Benefits Of Mammography Research Articles

Cost–benefit analysis of mammography screening: the perspective of Nigerian healthcare providers

IntroductionThere is no national breast cancer screening implemented in Nigeria. The National Cancer Control Plan (NCCP) has a goal of making screening services and early detection of cancer available for...

Quality assurance in Mammography: An overview

Since 1989, hundreds of thousands of lives have been saved worldwide by the widespread use of screening mammography alongside new developments in breast cancer treatment [1]. The ability of screening mammography to detect cancer early, when treatment is most effective, is optimized when it is performed in the highest quality manner and accessed by all eligible candidates. Currently, worldwide, there are over 14 guidance documents for mammographic quality [2]. Some countries, such as the United Kingdom (UK), monitor quality through a national screening program. In the United States (US), where 39 million mammograms are performed annually [3], there is not a national screening program, but the federal government mandates minimum quality standards for the performance of mammography. Among a consortium of European countries, the European Reference Organisation for Quality Assured Breast Screening and Diagnostic Services (EUREF) promotes voluntary adherence to European mammography quality standards. Setting quality standards at national or international levels ensures the uniformity of practice and identifies substandard practices in need of improvement, ultimately maximizing the benefit of screening mammography.

Women's health belief levels towards breast cancer: Example of three countries

Objective: This research aims to compare the health belief levels of women towards breast cancer by country.
 Material and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted with 431 women living in Turkey, Nigeria and India between December 2021 and April 2022 in order to examine the health belief levels of women towards breast cancer.
 Results: In our study, the mean score of Sensitivity Perception of individuals was 7.10±3.30, Caring/seriousness perception 17.02±5.91, Health motivation 21.09±3.65, BSE self-efficacy 31.28±12.34, BSE benefits 15.40±4.07, BSE barriers 21.38±6.40, Mammography benefits 18.76±4.62, and Mammography Barriers was 29.15±9.65. A significant difference was found in all sub-dimensions of the participants in the study, except for the mammography barriers, which are among the sub-dimensions of health beliefs about breast cancer (p<0.05).
 Conclusion: It was determined that all sub-dimensions of the participants in the study differed, except for the mammography barriers, which are among the sub-dimensions of health belief towards breast cancer.

Cancer Screening Experiences of Black Breast and Ovarian Cancer Patients and Family Members.

Black women experience disproportionate rates of advanced breast cancer diagnoses and mortality. Mammography is a proven and effective tool in early breast cancer detection and impacts patient outcomes. We interviewed Black women with a personal or family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer to understand their screening experiences and views. N = 61 individuals completed an interview. Interview transcripts were qualitatively analyzed for themes regarding clinical experiences, guideline adherence, and family sharing specific to Black women and their families. Most participants were college educated with active health insurance. Women in this cohort were knowledgeable about the benefits of mammography and described few barriers to adhering to annual mammogram guidelines. Some with first-degree family history were frustrated at insurance barriers to mammography before the age of 40. Participants were generally comfortable encouraging family and friends to receive mammograms and expressed a desire for a similar screening tool for ovarian cancer. However, they expressed concern that factors such as screening awareness and education, lack of insurance coverage, and other systematic barriers might prevent other Black women from receiving regular screening. Black women in this cohort reported high adherence to mammography guidelines, but expressed concern about cultural and financial barriers that may impact cancer screening access in the population more generally and contribute to disparities. Participants noted the importance of frank and open discussions of breast cancer screening in their families and community as a means of improving awareness.

Scientific uncertainty and perceived mammography benefits in women screened for breast cancer

Personal aversion to scientific uncertainty may influence how women perceive the benefits of mammography, a breast cancer screening practice with conflicting scientific opinions and guidelines. Such associations may even exist among women who participate in screening. We evaluated the distribution of aversion to ambiguous medical information (AA-Med), using a 6-item scale capturing the level of agreement with statements about obtaining a cancer screening test with conflicting medical recommendations in 665 women (aged 40-60years; 79.5% Hispanic) recruited during screening mammography appointments in New York City. We assessed the association of AA-Med with perceptions of benefits of mammography (breast cancer mortality reduction, worry reduction, early detection, treatment improvement) using multivariable logistic regression. Over a quarter of participants expressed negative reactions to medical ambiguity about a cancer screening test (e.g., fear, lower trust in experts), but a majority endorsed intention to undergo screening. AA-Med was higher in women who were U.S.-born, non-Hispanic black, and had marginal to adequate health literacy, but there were no differences by clinical factors or screening experiences (e.g., family history, prior breast biopsy). Women with higher AA-Med were more likely to perceive treatment benefits from mammography (OR = 1.37, 95% CI = 0.99-1.90), but AA-Med was not associated with other perceived mammography benefits. Aversion to uncertainty regarding cancer screening varies by sociodemographic characteristics but has limited associations with perceived mammography benefits in women who already participate in screening.

