ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND

Early detection of melanoma may provide an opportunity to positively impact melanoma mortality. Numerous skin cancer educational interventions have been developed for primary care physicians (PCPs) to improve diagnostic accuracy. Standardized training is also a prerequisite for formal testing of melanoma screening in the primary care setting.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a systematic review to determine the extent of evaluated interventions designed to educate PCPs about skin cancer, including melanoma.

DESIGN

Relevant studies in the English language were identified through systemic searches performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, and Cochrane through December 2010. Supplementary information was obtained from corresponding authors of the included studies when necessary.

APPROACH

Studies eligible for inclusion formally evaluated skin cancer education interventions and were designed primarily for PCPs. Excluded studies lacked a specified training intervention, used decision-making software, focused solely on risk factor identification, or did not directly educate or assess participants. Twenty studies met the selection criteria. Data were extracted according to intervention content and delivery format, and study outcomes.

KEY RESULTS

All interventions included instructions about skin cancer diagnosis, but otherwise varied in content. Curricula utilized six distinct educational techniques, usually incorporating more than one. Intervention duration varied from 12 min to over 6 h. Eight of the 20 studies were randomized trials. Most studies (18/20, 90%) found a significant improvement in at least one of the following five outcome categories: knowledge, competence, confidence, diagnostic performance, or systems outcomes. Competence was most commonly measured; no study evaluated all categories. Variability in study design, interventions, and outcome measures prevented correlation of outcomes with intervention characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the development of many isolated educational interventions, few have been tested rigorously or evaluated under sufficient standardized conditions to allow for quantitative comparison. Improved and rigorously tested skin cancer educational interventions for PCPs with outcome measures focusing on changes in performance are needed.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11606-011-1692-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A 44-year-old woman who is a new patient has no known current health problems and no family history of breast or ovarian cancer. Eighteen months ago, she had a normal screening mammogram. She recently read that mammograms may not help to prevent death from breast cancer and that “the patient should decide.” But she does not think she knows enough. She worries that there is a breast-cancer epidemic. What should her physician advise?

Context

Breast cancer screening in community practices may be different from that in randomized controlled trials. New screening modalities are becoming available.

Objectives

To review breast cancer screening, especially in the community and to examine evidence about new screening modalities.

Data Sources and Study Selection

English-language articles of randomized controlled trials assessing effectiveness of breast cancer screening were reviewed, as well as meta-analyses, systematic reviews, studies of breast cancer screening in the community, and guidelines. Also, studies of newer screening modalities were assessed.

Data Synthesis

All major US medical organizations recommend screening mammography for women aged 40 years and older. Screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality by about 20% to 35% in women aged 50 to 69 years and slightly less in women aged 40 to 49 years at 14 years of follow-up. Approximately 95% of women with abnormalities on screening mammograms do not have breast cancer with variability based on such factors as age of the woman and assessment category assigned by the radiologist. Studies comparing full-field digital mammography to screen film have not shown statistically significant differences in cancer detection while the impact on recall rates (percentage of screening mammograms considered to have positive results) was unclear. One study suggested that computer-aided detection increases cancer detection rates and recall rates while a second larger study did not find any significant differences. Screening clinical breast examination detects some cancers missed by mammography, but the sensitivity reported in the community is lower (28% to 36%) than in randomized trials (about 54%). Breast self-examination has not been shown to be effective in reducing breast cancer mortality, but it does increase the number of breast biopsies performed because of false-positives. Magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound are being studied for screening women at high risk for breast cancer but are not recommended for screening the general population. Sensitivity of magnetic resonance imaging in high-risk women has been found to be much higher than that of mammography but specificity is generally lower. Effect of the magnetic resonance imaging on breast cancer mortality is not known. A balanced discussion of possible benefits and harms of screening should be undertaken with each woman.

Conclusions

In the community, mammography remains the main screening tool while the effectiveness of clinical breast examination and self-examination are less. New screening modalities are unlikely to replace mammography in the near future for screening the general population.

