Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Adherence to recommendations for clinical follow-up after benign breast biopsy

  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose. Women who undergo a benign breast biopsy are at elevated risk for the subsequent development of breast cancer (BC). Therefore, appropriate clinical follow-up of a benign breast biopsy is important. The present study examines the extent and correlates of nonadherence with follow-up recommendations after a benign breast biopsy.

Methods. Women (n = 114) who had undergone a benign breast biopsy completed an initial telephone interview within 50 days of their biopsy (mean = 21 days). Additional telephone interviews were completed at 4 and 8 months post-biopsy. Measures of BC risk perception, general and BC-specific distress, BC-related attitudes and beliefs, social support, optimism, and informational coping style were completed. Specific recommendations for clinical follow-up and evidence of actual follow-up were obtained from medical records.

Results. Of 103 women given a specific recommendation for clinical follow-up, 34% were classified as nonadherent with follow-up recommendations. Logistic regression analyses indicated that nonadherent women were characterized by younger age, recommendations for follow-up by clinical breast examination alone, greater confidence in their ability to perform breast self-examination properly, higher perceived personal risk for BC, and greater BC-specific distress.

Conclusion. Despite the importance of appropriate clinical follow-up of a benign breast biopsy, about one-third of women did not adhere to recommended follow-up. Risk factors for nonadherence suggest potential avenues for interventions to enhance participation in appropriate clinical follow-up.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. de Koning HJ, Francheboud J, Boer R, Verbeek AL, Collette HJ, Hendriks JH, van Ineveld BM, de Bruyn AE, van derMaas PJ: Nation-wide breast cancer screening in The Netherlands: support for breast cancer mortality reduction. Int J Cancer 60: 777-780, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  2. Morrison AS, Brisson J, Khalid N: Breast cancer incidence and mortality in the breast cancer demonstration project. J Natl Cancer Inst 80: 1540-1547, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  3. Shapiro S, Venet W, Strax P, Venet L, Roeser R: Ten to 14-year effect of screening on breast cancer mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst 69: 349-355, 1982

    Google Scholar 

  4. Shapiro S, Venet W, Strax P, Venet L, Roeser R: Selection, follow-up, and analysis in the Health Insurance Plan Study: a randomized trial with breast cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 67: 65-74, 1985

    Google Scholar 

  5. Brenner RJ, Sickles EA: Acceptability of periodic followup as an alternative to biopsy for mammographically detected lesions interpreted as probably benign. Radiology 171: 645-646, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  6. Winchester DP, Lasky HJ, Sylvester J, Maher ML: A television-promoted mammography screening pilot project in the Chicago metropolitan area. CA Cancer J Clin 38: 291-309, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  7. Laya MB, Larson EB, Taplin SH, White E: Effect of estrogen replacement therapy on the sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 88: 643-649, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bodian CA, Perzin KH, Lattes R, Hoffmann P, Abernathy TG: Prognostic significance of benign proliferative breast disease. Cancer 71: 3896-3907, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  9. Carter CL, Corle DK, Micozzi MS, Schatzkin A, Taylor PR: A prospective study of the development of breast cancer in 16,692 women with benign breast disease. Am J Epidemiol 128: 467-477, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dupont WD, Page DL: Risk factors for breast cancer in women with proliferative breast disease. N Engl J Med 312: 146-151, 1985

    Google Scholar 

  11. London SJ, Connolly JL, Schnitt SJ, Colditz GA: A prospective study of benign breast disease and the risk of breast cancer. JAMA 267: 941-944, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  12. McDivitt RW, Stevens JA, Lee NC, Wingo PA, Rubin GL, Gersell D: Histologic types of benign breast disease and the risk for breast cancer. Cancer 69: 1408-1414, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  13. Baker F: Behavioral science applied to cancer screening. Curr Opin Oncol 10: 455-460, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bond JH: Colorectal cancer screening. Curr Opin Oncol 10: 461-466, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  15. Rimer BK: Mammography use in the US: trends and the impact of intervention. Ann Behav Med 16: 317-326, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  16. Eddy DM, Hasselblad V, McGivney W, Hendee W: The value of mammography screening in women under age 50 years. JAMA 259: 1512-1519, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lane DS: Compliance with referals from a cancer-screening project. J Fam Pract 17: 811-817, 1983