The Benefits of Screening Mammography

The Benefits of Screening Mammography

Mammographic Screening in Routine Practice: Multisite Study of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammography Screenings.

Background The use of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is increasing over digital mammography (DM) following studies demonstrating lower recall rates (RRs) and higher cancer detection rates (CDRs). However, inconsistent interpretation of evidence on the risks and benefits of mammography has resulted in varying screening mammography recommendations. Purpose To evaluate screening outcomes among women in the United States who underwent routine DM or DBT mammographic screening. Materials and Methods This retrospective cohort study included women aged 40-79 years who underwent DM or DBT screening mammograms between January 2014 and December 2020. Outcomes of RR, CDR, positive predictive value of recall (PPV1), biopsy rate, and positive predictive value of biopsy (PPV3) were compared between DM and DBT with use of adjusted multivariable logistic regression models. Results A total of 2 528 063 screening mammograms from 1 100 447 women (mean age, 57 years ± 10 [SD]) were included. In crude analyses, DBT (1 693 727 screening mammograms vs 834 336 DM screening mammograms) demonstrated lower RR (10.3% [95% CI: 10.3, 10.4] for DM vs 8.9% [95% CI: 8.9, 9.0] for DBT; P < .001) and higher CDR (4.5 of 1000 screening mammograms [95% CI: 4.3, 4.6] vs 5.3 of 1000 [95% CI: 5.2, 5.5]; P < .001), PPV1 (4.3% [95% CI: 4.2, 4.5] vs 5.9% [95% CI: 5.7, 6.0]; P < .001), and biopsy rates (14.5 of 1000 screening mammograms [95% CI: 14.2, 14.7] vs 17.6 of 1000 [95% CI: 17.4, 17.8]; P < .001). PPV3 was similar between cohorts (30.0% [95% CI: 29.2, 30.9] for DM vs 29.3% [95% CI: 28.7, 29.9] for DBT; P = .16). After adjustment for age, breast density, site, and index year, associations remained stable with respect to statistical significance. Conclusion Women undergoing digital breast tomosynthesis had improved screening mammography outcomes compared with women who underwent digital mammography. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Bae and Seo in this issue.

Breast Cancer Screening: Is There Room for De-escalation?

Breast cancer screening is highly controversial and different agencies have widely varying guidelines. Yet it is currently used extensively in the USA and frequently the thought is "the more, the better." The purpose of this review is to objectively assess the risks and benefits of screening mammography and consider whether there may be areas where it could be de-escalated. Over the past few years, there have been several meta-analyses that are concordant, and it is now agreed that the main benefit of screening mammography is about a 20% reduction in breast cancer mortality. This actually benefits about 5% of patients with mammographically detected tumors. We now appreciate that the main harm of screening is overdiagnosis, i.e. detection of a cancer that will not cause the patient any harm and would not have ever been detected without the screening. This currently represents about 20 to 30% of screening detected cancers. Finding extra cancers with more intense screening is not always good, because in this situation, the risk of overdiagnosis increases and the benefit decreases. In some groups, the risk of overdiagnosis approaches 75%. Our goal should be not only to find more cancers, but to avoid finding cancers that would never have caused the patient any harm and lead to unnecessary treatment. The authors suggest some situations where it may be reasonable to de-escalate screening.

