Volume 54 | Number S1 | February 2019

Abstract List

Leah S. Karliner, Celia Kaplan DrPH, Jennifer Livaudais‐Toman PhD, Karla Kerlikowske


To investigate mammography facilities’ follow‐up times, population vulnerability, system‐based processes, and association with cancer stage at diagnosis.

Data Sources

Prospectively collected from San Francisco Mammography Registry () 2005‐2011, California Cancer Registry 2005‐2012, facility survey 2012.

Study Design

We examined time to biopsy for 17 750 abnormal mammogram results (‐ 4/5), categorizing eight facilities as short or long follow‐up based on proportion of mammograms with biopsy at 30 days. We examined facility population vulnerability (race/ethnicity, language, education), and system processes. Among women with a cancer diagnosis, we modeled odds of advanced‐stage (≥b) cancer diagnosis by facility follow‐up group.

Data Extraction Methods

Merged , Cancer Registry and facility survey data.

Principal Findings

Facilities (N = 4) with short follow‐up completed biopsies by 30 days for 82% of mammograms compared with 62% for facilities with long follow‐up (N = 4) ( < 0.0001). All facilities serving high proportions of vulnerable women were long follow‐up facilities. The long follow‐up facilities had fewer radiologists, longer biopsy appointment wait times, and less communication directly with women. Having the index abnormal mammogram at a long follow‐up facility was associated with higher adjusted odds of advanced‐stage cancer ( 1.45; 95% 1.10‐1.91).


Providing mammography facilities serving vulnerable women with appropriate resources may decrease disparities in abnormal mammogram follow‐up and cancer diagnosis stage.