Abstract P4-10-06: Factors impacting the accuracy of self-reported breast procedures among women with and without breast cancer

Marcy L. Schaeffer, B. May, A. Cimino-Mathews, Mikiaila M. Orellana, Michelle S. McCullough, B. Hogan, D. Armstrong, K. Visvanathan
{"title":"Abstract P4-10-06: Factors impacting the accuracy of self-reported breast procedures among women with and without breast cancer","authors":"Marcy L. Schaeffer, B. May, A. Cimino-Mathews, Mikiaila M. Orellana, Michelle S. McCullough, B. Hogan, D. Armstrong, K. Visvanathan","doi":"10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs18-p4-10-06","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Clinical/epidemiologic observational studies frequently rely on participants9 recall for information about breast procedures. However, there is limited data on the accuracy of self-reported breast procedures. To address this knowledge gap and inform future study design and collection and interpretation of similar data, we investigated the impact of type, diagnosis, age, time, and other patient characteristics on the accuracy of self-report in a prospective cohort. Methods: All benign breast biopsies, lumpectomies, and mastectomies for breast cancer treatment among women enrolled in the BOSS Cohort, a prospective study of women and men with a familial risk of breast/ovarian cancer, were identified. Study staff obtained pathology reports for 93% of women from self-reported breast procedure locations. For this analysis, we focused on 577 women who had at least one ascertained pathology report, and who self-reported at least one breast procedure at baseline. We estimated the percentage of self-reports (95% confidence interval (CI)) with matching pathology report within 6 months (+/- 6 months), and agreement between self-reported procedures and pathology-confirmed diagnoses (normal/benign vs. atypical hyperplasia vs. LCIS, and DCIS vs. invasive cancer) with the Kappa statistic. We also examined predictors of an accurate biopsy self-report, including age at baseline, personal and family history of breast cancer, educational attainment, and time between biopsy and baseline, using logistic regression models. Results: At baseline, 158 women reported having at least one benign biopsy, 193 women reported having a lumpectomy for cancer treatment, and 174 women reported having a mastectomy for cancer treatment. The median time between biopsy, lumpectomy, mastectomy, and baseline was 9 years, 2 years, and 2 years, respectively. Fifty-seven percent (95% CI: 49-64.5%) of benign biopsy self-reports, 90.7% (95% CI: 85.6-94.1%) of lumpectomy self-reports, and 85.1% (95% CI: 78.9-89.7%) of mastectomy self-reports had a matching pathology report within 6 months. Further diagnostic agreement was moderate for biopsies, lumpectomies, and mastectomies with Kappa statistics of 0.65, 0.66, 0.65, respectively. Age at baseline (p-interaction =0.01) and time (p-interaction = 0.03) were independent and joint predictors of accurate biopsy self-reports. Women less than 49 years old had the largest reduction in odds of having an accurate self-report (26%) for every additional year between biopsy and baseline [adjusted odds ratio = 0.74 (95% CI: 0.63-0.88)]. Similarly, women with a biopsy within 4 years prior to baseline had a 10% reduction in the odds of having an accurate self-report with increasing age [adjusted odds ratio = 0.9 (95% CI: 0.84-0.97)]. Conclusions: In this highly-educated cohort, the overall accuracy of self-report of benign biopsies was only modest, and the accuracy of self-report of lumpectomies and mastectomies was lower than expected. This study suggests that age at baseline and time between procedure and baseline are important predictors of accuracy of self-report and should be considered when utilizing self-reported information. Furthermore, where possible, prospective collection of breast procedure data should be prioritized. Citation Format: Schaeffer ML, May B, Cimino-Mathews A, Orellana M, McCullough M, Hogan B, Armstrong D, Visvanathan K. Factors impacting the accuracy of self-reported breast procedures among women with and without breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-10-06.","PeriodicalId":20307,"journal":{"name":"Poster Session Abstracts","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Poster Session Abstracts","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs18-p4-10-06","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Clinical/epidemiologic observational studies frequently rely on participants9 recall for information about breast procedures. However, there is limited data on the accuracy of self-reported breast procedures. To address this