A Mixed Method Approach to Examine Surveillance Mammography Experiences in Black and White Breast Cancer Survivors

PurposeThe use of surveillance mammography following a breast cancer (BC) diagnosis is associated with early detection of disease relapse and increased overall survival; yet Black women compared to White women have the lowest surveillance mammography rates, with limited explanation. To further understand this racial disparity the present study examines the association of mammography beliefs, knowledge, and healthcare delivery factors on receipt of surveillance mammography among Black and White breast cancer survivors. MethodsThis is a convergent parallel mixed method study design of an online survey and online focus groups among Black and White BC survivors (N = 266) recruited from community engagement. The online focus groups consisted of a series of theory-informed questions via social media platforms (eg Breastcancer.org, Quora, Reddit). An in-depth thematic analysis approach was used to extract themes from online focus group data. Bivariate (χ2) and multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted using the survey data to examine associated factors with receipt of a surveillance mammography within 12 months (yes vs. no). Results76% (n = 177) of women were Black, 62% were <5 years since diagnosis, 98% had health insurance, with an age range from 23 to 79 (mean = 55) years. 72% of the sample received a surveillance mammogram relative to 27%. Women more frequently received a surveillance mammogram if they reported perceived mammography benefits (<.001), underwent lumpectomy (P< .001) and had health insurance (P = .04). Black women without communication about surveillance care with providers had a lower likelihood of receiving a surveillance mammogram (OR:0.09,95% CI: 0.01-0.45, P = .003). Thematic findings from online focus groups included motivators for receipt of surveillance mammograms: physician recommendation, regular physical exams, and knowledge of recommended guidelines. Barriers of non-receipt of surveillance mammograms included: transportation, medical cost/financial barriers, feeling ignored from providers, and medical mistrust. ConclusionWomen may require more individualized information regarding their surveillance care to support routine guideline concordant follow-up. Patient-provider-communication is an integral part of Black survivors’ surveillance care needs. Improving patient-provider communication for Black women's is necessary to address this group cancer care needs.

Stage IV Non-breast Cancer Patients and Screening Mammography: It is Time to Stop.

Patients diagnosed with metastatic cancer have shortened life expectancy with questionable benefit of routine screening mammography (SM). The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence and consequences of continued SM in the setting of reduced survival from stage IV non-breast cancer. Women diagnosed with Stage IV non-breast cancer at a single institution from 2015 to 2019 were queried from the institutional tumor registry for demographics, stage IV cancer diagnosis, and survival. Incidence and timing of SM after stage IV diagnosis and further diagnostic workup were extracted from the medical record. 790 women with Stage IV non-breast cancer were identified, 109 (14%) had at least 1 SM, 23% required diagnostic mammography, 7% breast biopsy, and 1% breast surgery. No breast cancers were identified. SM was ordered most often in stage IV gynecological cancers (28%), with more common cancers still seeing a high percentage of patients screened (lung 10%, colorectal 15%). Study 3-year survival was 26% (95% confidence interval [CI] 23-30%), with 74% mortality during follow up and median time from Stage IV diagnosis to death of 1.2 years (CI 0.4-2.3years). Of patients screened, 41/109 died within 2 years of undergoing SM. Despite low overall survival for patients diagnosed with metastatic non-breast cancer, 14% of women underwent SM which resulted in additional imaging, biopsies, and surgery with no new breast cancers identified. Continued SM in this population offers risk without benefit of reduced breast cancer mortality and should no longer continue in women with stage IV non-breast cancer.

Surveillance mammography in older breast cancer survivors: Current practice patterns and patient perceptions

IntroductionAlthough the benefits of surveillance mammography for older breast cancer survivors have not been quantified prospectively, it is unlikely that mammography provides substantial benefit (and possible that mammography is harmful) to women with limited life expectancy and a low risk for in-breast cancer events. Materials and MethodsWe identified 1268 women aged 77 and older with a history of Stage I-III breast cancer, who did not undergo bilateral mastectomy, were diagnosed with cancer at least three years prior to study entry, and who had consented to be surveyed as part of the Mayo Clinic Breast Disease Registry. We mailed them a one-time survey asking about their experiences with surveillance mammography. Women with metastatic disease were excluded. The primary endpoint was whether or not women reported at least one mammogram since breast cancer surgery. ResultsEight hundred forty-six of 1268 (67%) returned the survey, 734 of whom were eligible for analysis. The median age at the time of survey was 82, and the median time since cancer diagnosis was 12 years. Ninety-three percent reported having had at least one mammogram since their initial breast cancer surgery. Seventy-nine percent reported that they had surveillance mammography annually over the prior three years, including 76% of the 491 aged 80+ and 64% of the 189 aged 85 + . DiscussionMost older breast cancer survivors who have residual breast tissue are undergoing annual mammograms. Additional educational materials may be beneficial for patients and clinicians to better individualize plans for surveillance mammography in older breast cancer survivors.