Prior studies have shown that young patient age at diagnosis is associated with an increased risk of local recurrence (LR) among women with DCIS treated with breast-conserving therapy. Whether this can be explained by differences in clinical or pathologic features of DCIS according to age is an unresolved issue. We compared clinical and pathologic features of DCIS among 657 women in four age groups: <45 years (n=111), 45–54 years (n=191), 55–64 years (n=160), and 65+ years (n=195). DCIS presented as a mammographic abnormality less often in younger than in older women (68%, 82%, 81% and 86% for women <45, 45–54, 55–64 and 65+ years, respectively; p=0.003). Among the pathologic features analyzed, DCIS extent as determined by the number of low power fields (LPF) was greater in younger than in older women (mean #LPF 18.6, 14.2, 10.8 and 11.3 in women <45, 45–54, 55–64 and 65+ years; p<0.001). In addition, cancerization of lobules was present more often in younger than in older women (77%, 73%, 66%, and 50% for women <45, 45–54, 55–64 and 65+ years, respectively; p<0.0001). Of note, we found no statistically significant relationship between age and DCIS architectural pattern, nuclear grade, comedo necrosis or expression of ER, PR or HER2. We conclude that DCIS in younger women is more often symptomatic, is more extensive, and more often shows cancerization of lobules than DCIS in older women. Whether these features contribute to the higher LR risk in young women with DCIS treated with breast-conserving therapy requires further study.

Purpose

Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is an effective treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) but women who undergo BCS remain at risk for recurrences. Whether mammographic surveillance after BCS occurs and by whom is not known.

Methods

We reviewed medical records of women diagnosed with DCIS between 1990 and 2001 and treated with BCS. Using descriptive statistics, generalized estimating, and logistic regression modeling, we examined the rates and predictors of surveillance mammography over a 10-year period after BCS.

Results

The cohort included 3,037 women observed for a median of 4.8 years (range, 0.5 to 15.7). Of the 2,676 women observed for at least 1 year after BCS, most (79%) had at least one surveillance mammogram during the first year of follow-up; 69% in year 5 and 61% in year 10. Among those observed for 5 years, surveillance mammograms were more likely among women age 60 to 69 years (odds ratio [OR], 1.72; 95% CI, 1.26 to 2.34), users of menopausal hormone therapy at diagnosis (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.57) as well as those treated with adjuvant radiation (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.53) and adjuvant radiation with tamoxifen (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.13 to 2.30). Surveillance mammograms were less likely among obese women (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.86). The findings were similar among women observed for 10 years. Only 34% and 15% of women observed for 5 and 10 years, respectively, had a surveillance mammogram during each year of follow-up.

Conclusion

Surveillance mammography after BCS among insured women with DCIS often did not occur yearly and declined over time after treatment. Patients and providers must remain vigilant about surveillance after BCS.

Introduction

Randomized trials indicate that adjuvant radiotherapy plus tamoxifen decrease the five-year risk of recurrence among ductal carcinoma in situ patients treated with breast-conserving surgery from about 20% to 8%. The aims of this study were to examine the use and impact of these therapies on risk of recurrence among ductal carcinoma in situ patients diagnosed and treated in the community setting.

Methods

We identified 2,995 patients diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ between 1990 and 2001 and treated with breast-conserving surgery at three large health plans. Medical charts were reviewed to confirm diagnosis and treatment and to obtain information on subsequent breast cancers. On a subset of patients, slides from the index ductal carcinoma in situ were reviewed for histopathologic features. Cumulative incidence curves were generated and Cox regression was used to examine changes in five-year risk of recurrence across diagnosis years, with and without adjusting for trends in use of adjuvant therapies.

Results

Use of radiotherapy increased from 25.8% in 1990-1991 to 61.3% in 2000-2001; tamoxifen increased from 2.3% to 34.4%. A total of 245 patients had a local recurrence within five years of their index ductal carcinoma in situ. The five-year risk of any local recurrence decreased from 14.3% (95% confidence interval 9.8 to 18.7) for patients diagnosed in 1990-1991 to 7.7% (95% confidence interval 5.5 to 9.9) for patients diagnosed in 1998-1999; invasive recurrence decreased from 7.0% (95% confidence interval 3.8 to 10.3) to 3.1% (95% confidence interval 1.7 to 4.6). In Cox models, the association between diagnosis year and risk of recurrence was modestly attenuated after accounting for use of adjuvant therapy. Between 1990-1991 and 2000-2001, the proportion of patients with tumors with high nuclear grade decreased from 46% to 32% (P = 0.03) and those with involved surgical margins dropped from 15% to 0% (P = 0.03).

