Abstract A04: The distribution of mammography facility and census tract characteristics in Chicago.
Authors: Khan Jenna , Orsi Jennifer , Rauscher Garth , Murphy Anne Marie , Dupuy Danielle 
Published: August 2014

Introduction: Living in neighborhoods with greater socioeconomic disadvantage has been associated with lower use of preventive services and later stage at breast cancer diagnosis. Unequal distribution of quality mammography screening services may contribute to these associations. We compared the distribution of mammography facility characteristics with census tract level measures of social disadvantage and affluence in Chicago. Methods: An index of social disadvantage was defined from 2010 census tract data on the percentage of: families below the poverty line, families receiving public cash assistance, families receiving food stamps, unemployed persons, and female-headed households with children. An index of affluence was defined from the percentage of: families with incomes of $100,000 or more, adults with a college education or more, and in the civilian labor force in a white collar job. High disadvantage and high affluence were each defined as &gt;1 standard deviation above the mean of the corresponding index. Low disadvantage and low affluence were each defined as &gt;1 standard deviation below the mean of the corresponding index. Mammography facilities participating in the Metropolitan Chicago Breast Cancer Task Force 2010 Mammography Capacity Survey were categorized by American College of Radiology accredited Breast Imaging Center of Excellence (BICOE) designation, whether they offered diagnostic mammography, whether they had at least one breast imaging dedicated radiologist on staff (&gt;75% time spent reading breast images), and whether they used digital vs. analog mammography machines. A one-mile buffer was created around facilities to calculate the percentage of nearby tracts with more or less disadvantage and affluence. Results: 47 of the 49 mammography facilities located in or within 1 mile of the Chicago city boundary participated in the survey. More socially disadvantaged tracts were less likely than less socially disadvantaged tracts to be located near any facility (47% vs. 66%), BICOE designated facilities (7% vs. 36%), facilities that offer diagnostic mammography (44% vs. 52%, p=0.21), facilities with at least one breast imaging dedicated radiologist (31% vs. 60%) or facilities with digital machines (32% vs. 53%). Likewise, less affluent tracts were less likely than more affluent tracts be located near any facility (30% vs. 77%), BICOE designated facilities (1% vs. 37%), facilities that offer diagnostic mammography (23% vs. 61%), facilities with at least one breast imaging dedicated radiologist (27% vs. 71%) or facilities with digital machines (16% vs. 61%). All p values were &lt;.01 with the exception noted above. Conclusions: There is an unequal geographic distribution of mammography facilities with higher quality screening characteristics by areas of social disadvantage and affluence in Chicago. This inequity may be a contributing factor to the association between these disadvantaged areas and late stage breast cancer diagnosis.

Citation Format: Jenna Khan, Jennifer Orsi, Garth Rauscher, Anne Marie Murphy, Danielle Dupuy. The distribution of mammography facility and census tract characteristics in Chicago. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Fifth AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2012 Oct 27-30; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2012;21(10 Suppl):Abstract nr A04.