Abstract 5941: A simulation modeling study to support personalized breast cancer prevention and early detection in high-risk women

Abstract Purpose: To evaluate the impact of early detection with screening and primary prevention with risk-reducing medication to provide personalized data that will help identify women who are more likely to benefit from various interventions or combinations of interventions with the least harms. Methods: We adapted the CISNET microsimulation model G-E of breast cancer natural history to evaluate the harms and benefits of annual mammography and risk reducing medication among high-risk women (i.e., 5-year risk greater than or equal to 3%). Model G-E is a discrete event microsimulation model that follows millions of women from birth to death and captures the variability in distributions of each event. Each simulated woman is assigned a cohort-specific life expectancy which is used to select a date of breast cancer death. For this study, we dynamically updated the risk of developing breast cancer for each simulated woman based on her family history, breast density, age and history of biopsy. We used large observational and clinical trial data to derive input parameters for cohort-specific birth rates, incidence and stage without screening, other cause mortality by age, screening performance (sensitivity/specificity), survival by age, stage, and subtype without treatment, treatment efficacy, and other cause mortality. We compared model outcomes for screening alone vs. screening with a 5-year course of risk reducing medication. We modeled various screening strategies including annual or biennial screening starting at ages 35, 40, 45 and stopping at ages 65 and 74 years. Model outcomes for each strategy included, the benefits of risk-reducing drugs (avoiding breast cancer) and screening (breast cancer stage, breast cancer-specific survival), and harms of screening (false positives, overdiagnosis). We also conducted sensitivity analysis to estimate the effects of uncertainty in model inputs or assumptions on results. Results: We found that risk reducing medication could result in an additional 28% decrease in invasive breast cancer incidence, 20% decrease in stage IV diagnosis, and a 30% decrease in breast cancer death if screening started at age 35 in a high-risk woman. However, potential breast density changes due to risk reducing medication among high-risk women could result in a 19% increase in false positive screening results compared to screening alone. The results varied by the starting age of screening. Conclusions: Simulation modeling is useful in assessing the relative benefits and harms of screening and risk reducing medication in high-risk women. Citation Format: Jinani Jayasekera, Amy Zhao. A simulation modeling study to support personalized breast cancer prevention and early detection in high-risk women [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 5941.

Factors Associated with Mammography Screening Among Women Living in Rural Areas.

AIM:This study aims to assess the factors of mammography screening among women living in rural areas.Method:The study was planned in a cross-sectional type. The sample of the study consisted of 139 women admitted to two family health centers in Istanbul who were aged 40 and over, literate, not pregnant or breastfeeding, and not diagnosed with breast cancer. Data was collected between July and November 2018. Data were collected using interview form, Breast Cancer Health Belief Model Subscales of Susceptibility, health motivation, mammography benefits, mammography barriers, Mammography Self- Efficacy Scale, Breast Cancer Fear Scale, Breast Cancer Fatalism Scale, and Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Form. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics, Mann–Whitney U test, Kruskal–Wallis, chi-square test, and logistic regression analysis.Results:Most of the women were in the age group of 40–50 years (66%), graduated primary school (69%), were married (91%), and were not working (80%). Most of the women had middle-income (78%) and health insurance (88%). In the study, the rate of having had mammography in the last 2 years was 25%. The rate of mammography screening was significantly higher in women who knew mammography, who had a referral for mammography screening from health professionals, and who had health insurance (p < .05). Perceived benefits to mammography, perceived barriers to mammography, perceived self-efficacy, and perceived health motivation were significantly higher in women having mammography (p < .05).Conclusion:In the study, marital status, receiving health professionals’ referral regarding mammography screening, mammography self-efficacy, perceived barriers to mammography, and breast cancer risk level (p < .05) were factors associated with having mammography.

Mobile Mammography Services and Underserved Women.

