Dataset Information

Evaluating wait times from screening to breast cancer diagnosis among women undergoing organised assessment vs usual care.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Timely coordinated diagnostic assessment following an abnormal screening mammogram reduces patient anxiety and may optimise breast cancer prognosis. Since 1998, the Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP) has offered organised assessment through Breast Assessment Centres (BACs). For OBSP women seen at a BAC, an abnormal mammogram is followed by coordinated referrals through the use of navigators for further imaging, biopsy, and surgical consultation as indicated. For OBSP women seen through usual care (UC), further diagnostic imaging is arranged directly from the screening centre and/or through their physician; results must be communicated to the physician who is then responsible for arranging any necessary biopsy and/or surgical consultation. This study aims to evaluate factors associated with diagnostic wait times for women undergoing assessment through BAC and UC.

Methods

Of the 2?147?257 women aged 50-69 years screened in the OBSP between 1 January 2002 and 31 December 2009, 155?866 (7.3%) had an abnormal mammogram. A retrospective design identified two concurrent cohorts of women diagnosed with screen-detected breast cancer at a BAC (n=4217; 47%) and UC (n=4827; 53%). Multivariable logistic regression analyses examined associations between wait times and assessment and prognostic characteristics by pathway. A two-sided 5% significance level was used.

Results

Screened women with breast cancer were two times more likely to be diagnosed within 7 weeks when assessed through a BAC vs UC (OR=1.91, 95% CI=1.73-2.10). In addition, compared with UC, women assessed through a BAC were significantly more likely to have their first assessment procedure within 3 weeks of their abnormal mammogram (OR=1.25, 95% CI=1.12-1.39), ?3 assessment procedures (OR=1.54, 95% CI=1.41-1.69), ?2 assessment visits (OR=1.86, 95% CI=1.70-2.05), and ?2 procedures per visit (OR=1.41, 95% CI=1.28-1.55). Women diagnosed through a BAC were also more likely than those in UC to have imaging (OR=1.99, 95% CI=1.44-2.75) or a biopsy (OR=3.69, 95% CI=2.64-5.15) vs consultation only at their first assessment visit, and two times more likely to have a core or FNA biopsy than a surgical biopsy (OR=2.08, 95% CI=1.81-2.40). Having ?2 assessment visits was more likely to reduce time to diagnosis for women assessed through a BAC compared with UC (BAC OR=10.58, 95% CI=8.96-12.50; UC OR=4.47, 95% CI=3.94-5.07), as was having ?3 assessment procedures (BAC OR=4.97, 95% CI=4.26-5.79; UC OR=2.95, 95% CI=2.61-3.33). Income quintile affected wait times only in women diagnosed in UC, with those in the two highest quintiles more likely to receive a diagnosis in 7 weeks.

Conclusions

Women with screen-detected breast cancer in OBSP were more likely to have shorter wait times if they were diagnosed through organised assessment. This might be as a result of women diagnosed through a BAC having more procedures per visit, procedures scheduled in shorter intervals, and imaging or biopsy on their first visit. Given the significant improvement in timeliness to diagnosis, women with abnormal mammograms should be managed through organised assessment.

SUBMITTER: Chiarelli AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5482732 | biostudies-literature | 2017 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluating wait times from screening to breast cancer diagnosis among women undergoing organised assessment vs usual care.

Chiarelli Anna M AM Muradali Derek D Blackmore Kristina M KM Smith Courtney R CR Mirea Lucia L Majpruz Vicky V O'Malley Frances P FP Quan May Lynn ML Holloway Claire Mb CM

British journal of cancer 20170330 10

<h4>Background</h4>Timely coordinated diagnostic assessment following an abnormal screening mammogram reduces patient anxiety and may optimise breast cancer prognosis. Since 1998, the Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP) has offered organised assessment through Breast Assessment Centres (BACs). For OBSP women seen at a BAC, an abnormal mammogram is followed by coordinated referrals through the use of navigators for further imaging, biopsy, and surgical consultation as indicated. For OBSP wome ...[more]