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lerman C, Hanjani P, Caputo C, Miller S, Delmoor E, Nolte S, Engstrom P: Telephone counseling improves adherence to colposcopy among lower-income minority women. J Clin Oncol 10: 300-303, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  19. McCarthy BD, Ulcikas YM, Boohaker EA, Ward RE, Rebner M, Johnson CC: Inadequate follow-up of abnormal mammograms. Am J Prev Med 12: 282-288, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  20. McCarthy BD, Yood MU, Janz NK, Boohaker EA, Ward RE, Johnson CC: Evaluation of factors potentially associated with inadequate follow-up of mamographic abnormalities. Cancer 77: 2070-2076, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  21. Benedict S, Williams R, Baron P: Recalled anxiety: from discovery to diagnosis of a benign breast mass. Oncol Nurs Forum 21: 1723-1727, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  22. Michielutte R, Diseker RA, Young LD, May WJ: Noncompliance in screening follow-up among family planning clinic patients with cervical dysplasia. Prev Med 14: 248-258, 1985

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hughes JE, Royle GT, Buchanan R, Taylor L: Depression and social stress among patients with benign breast disease. Br J Surg 73: 997-999, 1986

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hughson AVM, Cooper AF, McArdle CS, Smith DC: Psychosocial morbidity in patients awaiting breast biopsy. J Psychosom Res 32: 173-180, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  25. Northouse LL, Jeffs M, Cracchiolo-Caraway A, Lampman L, Dorris G: The emotional distress reported by women & husbands prior to a breast biopsy. Nurs Res 44: 196-201, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  26. Northouse LL, Tocco KM, West P: Coping with a breast biopsy: how healthcare professionals can help women and their husbands. Oncol Nurs Forum 24: 473-480, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  27. Scott D: Anxiety, critical thinking and information processing during and after breast biopsy. Nurs Res 32: 24-28, 1983

    Google Scholar 

  28. Chen CC, David A, Thompson K, Smith C, Lea S, Fahy T: Coping strategies and psychiatric morbidity in women attending breast assessment clinics. J Psychosom Res 40: 265-270, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  29. Lerman C, Rimer B, Trock B, Balshem A, Engstrom PF: Factors associated with repeat adherence to breast cancer screening. Prev Med 19: 279-290, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  30. Haefner DP, Becker MH, Janz NK, Rutt WM: Impact of a negative breast biopsy on subsequent breast self-examination practice. Patient Edu Counsel 14: 137-146, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  31. Janz NK, Becker MH, Haefner DP, Rutt WM, Weissfeld LA: Determinants of breast self-examination after a benign breast biopsy. Am J Prev Med 6: 84-92, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  32. Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP, Corle DK, Green SB, Schairer C, Mulvihill JJ: Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being screened annually. J Natl Cancer Inst 81: 1879-1886, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  33. Benichou J: A computer program for estimating individualized probabilities of breast cancer. Comput Biomed Res 26: 373-382, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  34. Steptoe A: An abbreviated version of the Miller behavioral style scale. Br J Clin Psychol 28: 183-184, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  35. Scheier MF, Carver CA: Optimism, coping, and health: assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychol 4: 219-247, 198

  36. Shacham S: A shortened version of the profile of mood states. J Pers Assess 47: 305-306, 1983

    Google Scholar 

  37. Radloff LS: The CES-D scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Measure 1: 385-401, 1977

    Google Scholar 

  38. Horowitz M, Wilner N, Alvarez W: Impact of event scale: a measure of subjective stress. Psychosom Med 41: 209-218, 1979

    Google Scholar 

  39. Broadhead WE, Gehlbach SH, De Gruy FV, Kaplan BH: The Duke-UNC functional social support questionnaire: measurement of social support in family medicine patients. Med Care 26: 709-723, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  40. Cunningham LLC, Andrykowski MA, Wilson JF, McGrath PC, Sloan DA, Kenady DE: Physical symptoms, distress, and breast cancer risk perceptions in women with benign breast problems. Health Psychol 17: 371-375, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  41. Lerman C, Trock B, Rimer BK, Jepson C, Brady D, Boyce A: Psychological side effects of breast cancer screening. Health Psychol 10: 259-267, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  42. Stark A, Hulka BS, Joens S, Novotny D, Thor AD, Wold LE, Schell MJ, Melton III LJ, Liu ET, Convay K: HER-2/neu amplification in benign breast disease and the risk of subsequent breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 18: 267-274, 2000

    Google Scholar 

  43. Alagna SW, Morokoff PJ, Bevett JM, Reddy DM: Performance of breast self-examination by women at high risk for breast cancer. Women Health 12: 29-46, 1987

    Google Scholar 

  44. Diefenbach MA, Miller SM, Daly MB: Specific worry about breast cancer predicts mammography use in women at risk for breast and ovarian cancer. Health Psychol 18: 532-536, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  45. Greenwald HP, Becker SW, Nevitt MC: Delay and noncompliance in cancer detection: A behavioral perspective for health planners. Milbank Q 56: 212-230, 1978