Breast cancer, the second most common cause of cancer in women, affects people across different ages, ethnicities, and incomes. However, while all women have some risk of breast cancer, studies have found that some populations are more vulnerable to poor breast cancer outcomes. Specifically, women with lower socioeconomic status and of Black and Hispanic ethnicity have been found to have more advanced stages of cancer upon diagnosis. These findings correlate with studies that have found decreased use of screening mammography services in these underserved populations. To alleviate these healthcare disparities, mobile mammography units are well positioned to provide convenient screening services to enable earlier detection of breast cancer. Mobile mammography services have been operating since the 1970s, and, in the current pandemic, they may be extremely helpful. The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly disrupted necessary screening services, and reinstatement and implementation of accessible mobile screenings may help to alleviate the impact of missed screenings. This review discusses the history and benefits of mobile mammography, especially for underserved women.

The Fundamental Flaws of the CNBSS Trials: A Scientific Review.

Although the two Canadian National Breast Screening Study (CNBSS) trials were performed 40 years ago, their negative findings continue to heavily influence screening policies around the world. These policies, based on underestimates of the mortality reduction attributable to mammography particularly for women in the 40-49-year age range, contribute to increased mortality and morbidity from breast cancer. This review summarizes principles of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and evaluates the compliance of the CNBSS1 and CNBSS2 RCTs in the context of these principles. We describe the fundamental flaws of the CNBSS trials, which failed to demonstrate mortality benefit of screening mammography and contribute to their being the only two outlier studies of eight screening mammography RCTs. The most significant flaws of the trials are (1) inadequate power to detect significant differences in breast cancer mortality; (2) very poor quality mammography with low sensitivity and cancer detection rates; (3) inclusion of women with symptoms of breast cancer; and (4) study design that allowed for violation of the randomization of the allocation process. Finally, we demonstrate that the conditions of the screening intervention in the CNBSS do not reflect the environment of modern population-based screening mammography programs.

Moderation effect of mammography screening among women with multiple chronic conditions

Comorbidity substantially affects breast cancer risk and prognosis. However, women with chronic conditions are less likely to participate in mammography screening. Few studies have examined potential benefits of mammography in women with chronic conditions. This study investigated the moderation effects of mammography screening on early stage breast cancer and all-cause mortality among women aged 50–69 years with chronic conditions in Taiwan. We used a matched cohort design with four nationwide population databases, and an exact matching approach to match groups with different chronic conditions. Women population aged 50–69 years in 2010 in Taiwan were studied. A generic Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) measure was used to identify chronic illness burden. The sample sizes of each paired matched group with CCI scores of 0, 1, 2, or 3+ were 170,979 using a 1-to-1 exact matching. Conditional logistic regressions with interaction terms were used to test moderation effect, and adjusted predicted probabilities and marginal effects to quantify average and incremental chronic conditions associated with outcome measures. Statistical analyses were conducted in 2020–2021. Women with more chronic conditions were less likely to participate in mammography screening or to receive early breast cancer diagnoses, but were at greater risk of mortality. However, mammography participation increased the likelihood of early breast cancer diagnosis (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.36–1.60) and decreased risk of all-cause mortality (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.51–0.55). The interaction terms of CCI and mammography participation indicated significantly increased benefits of early breast cancer diagnosis and decreased risk of all-cause mortality as chronic illness increased. Mammography participation significantly moderated the link between comorbidity and outcome measures among women with chronic conditions. Hence, it is important for public health policy to promote mammography participation for women with multiple chronic conditions.

The Impact of External Events on Trends in Breast Imaging

Objective: Here we analyze trends in breast cancer imaging over the past decade to evaluate the impact of changes in access to care and the COVID-19 pandemic on breast imaging utilization. Methods: We queried our radiology record system to identify numbers of specific breast imaging studies from 01/01/2010 to 03/31/21. We retrospectively assessed yearly numbers of exams since 2010 and weekly numbers during the COVID-19 pandemic in the greater New York City region. We performed Wilcoxon signed ranks tests to compare three-month periods during the pandemic to the same time period the prior year. Results: Ten-year trends in breast imaging showed an increase in screening mammography in the early part of the decade, which declined later in the decade. These changes corresponded to implementation of the Affordable Care Act in 2010 and the American Cancer Society Screening guidelines change in 2015. Breast MRI increased from 2017-2019, likely a delayed effect of research demonstrating a mortality benefit to high-risk women. Both screening mammography and breast MRI sharply declined during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Breast MRI has since rebounded, while screening mammography remains significantly reduced compared to 2019 exam numbers. Conclusion: Breast imaging exam numbers are affected by external events. Most recently, the COVID-19 pandemic significantly decreased screening mammograms and these have not rebounded to pre-pandemic levels. Given the proven benefit of screening mammography, this could have serious long-term effects for patients and should be carefully followed to ensure that all women get needed breast imaging and care.