PMID: 28359079

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceImproved screening methods for women with dense breasts are needed because of their increased risk of breast cancer and of failed early diagnosis by screening mammography.ObjectiveTo compare the screening performance of abbreviated breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in women with dense breasts.Design, setting, and participantsCross-sectional study with longitudinal follow-up at 48 academic, community hospital, and private practice sites in the United States and Germany, conducted between December 2016 and November 2017 among average-risk women aged 40 to 75 years with heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breasts undergoing routine screening. Follow-up ascertainment of cancer diagnoses was complete through September 12, 2019.ExposuresAll women underwent screening by both DBT and abbreviated breast MRI, performed in randomized order and read independently to avoid interpretation bias.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was the invasive cancer detection rate. Secondary outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, additional imaging recommendation rate, and positive predictive value (PPV) of biopsy, using invasive cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) to define a positive reference standard. All outcomes are reported at the participant level. Pathology of core or surgical biopsy was the reference standard for cancer detection rate and PPV; interval cancers reported until the next annual screen were included in the reference standard for sensitivity and specificity.ResultsAmong 1516 enrolled women, 1444 (median age, 54 [range, 40-75] years) completed both examinations and were included in the analysis. The reference standard was positive for invasive cancer with or without DCIS in 17 women and for DCIS alone in another 6. No interval cancers were observed during follow-up. Abbreviated breast MRI detected all 17 women with invasive cancer and 5 of 6 women with DCIS. Digital breast tomosynthesis detected 7 of 17 women with invasive cancer and 2 of 6 women with DCIS. The invasive cancer detection rate was 11.8 (95% CI, 7.4-18.8) per 1000 women for abbreviated breast MRI vs 4.8 (95% CI, 2.4-10.0) per 1000 women for DBT, a difference of 7 (95% CI, 2.2-11.6) per 1000 women (exact McNemar P = .002). For detection of invasive cancer and DCIS, sensitivity was 95.7% (95% CI, 79.0%-99.2%) with abbreviated breast MRI vs 39.1% (95% CI, 22.2%-59.2%) with DBT (P = .001) and specificity was 86.7% (95% CI, 84.8%-88.4%) vs 97.4% (95% CI, 96.5%-98.1%), respectively (P < .001). The additional imaging recommendation rate was 7.5% (95% CI, 6.2%-9.0%) with abbreviated breast MRI vs 10.1% (95% CI, 8.7%-11.8%) with DBT (P = .02) and the PPV was 19.6% (95% CI, 13.2%-28.2%) vs 31.0% (95% CI, 17.0%-49.7%), respectively (P = .15).Conclusions and relevanceAmong women with dense breasts undergoing screening, abbreviated breast MRI, compared with DBT, was associated with a significantly higher rate of invasive breast cancer detection. Further research is needed to better understand the relationship between screening methods and clinical outcome.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02933489.

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine whether a collaborative model of care that uses task-sharing for the management of low-risk diabetic retinopathy, Community Eye Care (C-EYE-C), can improve access to care and better use resources, compared with hospital-based care.DesignRetrospective audit of medical and financial records to compare two models of care.SettingA large, urban tertiary Australian publicly funded hospital.InterventionC-EYE-C is a collaborative care model, involving community-based optometrist assessment and 'virtual review' by ophthalmologists to manage low-risk patients. The C-EYE-C model of care was implemented from January to October 2017.ParticipantsNew low-risk patient referrals with diabetes received at a tertiary hospital ophthalmology unit.Primary and secondary outcomesHistorical standard hospital care was compared with C-EYE-C for attendance, wait-times, outcomes and costs. Clinical concordance between the optometrist and ophthalmologist diagnosis and management was assessed using weighted kappa statistic.ResultsThere were 133 new low-risk referrals, managed in standard hospital care (n=68) and C-EYE-C (n=65). Attendance rates were similar between the models of care (72.1% hospital vs 67.7% C-EYE-C, p=0.71). C-EYE-C had shorter appointment wait-time (53 vs 118 days, p<0.01). In the C-EYE-C model of care, 68.2% of patients did not require hospital appointments and costs were 43% less than hospital care. There was substantial agreement between optometrists and ophthalmologists for diagnosis (κ=0.64, CI 0.47-0.81) and management (κ=0.66, CI 0.45-0.87).ConclusionThis Australian study showed that collaborative eye care resulted in reduced patient waiting times and considerable cost-savings, while maintaining a high standard of patient care compared with traditional hospital-based care in the management of low-risk hospital referrals with diabetic eye disease. The improved access and reduced costs were largely the result of better task allocation through greater utilisation of primary eye care professionals to provide services for low-risk patients. Better resource use may free up further resources for other eye care services.

Dataset Information

Evaluating wait times from screening to breast cancer diagnosis among women undergoing organised assessment vs usual care.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Evaluating wait times from screening to breast cancer diagnosis among women undergoing organised assessment vs usual care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure