Lack of Impact of the 2009 USPSTF Guidelines on Rates of Mammography Screening

Overview

Journal J Womens Health (Larchmt)

Specialty Gynecology & Obstetrics

Date 2018 Mar 28

PMID 29583065

Citations 3

Authors

Clare Brown

Adrienne Nevola

Bradley C Martin

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: In November 2009, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) changed their mammography screening guidelines from recommending a screen every 1-2 years for women older than 40 years. The revised guideline recommends against regular screening for women aged 40-49 and recommends biennial screening for women aged 50-74.

Research Design: We used autoregressive integrated moving-average (ARIMA) time series modeling to estimate the effect of the USPSTF 2009 guidelines on trends in screening rates. Enrollment and encounter files from the PharMetrics LifeLink+ commercial insurance claims database, years 2006-2014, were linked to determine monthly screening rates. The main outcome measure was mammography screening rates per 1,000 commercially insured women aged 40-49 or aged 50-64.

Results: The study sample included 493,347 women aged 40-49 years with at least 1 month of eligibility and 658,052 women aged 50-64 years with at least 1 month of eligibility. There were 1,305,375 total screening mammograms from 2007 to 2014. Average monthly mammography screening rates from 2007 to 2014 were 40.4 per 1,000 women aged 40-49 and 54.8 per 1,000 women aged 50-64. There was a temporary decline in monthly screening rates of 11.8% and 11.2% for the 40-49 and 50-64 age groups, respectively, in the 2-month period after the guideline change (January and February 2010), but the rates quickly returned to pre-USPSTF trend levels afterward.

Conclusion: Implementation of the USPSTF 2009 guidelines was not associated with a persistent long-term change in mammography screening rates over the next 5 years, despite a temporary decline of 2 months immediately following the guidelines.

Citing Articles

Socioeconomic and Geographic Differences in Mammography Trends Following the 2009 USPSTF Policy Update.

Semprini J, Saulsberry L, Olopade O JAMA Netw Open. 2025; 8(2):e2458141.

PMID: 39908017 PMC: 11800017. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.58141.

Patient perspectives on health care provider practices leading to an axial spondyloarthritis diagnosis: an exploratory qualitative research study.

Lapane K, Dube C, Ferrucci K, Khan S, Kuhn K, Yi E BMC Fam Pract. 2021; 22(1):251.

PMID: 34930136 PMC: 8691008. DOI: 10.1186/s12875-021-01599-2.

A framework for personalized mammogram screening.

Mudaranthakam D, Park M, Thompson J, Alsup A, Krebill R, Chollet Hinton L Prev Med Rep. 2021; 23:101446.

PMID: 34168953 PMC: 8209666. DOI: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101446.

Willingness to decrease mammogram frequency among women at low risk for hereditary breast cancer.

Guan Y, Nehl E, Pencea I, Condit C, Escoffery C, Bellcross C Sci Rep. 2019; 9(1):9599.

PMID: 31270367 PMC: 6610104. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-45967-6.

References

Brodersen J, Siersma V . Long-term psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening mammography. Ann Fam Med. 2013; 11(2):106-15. PMC: 3601385. DOI: 10.1370/afm.1466. View

Wang A, Fan J, Van Houten H, Tilburt J, Stout N, Montori V . Impact of the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines on screening mammography rates on women in their 40s. PLoS One. 2014; 9(3):e91399. PMC: 3950187. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0091399. View

Jorgensen K, Keen J, Gotzsche P . Is mammographic screening justifiable considering its substantial overdiagnosis rate and minor effect on mortality?. Radiology. 2011; 260(3):621-7. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.11110210. View

Blustein J . Medicare coverage, supplemental insurance, and the use of mammography by older women. N Engl J Med. 1995; 332(17):1138-43. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199504273321706. View

Guo J, Curkendall S, Jones J, Fife D, Goehring E, She D . Impact of cisapride label changes on codispensing of contraindicated medications. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2003; 12(4):295-301. DOI: 10.1002/pds.830. View

Squiers L, Holden D, Dolina S, Kim A, Bann C, Renaud J . The public's response to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force's 2009 recommendations on mammography screening. Am J Prev Med. 2011; 40(5):497-504. DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2010.12.027. View

Howard D, Adams E . Mammography rates after the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force breast cancer screening recommendation. Prev Med. 2012; 55(5):485-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.09.012. View

Fenton J, Zhu W, Balch S, Smith-Bindman R, Fishman P, Hubbard R . Distinguishing screening from diagnostic mammograms using Medicare claims data. Med Care. 2012; 52(7):e44-51. PMC: 3534834. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e318269e0f5. View

Wagner A, Soumerai S, Zhang F, Ross-Degnan D . Segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series studies in medication use research. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2002; 27(4):299-309. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2710.2002.00430.x. View

10.

Block L, Jarlenski M, Wu A, Bennett W . Mammography use among women ages 40-49 after the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation. J Gen Intern Med. 2013; 28(11):1447-53. PMC: 3797359. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-013-2482-5. View

11.

Gonzales F, Taplin S, Yu M, Breen N, Cronin K . Receipt of mammography recommendations among White and non-White women before and after the 2009 United States Preventive Services Task Force recommendation change. Cancer Causes Control. 2016; 27(8):977-87. DOI: 10.1007/s10552-016-0775-9. View

12.

Jiang M, Hughes D, Duszak Jr R . Screening Mammography Rates in the Medicare Population before and after the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Guideline Change: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis. Womens Health Issues. 2015; 25(3):239-45. DOI: 10.1016/j.whi.2015.03.002. View

13.

. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151(10):716-26, W-236. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-10-200911170-00008. View

14.

Nelson H, Tyne K, Naik A, Bougatsos C, Chan B, Humphrey L . Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151(10):727-37, W237-42. PMC: 2972726. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-10-200911170-00009. View

15.

Tabar L, Fagerberg C, Gad A, Baldetorp L, Holmberg L, GRONTOFT O . Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Randomised trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Lancet. 1985; 1(8433):829-32. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(85)92204-4. View

16.

Holder H, Wagenaar A . Effects of the elimination of a state monopoly on distilled spirits' retail sales: a time-series analysis of Iowa. Br J Addict. 1990; 85(12):1615-25. DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1990.tb01651.x. View

17.

Biglan A, Ary D, Wagenaar A . The value of interrupted time-series experiments for community intervention research. Prev Sci. 2001; 1(1):31-49. PMC: 4553062. DOI: 10.1023/a:1010024016308. View

18.

DeSantis C, Ma J, Bryan L, Jemal A . Breast cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013; 64(1):52-62. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21203. View

19.

Pace L, He Y, Keating N . Trends in mammography screening rates after publication of the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations. Cancer. 2013; 119(14):2518-23. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.28105. View

20.

Hirth J, Kuo Y, Lin Y, Berenson A . Regional variation in mammography use among insured women 40-49 years old: impact of a USPSTF guideline change. J Health Sci (El Monte). 2015; 3(4):174-182. PMC: 4672998. DOI: 10.17265/2328-7136/2015.04.006. View