Conclusions

The marked increase in the 1990s in the use of adjuvant therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ patients treated with breast-conserving surgery in the community setting only partially explains the 50% decline in risk of recurrence. Changes in pathology factors have likely also contributed to this decline.

Objective

To investigate whether decreased anxiety associated with immediate reading of screening mammograms resulted in lower downstream utilization and costs among women with false-positive mammograms.

Data Sources/Study Setting

We identified 1,140 women,≥age 40, with false-positive mammograms and 12-month follow-up after participating in a trial of immediate versus batch mammographic reading between February 1999 and January 2001 in a multispecialty group managed care practice in Massachusetts.

Study Design

We determined downstream utilization and costs for study participants by immediate and batch reading status.

Data Collection/Extraction Methods

Demographic, comorbidity, and medical care utilization data were obtained from survey data and computerized medical record databases. Costs included direct medical costs, patient time, travel and copayments, and additional professional time costs associated with immediate reading.

Principal Findings

Immediate reading cost an additional $4.40 per screening mammogram. Women with immediate readings had more follow-up mammograms (781 versus 750, p = 0.018) and fewer diagnostic ultrasounds (176 versus 219, p = 0.016) than women with batch readings. Costs to the health plan for breast care were approximately 10 percent higher for immediate readings in multivariable analyses (p = 0.046), but no significant difference was seen in total societal costs (p = 0.072).

Conclusions

Immediate mammogram reading was associated with increased costs to the health plan and changes in follow-up radiology procedures. These costs must be examined alongside beneficial effects of immediate reading.

OBJECTIVE

Because shared decision making has been recommended for screening mammography by women under age 50, we studied women's decision-making process regarding the procedure.

DESIGN

Qualitative research design using in-depth semi-structured interviews.

PATIENTS

Sixteen white and African-American women aged 38 to 45 receiving care at a large New England medical practice.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We identified the following content areas in women's decision-making process: intentions for screening, motivating factors to undergo screening, attitudes toward screening mammography, attitudes toward breast cancer, and preferences for information and shared decision making. In our sample, all women had or intended to have a screening mammogram before age 50. They were motivated by the awareness of the recommendation to begin screening at age 40, knowing others with breast cancer, and a sense of personal responsibility for their health. Participants feared breast cancer and thought the benefits of screening mammography far outweighed its risks. Women's preferences for involvement in decision making varied from wanting full responsibility for screening decisions to deferring to their medical providers. All preferred the primary care provider to be the main source of information, yet the participants stated that their own providers played a limited role in educating them about the risks and benefits of screening and the mammography procedure itself. Most of their information was derived from the media.

CONCLUSIONS

The women in this study demonstrated little ambivalence in their desire for mammography screening prior to age 50. They reported minimal communication with their medical providers about the risks and benefits of screening. Better information flow regarding mammography screening is necessary. Given the lack of uncertainty among women's perceptions regarding screening mammography, shared decision making in this area may be difficult to achieve.

OBJECTIVE

To measure how often a breast-related concern was documented in medical records after screening mammography according to the mammogram result (normal, or true-negative vs false-positive) and to measure changes in health care utilization in the year after the mammogram.

DESIGN

Cohort study.

SETTING

Large health maintenance organization in New England.