At Which Mean Glandular Dose Does the Benefit of Breast Cancer Deaths Averted Equal the Risk of Lives Lost to Screening From Radiation-induced Malignancy for Mammography With and Without Tomosynthesis?

To estimate benefit-to-radiation-risk mean glandular dose (MGD) equivalence values for screening mammography, defined as the yearly MGD (over a 10-year period) at which the estimated benefit of mammography in terms of deaths averted equals the estimated risk of lives lost to screening due to radiation exposure (a benefit-to-risk ratio of 1). Benefit-to-risk ratios were calculated as the ratio of breast cancer deaths averted and lives lost to screening over 10-year intervals starting at age 40 for mammography and tomosynthesis using previously published methodology. The MGD values at which estimated benefit equals risk were tabulated. The MGD values at which benefit-to-risk equivalence points were met for digital screening mammography are 63 milligray (mGy) (ages 40-49), 88 mGy (ages 50-59), 176 mGy (ages 60-69), and 336 mGy (ages 70-79). The MGD values that met benefit-to-risk equivalence for screening tomosynthesis plus digital mammography or synthetic mammography are 80 mGy (ages 40-49), 111 mGy (ages 50-59), 224 mGy (ages 60-69), and 427 mGy (ages 70-79). Cutoff MGD values at which the estimated benefit from screening equals the estimated risk are well above standard screening MGD exposures. Care is necessary to ensure that threshold values are not exceeded during a screening exam, particularly for women ages 40-49 years old when using digital mammography plus tomosynthesis (due to an approximate doubling of dose per exam that will more readily exceed cutoff MGD values) and when many additional views are obtained.

Strong Beliefs and Soft Evidence Underlying Mammography Surveillance Recommendations in Breast Cancer Survivors: A Study in Reflexive Science and Decision-Making

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide and more recently it has overtaken lung cancer as the world’s mostly commonly-diagnosed cancer, according to statistics released by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in December 2020 Mammograph screening has been widely used as screening modality and been shown in reduce mortality. Although, benefit of screening mammography in healthy woman cannot be denied, extrapolating this evidence from screening experience in healthy individuals may be unrepresentative and erroneous. Continued mammographic surveillance of breast cancer survivors (BCSS) as of now continued to be standard of care even though still an unsettled issue in survivorship care due to the absence of high-level evidence supporting this current practice. Besides the fact that data regarding efficacy of mammography in BCSS is unclear, there are other concerns regarding its use. Considering, mammography is associated with false positive results requiring additional evaluations, overdiagnosis leading to needless treatment, psychological distress, physical discomfort and significant health-care expenditure, understanding the risk-benefit ratio of mammography in BCSS is crucial. Appropriate studies evaluating mammographic surveillance in BCSS are necessary to assess survival outcomes, costbenefit ratios and to identify subgroups that derive significant benefit. This holds the key to avoiding unwanted harm to our patients as well as unnecessary financial burden on health-care services.

Health beliefs of women attending mammography unit and related factors

Aim: This descriptive study was done to evaluate the perceptions of health beliefs and related factors of women attending a mammography unit for mammograms. Materials and Methods: It was carried out with 181 women admitted to a mammography unit of a university hospital. Data were measured using a questionnaire form. Results: Statistically significant differences were found between women's education (health motivation, Breast Self-Examination (BSE) benefits and barriers), BSE performance status (health motivation, BSE barriers and self-efficacy, mammography benefits and barriers) and family history of breast cancer (sensitivity, health motivation, BSE benefits) (p&amp;lt;0.05). As a result of the research findings, it was determined that 64.6% of women performed BSE. Conclusion: In accordance with these results, increasing the awareness training for breast cancer and the dissemination of screening may be suggested by taking into account the individual characteristics of women.