    Google Scholar 

  46. Kash KM, Holland JC, Halper MS, Miller DG: Psychological distress and surveillance behaviors of women with a family history of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 84: 24-30, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  47. Macdonald LA, Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Taylor DW: Labelling in hypertension: a review of the behavioural and psychological consequences. J Chronic Dis 37: 933-942, 1984

    Google Scholar 

  48. Leventhal H: Findings and theory in the study of fear communications. In: Berkowitz L (ed) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol 5, Academic Press, New York, 1970, pp 1208-1224

    Google Scholar 

  49. Leventhal H, Zimmerman R, Guttmann M: Compliance: a self-regulation perspective. In: Gentry DW (ed) Handbook of Behavioral Medicine. Guilford Press, New York, 1984, pp 369-436

    Google Scholar 

  50. American Cancer Society: Cancer Facts and Figures-1998. American Cancer Society, Atlanta, 1998, p 31

    Google Scholar 

  51. NIH Consensus Development Panel: National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement: breast cancer screening for women ages 40-49, January 21-23, 1997. J Natl Cancer Inst 89: 1015-1026, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  52. Kash KM, Holland JC, Osborne MP, Miller DG: Psychological counseling strategies for women at risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 17: 73-79, 199

  53. Lerman C, Lustbader E, Rimer B, Daly M, Miller S, Sands C, Balshem A: Effects of individualized breast cancer risk counseling: a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 87: 286-292, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  54. Lerman C, Schwartz MD, Miller SM, Daly M, Sands C, Rimer BK: A randomized trial of breast cancer risk counseling: interacting effects of counseling, educational level & coping style. Health Psychol 15: 75-83, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  55. Lerman C, Ross E, Boyce A, McGovern Gorchov P, Mclaughlin R, Rimer B, Engstrom P: The impact of mailing psychoeducational materials to women with abnormal mammograms. Am J Pub Health 82: 729-730, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  56. Manfredi C, Lacey L, Warnecke R: Results of an intervention to improve compliance with referrals for evaluation of suspected malignancies at neighborhood public health centers. Am J Pub Health 80: 85-87, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  57. Miller SM, Siejak KK, Schroeder CM, Lerman C, Hernandez E, Helm CW: Enhancing adherence following abnormal Pap smears among low income minority women: a preventive telephone counseling strategy. J Natl Cancer Inst 89: 703-708, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  58. Paskett ED, White E, Carber WB, Chu J: Improving followup after an abnormal pap smear: a randomized controlled trial. Prev Med 19: 630-641, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  59. Schwartz MD, Lerman C, Audra in J, Cella D, Rimer B, Stefanek M, Garber J, Lin TH, Vogel V: The impact of a brief problem-solving training intervention for relatives of recently diagnosed breast cancer patients. Ann Behav Med 20: 7-12, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  60. Schwartz MD, Rimer BK, Daly M, Sands C, Lerman C: A randomized trial of breast cancer risk counseling: the impact on self-reported mammography use. Am J Pub Health 89: 924-926, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  61. McBride CM, Scholes D, Grothaus LC, Curry SJ, Ludman E, Albright J: Evaluation of a minimal self-help smoking cessation intervention following cervical cancer screening. Prev Med 29: 133-138, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  62. Nutting PA: Health promotion in primary medical care: problems and potential. Prev Med 15: 537-548, 1986

    Google Scholar 

  63. Schilling A, Conaway MR, Wingate PJ, Atkins JN, Berkowitz IM, Clamon GH, DiFino SM, Vinciguerra V: Recruiting cancer patients to participate in motivating their relatives to quit smoking: a cancer control study of the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB 9072). Cancer 79: 152-160, 1997

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Behavioral Science, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, KY, USA

    Michael A. Andrykowski, Jamie L. Studts & Wendy Mager

  2. School of Nursing, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA

    Janet S. Carpenter

  3. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA

    Matthew J. Cordova

  4. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA

    Lauren L.C. Cunningham

  5. Department of Surgery, University of Kentucky College of Medicine and University of Kentucky Comprehensive Breast Care Center, Lexington, KY, USA

    David Sloan, Daniel Kenady & Patrick McGrath

Authors
  1. Michael A. Andrykowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Janet S. Carpenter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jamie L. Studts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matthew J. Cordova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lauren L.C. Cunningham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Wendy Mager
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. David Sloan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Daniel Kenady
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Patrick McGrath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Andrykowski, M.A., Carpenter, J.S., Studts, J.L. et al. Adherence to recommendations for clinical follow-up after benign breast biopsy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 69, 165–178 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012272031953

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012272031953

Search

Navigation