PATIENTS

Group of 496 women with false-positive screening mammograms and a comparison group of 496 women with normal screening mammograms, matched for location and year of mammogram.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

1) Documentation in clinicians' notes of patient concern about the breast and 2) ambulatory health care utilization, both breast-related and non–breast-related, in the year after the mammogram. Fifty (10%) of 496 women with false-positive mammograms had documentation of breast-related concern during the 12 months after the mammogram, compared to 1 (0.2%) woman with a normal mammogram (P = .001). Documented concern increased with the intensity of recommended follow-up (P = .009). Subsequent ambulatory visits, not related to the screening mammogram, increased in the year after the mammogram among women with false-positive mammograms, both in terms of breast-related visits (incidence ratio, 3.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.69 to 5.93) and non-breast-related visits (incidence ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.25).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians document concern about breast cancer in 10% of women who have false-positive mammograms, and subsequent use of health care services are increased among women with false-positive mammogram results.

Background

Little is known about using the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) in physical diagnosis courses. The purpose of this study was to describe student performance on an OSCE in a physical diagnosis course.

Methods

Cross-sectional study at Harvard Medical School, 1997–1999, for 489 second-year students.

Results

Average total OSCE score was 57% (range 39–75%). Among clinical skills, students scored highest on patient interaction (72%), followed by examination technique (65%), abnormality identification (62%), history-taking (60%), patient presentation (60%), physical examination knowledge (47%), and differential diagnosis (40%) (p < .0001). Among 16 OSCE stations, scores ranged from 70% for arthritis to 29% for calf pain (p < .0001). Teaching sites accounted for larger adjusted differences in station scores, up to 28%, than in skill scores (9%) (p < .0001).

Conclusions

Students scored higher on interpersonal and technical skills than on interpretive or integrative skills. Station scores identified specific content that needs improved teaching.

OBJECTIVE

To examine racial differences in breast cancer screening in an HMO that provides screening at no cost.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study of breast cancer screening among African-American and white women. Breast cancer screening information was extracted from computerized medical records.

SETTING

A large HMO in New England.

PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS

White and African-American women (N =2,072) enrolled for at least 10 years in the HMO.

MAIN RESULTS

Primary care clinicians documented recommending a screening mammogram significantly more often for African Americans than whites (70% vs 64%; P <.001). During the 10-year period, on average, white women obtained more mammograms (4.49 vs 3.93; P <.0001) and clinical breast examinations (5.35 vs 4.92; P <.01) than African-American women. However, a woman's race was no longer a statistically significant predictor of breast cancer screening after adjustment for differences in age, estimated household income, estrogen use, and body mass index (adjusted number of mammograms, 4.47 vs 4.25, P =.17; and adjusted number of clinical breast examinations, 5.35 vs 5.31, P =.87).

CONCLUSIONS

In this HMO, African-American and white women obtained breast cancer screening at similar rates. Comparisons with national data showed much higher screening rates in this HMO for both white and African-American women.

As part of a new automated ambulatory medical record, a computerized outpatient medication system was developed for a teaching hospital general medicine group practice. Seven months after its implementation, the system was evaluated to determine physician acceptance and approval. Practice physicians were surveyed, and 94% of the respondents approved of the system. Over 90% thought that the computerized system had improved the completeness and accuracy of medication information as well as their own efficiency in prescription writing. Eighteen percent thought it had influenced their prescribing patterns. These perceived improvements in medication information and the prescription process may mean that patient care has improved as a result of the new computerized system.

Background

Previous studies have shown that the agreement among radiologists interpreting a test set of mammograms is relatively low. However, data available from real-world settings are sparse. We studied mammographic examination interpretations by radiologists practicing in a community setting and evaluated whether the variability in false-positive rates could be explained by patient, radiologist, and/or testing characteristics.

Methods

We used medical records on randomly selected women aged 40–69 years who had had at least one screening mammographic examination in a community setting between January 1, 1985, and June 30, 1993. Twenty-four radiologists interpreted 8734 screening mammograms from 2169 women. Hierarchical logistic regression models were used to examine the impact of patient, radiologist, and testing characteristics. All statistical tests were two-sided.

