner  LFKristjanson  LJBowman  D  et al.  Information needs and decisional preferences in women with breast cancer. JAMA 1997;2771485- 1492
PubMed Link to Article
Elmore  JGBarton  MBMoceri  VMPolk  SArena  PJFletcher  SW Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. N Engl J Med 1998;3381089- 1096
PubMed Link to Article
Bassett  LWHendrick  REBassford  TL  et al.  Clinical Practice Guideline Number 13: Quality Determinants of Mammography.  Rockville, Md Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Public Health Service, US Dept of Health and Human Services October1994;AHCPR publication 95-0632
National Cancer Institute Web site, Cancer facts. Available at: http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/5_28.htm. Accessed February 7, 2005
American Cancer Society Web site, Mammograms and other breast imaging procedures. Available at: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6X_Mammography_and_other_Breast_Imaging_Procedures_5.asp. Accessed February 7, 2005
Barton  MBMorley  DSMoore  S  et al.  Decreasing women’s anxiety after false-positive mammograms: a controlled trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96529- 538
PubMed Link to Article
Jemal  AMurray  TSamuels  AGhafoor  AWard  EThun  MJ Cancer statistics, 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 2003;535- 26
PubMed Link to Article
Ernster  VLBarclay  JKerlikowske  KGrady  DHenderson  C Incidence of and treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. JAMA 1996;275913- 918
PubMed Link to Article
Schwartz  LMWoloshin  SBlack  WCWelch  HG The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 1997;127966- 972
PubMed Link to Article
Kalet  ARoberts  JCFletcher  R How do physicians talk with their patients about risks? J Gen Intern Med 1994;9402- 404
PubMed Link to Article
Estrada  CBarnes  VCollins  CByrd  JC Health literacy and numeracy [letter]. JAMA 1999;282527
PubMed Link to Article
Dolan  NCLee  AMMcDermott  MM Age-related differences in breast carcinoma knowledge, beliefs, and perceived risk among women visiting an academic general medicine practice. Cancer 1997;80413- 420
PubMed Link to Article
Rimer  BKBriss  PAZeller  PKChan  ECWoolf  SH Informed decision making: what is its role in cancer screening? Cancer 2004;101 ((suppl)) 1214- 1228
PubMed Link to Article
Gail  MHBrinton  LAByar  DP  et al.  Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst 1989;811879- 1886
PubMed Link to Article
Claus  EBRisch  NThompson  WD Autosomal dominant inheritance of early-onset breast cancer: implications for risk prediction. Cancer 1994;73643- 651
PubMed Link to Article
Couch  FJDeShano  MLBlackwood  MA  et al.  BRCA1 mutations in women attending clinics that evaluate the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1997;3361409- 1415
PubMed Link to Article
Shattuck-Eidens  DMcClure  MSimard  J  et al.  A collaborative survey of 80 mutations in the BRCA1 breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene: implications of presymptomatic testing and screening. JAMA 1995;273535- 541
PubMed Link to Article
Frank  TSManley  SAOlopade  OI  et al.  Sequence analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2: correlation of mutations with family history and ovarian cancer risk. J Clin Oncol 1998;162417- 2425
PubMed
Berry  DAIversen  ES  JrGudbjartsson  DF  et al.  BRCAPRO validation, sensitivity of genetic testing of BRCA1/BRCA2, and prevalence of other breast cancer susceptibility genes. J Clin Oncol 2002;202701- 2712
PubMed Link to Article
 Breast cancer risk assessment tool. Available at: http://bcra.nci.nih.gov/brc. Accessed April 11, 2005
Harvard Center for Cancer Prevention Web site, Your disease risk. Available at: http://www.yourdiseaserisk.harvard.edu. Accessed February 7, 2005
CollaborativeCare.net Web site, Welcome. Available at: http://www.collaborativecare.net. Accessed February 7, 2005
American Academy of Family Physicians Web site, Breast cancer screening counseling tools. Available at: http://www.aafp.org/x19498.xml. Accessed February 7, 2005
Kriege  MBrekelmans  CTBoetes  C  et al.  Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med 2004;351427- 437
PubMed Link to Article
Irwig  LHoussami  Nvan Vliet  C New technologies in screening for breast cancer: a systematic review of their accuracy. Br J Cancer 2004;902118- 2122
PubMed
White  EMiglioretti  DLYankaskas  BC  et al.  Biennial versus annual mammography and the risk of late-stage breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;961832- 1839
PubMed Link to Article
Paik  SShak  STang  G  et al.  A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2004;3512817- 2826
PubMed Link to Article
 Census 2000 data for the state of Massachusetts. US Census Bureau Web site. Available at: http://www.census.gov/census2000/states/ma.html. Accessed February 7, 2005

