Abstract
Background: Women with abnormal screening mammograms require diagnostic assessment and experience anxiety until a diagnosis is established. This report evaluated the timeliness of diagnosis after an abnormal screening mammogram in the Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia (SMPBC).
Methods: Information on diagnostic interventions following an abnormal screen (N = 10,314) provided through 11 regional SMPBC services between January 1, 1993 and June 30, 1994 were abstracted and analyzed.
Results: The median time from abnormal screen to diagnosis was 3.4 weeks with regional variation of 2.0 to 4.7 weeks; 10% waited 8.7 weeks or longer. For the 19% of women proceeding to open biopsy, the median diagnostic interval was 7.1 weeks with regional variation of 4.6 to 9.3 weeks; 10% waited 13.1 weeks or longer.
Interpretation: After an abnormal screening mammogram, women waited many weeks for a definitive diagnosis, especially those proceeding to open biopsy. Opportunities for process improvement were identified.
Résumé
Contexte: Les femmes qui ont une mammographie anormale et qui nécessitent une évaluation diagnostique, vivent dans l’anxiété jusqu’à la confirmation du diagnostic. Ce rapport a cherché à évaluer les délais d’attente du diagnostic après une mammographie anormale dans le cadre du programme de dépistage par mammographie de la Colombie-Britannique (Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia ou SMPBC).
Méthodologie: Les données relatives aux interventions diagnostiques suite à une mammographie anormale (N = 10 314) provenant de 11 services régionaux faisant partie du Programme, et couvrant la période du 1er janvier 1993 au 30 juin 1994, ont été analysées.
Résultats: L’intervalle moyen entre la mammographie et la pose du diagnostic était de 3,4 semaines, avec des variations régionales de 2 à 4,7 semaines; 10 % des femmes ont dû attendre 8,7 semaines ou plus. Pour les 19 % sur lesquelles on a procédé à une biopsie, l’intervalle de temps avant le diagnostic était de 7,1 semaines, avec des variations régionales de 4,6 à 9,3 semaines; 10 % des femmes ont dû attendre 13,1 semaines ou plus.
Interprétation: Après une mammographie anormale, les femmes ont dû attendre de nombreuses semaines avant d’avoir un diagnostic définitif, notamment dans le cas de celles ayant eu une biopsie. Nous avons identifié un certain nombre de secteurs qui permettraient d’améliorer la procédure.
References
- 1.Fletcher SW, Black W, Harris R, et al. Report of the International Workshop on Screening for Breast Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85:1644–56. doi: 10.1093/jnci/85.20.1644. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Nystrom L, Rutqvist LE, Wall S, et al. Breast cancer screening with mammography: Overview of Swedish randomized trials. Lancet. 1993;341:973–78. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(93)91067-V. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Rubin SM, et al. Efficacy of screening mammography. A metaanalysis. JAMA. 1995;273:149–54. doi: 10.1001/jama.1995.03520260071035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Fentiman I. Pensive women, painful vigils: Consequences of delay in assessment of mammographic abnormalities. Lancet. 1988;1:1041–42. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(88)91854-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Gram IT, Lund E, Slenker SE. Quality of life following a false positive mammogram. Br J Cancer. 1990;62:1018–22. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1990.430. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Ong G, Austokar J. Breast screening: Adverse psychological consequences one month after placing women on early recall because of a diagnostic uncertainty: A multicentre study. J Med Screen. 1997;4:158–68. doi: 10.1177/096914139700400309. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Lerman C, Trock B, Rimer BK, et al. Psychological and behavioral implications of abnormal mammograms. Ann Intern Med. 1991;114:657–61. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-114-8-657. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Hislop TG, Worth AJ, Kan L, et al. Post screendetected breast cancer within the Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1997;42:235–42. doi: 10.1023/A:1005793707549. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Murray-Sykes K. National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. 1989. Organizing Assessment. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Commonwealth Department of Human ServicesHealth CDHSH. National Program for the Early Detection of Breast Cancer: National accreditation requirements. Australia: CDHSH; 1994. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Libstug A, Moravan V, Aitken SE. Results from the Ontario Breast Screening Program, 1990–1995. J Med Screen. 1998;5:73–80. doi: 10.1136/jms.5.2.73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Caines J, Chantziantoniou K, Wright BA, et al. Nova Scotia breast screening program experience: Use of needle-core biopsy in the diagnosis of screening-detected abnormalities. Radiology. 1996;198:125–30. doi: 10.1148/radiology.198.1.8539363. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.The Workshop Group. Reducing Deaths from Breast Cancer in Canada — Workshop report. CMAJ. 1989;141:199–201. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Kerlikowske K. Timeliness of follow-up after abnormal screening mammography. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1996;40:53–64. doi: 10.1007/BF01806002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Chang SW, Kerlikowske K, Napoles-Springer A, et al. Racial differences in timeliness of follow-up after abnormal screening mammography. Cancer. 1996;78:1395–402. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19961001)78:7<1395::AID-CNCR5>3.0.CO;2-K. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Baum M. Delayed assessment of mammographic abnormalities. Lancet. 1988;1:1218. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(88)92027-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Burman ML, Taplin SH, Herta DF, et al. Effect of false-positive mammograms on interval breast cancer screening in a health maintenance organization. Ann Intern Med. 1999;131:1–6. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-131-1-199907060-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.National Institutes of Health 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. 1997;89:1015–26. doi: 10.1093/jnci/89.14.960. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Kerlikowske K. Efficacy of screening mammography among women aged 40–49 years and 50–69 years: Comparison of relative and absolute benefit. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst. 1997;22:79–86. doi: 10.1093/jncimono/1997.22.79. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Hendrick RE, Smith RA, Rutledge JH, III, et al. Benefit of screening mammography in women aged 40–49: A new meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst. 1997;22:87–92. doi: 10.1093/jncimono/1997.22.87. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Bear HD. Image-guided breast biopsy. How, when, and by whom? J Surg Oncol. 1998;67:1–5. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9098(199801)67:1<1::AID-JSO1>3.0.CO;2-F. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Britton PD, Flower CDR, Freeman AH, et al. Change to core biopsy in an NHS breast screening unit. Clin Radiol. 1997;52:764–67. doi: 10.1016/S0009-9260(97)80156-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Litherland JC, Evans AJ, Wilson ARM, et al. The impact of core biopsy on pre-operative diagnosis rate of screen detected breast cancers. Clin Radiol. 1996;51:562–65. doi: 10.1016/S0009-9260(96)80136-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Coates AS. Breast cancer: Delays, dilemmas and delusions. Lancet. 1999;353L:1112–13. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)00082-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]