knowledge gap and inform future study design and collection and interpretation of similar data, we investigated the impact of type, diagnosis, age, time, and other patient characteristics on the accuracy of self-report in a prospective cohort. Methods: All benign breast biopsies, lumpectomies, and mastectomies for breast cancer treatment among women enrolled in the BOSS Cohort, a prospective study of women and men with a familial risk of breast/ovarian cancer, were identified. Study staff obtained pathology reports for 93% of women from self-reported breast procedure locations. For this analysis, we focused on 577 women who had at least one ascertained pathology report, and who self-reported at least one breast procedure at baseline. We estimated the percentage of self-reports (95% confidence interval (CI)) with matching pathology report within 6 months (+/- 6 months), and agreement between self-reported procedures and pathology-confirmed diagnoses (normal/benign vs. atypical hyperplasia vs. LCIS, and DCIS vs. invasive cancer) with the Kappa statistic. We also examined predictors of an accurate biopsy self-report, including age at baseline, personal and family history of breast cancer, educational attainment, and time between biopsy and baseline, using logistic regression models. Results: At baseline, 158 women reported having at least one benign biopsy, 193 women reported having a lumpectomy for cancer treatment, and 174 women reported having a mastectomy for cancer treatment. The median time between biopsy, lumpectomy, mastectomy, and baseline was 9 years, 2 years, and 2 years, respectively. Fifty-seven percent (95% CI: 49-64.5%) of benign biopsy self-reports, 90.7% (95% CI: 85.6-94.1%) of lumpectomy self-reports, and 85.1% (95% CI: 78.9-89.7%) of mastectomy self-reports had a matching pathology report within 6 months. Further diagnostic agreement was moderate for biopsies, lumpectomies, and mastectomies with Kappa statistics of 0.65, 0.66, 0.65, respectively. Age at baseline (p-interaction =0.01) and time (p-interaction = 0.03) were independent and joint predictors of accurate biopsy self-reports. Women less than 49 years old had the largest reduction in odds of having an accurate self-report (26%) for every additional year between biopsy and baseline [adjusted odds ratio = 0.74 (95% CI: 0.63-0.88)]. Similarly, women with a biopsy within 4 years prior to baseline had a 10% reduction in the odds of having an accurate self-report with increasing age [adjusted odds ratio = 0.9 (95% CI: 0.84-0.97)]. Conclusions: In this highly-educated cohort, the overall accuracy of self-report of benign biopsies was only modest, and the accuracy of self-report of lumpectomies and mastectomies was lower than expected. This study suggests that age at baseline and time between procedure and baseline are important predictors of accuracy of self-report and should be considered when utilizing self-reported information. Furthermore, where possible, prospective collection of breast procedure data should be prioritized. Citation Format: Schaeffer ML, May B, Cimino-Mathews A, Orellana M, McCullough M, Hogan B, Armstrong D, Visvanathan K. Factors impacting the accuracy of self-reported breast procedures among women with and without breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-10-06.
P4-10-06:影响乳腺癌和非乳腺癌女性自我报告乳房手术准确性的因素
背景:临床/流行病学观察性研究经常依赖于参与者对乳房手术信息的回忆。然而,关于自我报告乳房手术的准确性的数据有限。为了解决这一知识差距,并为未来的研究设计、收集和解释类似数据提供信息,我们在前瞻性队列中调查了类型、诊断、年龄、时间和其他患者特征对自我报告准确性的影响。方法:在BOSS队列(一项对具有乳腺癌/卵巢癌家族风险的女性和男性进行的前瞻性研究)中,对所有参与乳腺癌治疗的女性进行了良性乳腺活检、乳房肿瘤切除术和乳房切除术。研究人员从自我报告的乳房手术地点获得了93%的妇女的病理报告。在这项分析中,我们重点研究了577名至少有一份明确的病理报告,并在基线时自我报告至少一次乳房手术的妇女。我们估计了6个月内(+/- 6个月)自我报告与病理报告相匹配的百分比(95%置信区间(CI)),以及自我报告的程序与病理确诊诊断(正常/良性vs.非典型增生vs. LCIS, DCIS vs.浸润性癌)之间的一致性与Kappa统计。我们还检查了准确活检自我报告的预测因素,包括基线年龄、个人和家族史、教育程度、活检和基线之间的时间,使用逻辑回归模型。结果:在基线时,158名妇女报告至少有一次良性活检,193名妇女报告为癌症治疗而进行乳房肿瘤切除术,174名妇女报告为癌症治疗而进行乳房切除术。活检、乳房肿瘤切除术、乳房切除术和基线之间的中位时间分别为9年、2年和2年。57% (95% CI: 49-64.5%)的良性活检自我报告,90.7% (95% CI: 85.6-94.1%)的乳房肿瘤切除术自我报告,85.1% (95% CI: 78.9-89.7%)的乳房切除术自我报告在6个月内有匹配的病理报告。活检、肿瘤和乳房切除术的进一步诊断一致性中等,Kappa统计值分别为0.65、0.66和0.65。基线年龄(p-交互作用=0.01)和时间(p-交互作用= 0.03)是准确活检自我报告的独立和联合预测因子。在活检和基线之间每增加一年,49岁以下的女性获得准确自我报告的几率降低最大(26%)[校正优势比= 0.74 (95% CI: 0.63-0.88)]。同样,在基线前4年内进行活检的女性,随着年龄的增长,获得准确自我报告的几率降低10%[校正优势比= 0.9 (95% CI: 0.84-0.97)]。结论:在这个高学历的队列中,良性活检自我报告的总体准确性仅为中等,肿瘤和乳房切除术自我报告的准确性低于预期。本研究表明,基线年龄和手术与基线之间的时间是自我报告准确性的重要预测因素,在使用自我报告信息时应予以考虑。此外,在可能的情况下,应优先考虑乳房手术数据的前瞻性收集。引用格式:Schaeffer ML, May B, Cimino-Mathews A, Orellana M, McCullough M, Hogan B, Armstrong D, Visvanathan K.影响乳腺癌妇女自我报告乳房手术准确性的因素[摘要]。2018年圣安东尼奥乳腺癌研讨会论文集;2018年12月4-8日;费城(PA): AACR;癌症杂志,2019;79(4增刊):P4-10-06。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信