Figures

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Women’s Information Needs Before Their First Screening Mammogram

References

Fletcher  SWElmore  JG Mammographic screening for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2003;3481672- 1680
PubMed Link to Article
Humphrey  LLHelfand  MChan  BKWoolf  SH Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002;137347- 360
PubMed Link to Article
Baines  CJ Mammography screening: are women really giving informed consent? (countering the counterpoint). J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;951512- 1513
PubMed Link to Article
Berg  AO Mammography screening: are women really giving informed consent? (counterpoint). J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;951511- 1512
PubMed Link to Article
Smith  RASaslow  DSawyer  KA  et al.  American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 2003;53141- 169
PubMed Link to Article
Black  WCNease  RF  JrTosteson  AN Perceptions of breast cancer risk and screening effectiveness in women younger than 50 years of age. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87720- 731
PubMed Link to Article
Schwartz  LMWoloshin  SSox  HCFischhoff  BWelch  HG US women’s attitudes to false positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: cross sectional survey. BMJ 2000;3201635- 1640
PubMed Link to Article
Lewis  CLPignone  MPSheridan  SLDowns  SMKinsinger  LS A randomized trial of three videos that differ in the framing of information about mammography in women 40 to 49 years old. J Gen Intern Med 2003;18875- 883
PubMed Link to Article
Nekhlyudov  LRoss-Degnan  DFletcher  SW Beliefs and expectations of women under 50 years old regarding screening mammography: a qualitative study. J Gen Intern Med 2003;18182- 189
PubMed Link to Article
Chamot  ECharvet  APerneger  TV Women’s preferences for doctor’s involvement in decisions about mammography screening. Med Decis Making 2004;24379- 385
PubMed Link to Article
Degner  LFKristjanson  LJBowman  D  et al.  Information needs and decisional preferences in women with breast cancer. JAMA 1997;2771485- 1492
PubMed Link to Article
Elmore  JGBarton  MBMoceri  VMPolk  SArena  PJFletcher  SW Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. N Engl J Med 1998;3381089- 1096
PubMed Link to Article
Bassett  LWHendrick  REBassford  TL  et al.  Clinical Practice Guideline Number 13: Quality Determinants of Mammography.  Rockville, Md Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Public Health Service, US Dept of Health and Human Services October1994;AHCPR publication 95-0632
National Cancer Institute Web site, Cancer facts. Available at: http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/5_28.htm. Accessed February 7, 2005
American Cancer Society Web site, Mammograms and other breast imaging procedures. Available at: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6X_Mammography_and_other_Breast_Imaging_Procedures_5.asp. Accessed February 7, 2005
Barton  MBMorley  DSMoore  S  et al.  Decreasing women’s anxiety after false-positive mammograms: a controlled trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96529- 538
PubMed Link to Article
Jemal  AMurray  TSamuels  AGhafoor  AWard  EThun  MJ Cancer statistics, 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 2003;535- 26
PubMed Link to Article
Ernster  VLBarclay  JKerlikowske  KGrady  DHenderson  C Incidence of and treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. JAMA 1996;275913- 918
PubMed Link to Article
Schwartz  LMWoloshin  SBlack  WCWelch  HG The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 1997;127966- 972
PubMed Link to Article