Results

Radiologists varied widely in mammographic examination interpretations, with a mass noted in 0%–7.9%, calcification in 0%–21.3%, and fibrocystic changes in 1.6%–27.8% of mammograms read. False-positive rates ranged from 2.6% to 15.9%. Younger and more recently trained radiologists had higher false-positive rates. Adjustment for patient, radiologist, and testing characteristics narrowed the range of false-positive rates to 3.5%–7.9%. If a woman went to two randomly selected radiologists, her odds, after adjustment, of having a false-positive reading would be 1.5 times greater for the radiologist at higher risk of a false-positive reading, compared with the radiologist at lowest risk (95% highest posterior density interval [similar to a confidence interval] = 1.17 to 2.08).

Conclusion

Community radiologists varied widely in their false-positive rates in screening mammograms; this variability range was reduced by half, but not eliminated, after statistical adjustment for patient, radiologist, and testing characteristics. These characteristics need to be considered when evaluating false-positive rates in community mammographic examination screening.

Background

Millions of women receive clinical breast examination (CBE) each year, as either a breast cancer screening test or a diagnostic test for breast symptoms. While screening CBE had moderately high specificity (∼94%) in clinical trials, community clinicians may be comparatively inexperienced and may conduct relatively brief examinations, resulting in even higher specificity but lower sensitivity.

Objective

To estimate the specificity of screening and diagnostic CBE in clinical practice and identify patient factors associated with specificity.

Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Subjects

Breast-cancer-free female health plan enrollees in 5 states (WA, OR, CA, MA, and MN) who received CBE (N = 1,484).

Measurements

Medical charts were abstracted to ascertain breast cancer risk factors, examination purpose (screening vs diagnostic), and results (true-negative vs false-positive). Women were considered “average-risk” if they had neither a family history of breast cancer nor a prior breast biopsy and “increased-risk” otherwise.

Results

Among average- and increased-risk women, respectively, the specificity (true-negative proportion) of screening CBE was 99.4% [95% confidence interval (CI): 98.8–99.7%] and 97.1% (95% CI: 95.7–98.0%), and the specificity of diagnostic CBE was 68.7% (95% CI: 59.7–76.5%) and 57.1% (95% CI: 51.1–63.0%). The odds of a true-negative screening CBE (specificity) were significantly lower among women at increased risk of breast cancer (adjusted odds ratio 0.21; 95% CI: 0.10–0.46).

Conclusions

Screening CBE likely has higher specificity among community clinicians compared to examiners in clinical trials of breast cancer screening, even among women at increased breast cancer risk. Highly specific examinations, however, may have relatively low sensitivity for breast cancer. Diagnostic CBE, meanwhile, is relatively nonspecific.

Background

Millions of women receive clinical breast examination (CBE) each year, as either a breast cancer screening test or a diagnostic test for breast symptoms. While screening CBE had moderately high specificity (∼94%) in clinical trials, community clinicians may be comparatively inexperienced and may conduct relatively brief examinations, resulting in even higher specificity but lower sensitivity.

Objective

To estimate the specificity of screening and diagnostic CBE in clinical practice and identify patient factors associated with specificity.

Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Subjects

Breast-cancer-free female health plan enrollees in 5 states (WA, OR, CA, MA, and MN) who received CBE (N = 1,484).

Measurements

Medical charts were abstracted to ascertain breast cancer risk factors, examination purpose (screening vs diagnostic), and results (true-negative vs false-positive). Women were considered “average-risk” if they had neither a family history of breast cancer nor a prior breast biopsy and “increased-risk” otherwise.

Results

Among average- and increased-risk women, respectively, the specificity (true-negative proportion) of screening CBE was 99.4% [95% confidence interval (CI): 98.8–99.7%] and 97.1% (95% CI: 95.7–98.0%), and the specificity of diagnostic CBE was 68.7% (95% CI: 59.7–76.5%) and 57.1% (95% CI: 51.1–63.0%). The odds of a true-negative screening CBE (specificity) were significantly lower among women at increased risk of breast cancer (adjusted odds ratio 0.21; 95% CI: 0.10–0.46).

Conclusions

Screening CBE likely has higher specificity among community clinicians compared to examiners in clinical trials of breast cancer screening, even among women at increased breast cancer risk. Highly specific examinations, however, may have relatively low sensitivity for breast cancer. Diagnostic CBE, meanwhile, is relatively nonspecific.