Kalet  ARoberts  JCFletcher  R How do physicians talk with their patients about risks? J Gen Intern Med 1994;9402- 404
PubMed Link to Article
Estrada  CBarnes  VCollins  CByrd  JC Health literacy and numeracy [letter]. JAMA 1999;282527
PubMed Link to Article
Dolan  NCLee  AMMcDermott  MM Age-related differences in breast carcinoma knowledge, beliefs, and perceived risk among women visiting an academic general medicine practice. Cancer 1997;80413- 420
PubMed Link to Article
Rimer  BKBriss  PAZeller  PKChan  ECWoolf  SH Informed decision making: what is its role in cancer screening? Cancer 2004;101 ((suppl)) 1214- 1228
PubMed Link to Article
Gail  MHBrinton  LAByar  DP  et al.  Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst 1989;811879- 1886
PubMed Link to Article
Claus  EBRisch  NThompson  WD Autosomal dominant inheritance of early-onset breast cancer: implications for risk prediction. Cancer 1994;73643- 651
PubMed Link to Article
Couch  FJDeShano  MLBlackwood  MA  et al.  BRCA1 mutations in women attending clinics that evaluate the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1997;3361409- 1415
PubMed Link to Article
Shattuck-Eidens  DMcClure  MSimard  J  et al.  A collaborative survey of 80 mutations in the BRCA1 breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility gene: implications of presymptomatic testing and screening. JAMA 1995;273535- 541
PubMed Link to Article
Frank  TSManley  SAOlopade  OI  et al.  Sequence analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2: correlation of mutations with family history and ovarian cancer risk. J Clin Oncol 1998;162417- 2425
PubMed
Berry  DAIversen  ES  JrGudbjartsson  DF  et al.  BRCAPRO validation, sensitivity of genetic testing of BRCA1/BRCA2, and prevalence of other breast cancer susceptibility genes. J Clin Oncol 2002;202701- 2712
PubMed Link to Article
 Breast cancer risk assessment tool. Available at: http://bcra.nci.nih.gov/brc. Accessed April 11, 2005
Harvard Center for Cancer Prevention Web site, Your disease risk. Available at: http://www.yourdiseaserisk.harvard.edu. Accessed February 7, 2005
CollaborativeCare.net Web site, Welcome. Available at: http://www.collaborativecare.net. Accessed February 7, 2005
American Academy of Family Physicians Web site, Breast cancer screening counseling tools. Available at: http://www.aafp.org/x19498.xml. Accessed February 7, 2005
Kriege  MBrekelmans  CTBoetes  C  et al.  Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med 2004;351427- 437
PubMed Link to Article
Irwig  LHoussami  Nvan Vliet  C New technologies in screening for breast cancer: a systematic review of their accuracy. Br J Cancer 2004;902118- 2122
PubMed
White  EMiglioretti  DLYankaskas  BC  et al.  Biennial versus annual mammography and the risk of late-stage breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;961832- 1839
PubMed Link to Article
Paik  SShak  STang  G  et al.  A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2004;3512817- 2826
PubMed Link to Article
 Census 2000 data for the state of Massachusetts. US Census Bureau Web site. Available at: http://www.census.gov/census2000/states/ma.html. Accessed February 7, 2005

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 19

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
Primary synchronous bilateral breast cancer. Indian J Cancer 2014 July-September;51(3):256-258.
Abolishing mammography screening programs? Eur J Cancer Prev Published online Dec 9, 2014.;
JAMAevidence.com

The Rational Clinical Examination
Effectiveness of CBE

The Rational Clinical Examination
Table 8-7 Mammography Screening Is Increasing as Clinical Breast Examination Is Decreasing