Effect of specialized diagnostic assessment units on the time to diagnosis in screen-detected breast cancer patients

The effect of community diagnostic centres on volume and waiting time for diagnostic procedures in the UK

Many health care systems are looking to implement policies to improve productivity and accessibility of health care. In this paper we use data from the English National Health Service to evaluate the effect of introducing new "Community Diagnostic Centres" in 2021 which aim to increase volume, reduce waiting times, and increase accessibility to diagnostic procedures. Our results show an increase in volume of diagnostic procedures associated with the introduction of CDCs at local NHS organisations. We find some evidence the increase is driven by an increase in MRI scans in particular, and this result is larger for CDCs located in more deprived local areas. We find no effect on waiting times which may indicate some demand response to increased availability of tests.

Faster Diagnosis and Treatment for Cancer: Assessing Patient Pathways Using a Panel Regression Analysis of the English National Cancer Registration Data

OBJECTIVES

Timely treatment is crucial for patients with cancer, affecting both their experience and outcomes. This study examined events that shorten or extend cancer pathways.

METHODS

A cohort of breast, lower gastrointestinal, lung, and prostate cancers diagnosed between 2015 and 2016 in England were identified using cancer registration data. This was linked to Hospital Episode Statistic data, Cancer Waiting Times data, and specialized treatment data sets to highlight key events and dates in the pathways of 236 205 patients. Our fixed-effects panel regression included straight-to-test first appointments, multiple tests on the same day, number of multidisciplinary team meetings, appointment cancellations, trust fixed effects, and patient factors, including sex, ethnicity, index of multiple deprivations, age, comorbidities, stage, and route to diagnosis.

RESULTS

Patients with straight-to-test, multiple tests on the same day, and who were discussed in a single multidisciplinary team meeting waited a shorter time for treatment (-5, -4, and -7 days, respectively). Cancelled appointments and attending multiple providers were associated with longer pathways (+11 and +9 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight specific areas in which redesigning cancer pathways and transfers between hospitals could potentially lead to less waiting time for treatment, and suggest that policies aimed at reducing cancellations, by patients or hospitals, have the potential to improve waiting times.

Assurance of Timely Access to Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment by a Regional Breast Health Clinic Serving Both Urban and Rural-Remote Communities

In response to breast cancer diagnostic regional wait times exceeding both national and provincial standards and to symptomatic patient referrals for diagnostic mammography taking longer than abnormal screening mammography referrals, the Rae Fawcett Breast Health Clinic (RFBHC) was opened in 2017 in a mid-sized Canadian hospital serving both urban and rural-remote communities. We investigated whether the RFBHC improved wait times to breast cancer diagnosis, improved compliance with national and provincial breast cancer standards, and decreased the wait time disparity associated with referral source. Statistical analyses of wait time differences were conducted between patients who were diagnosed with breast cancer prior to and after the RFBHC establishment. Study group compliance with national and provincial standards and wait time differences by referral source were also analysed. A survey was administered to assess overall patient experience with the RFBHC and clinic wait times. RFBHC patients had a shorter mean wait to breast cancer diagnosis (24.4 vs. 45.7 days, p ≤ 0.001) and a shorter mean wait to initial breast cancer treatment (49.1 vs. 78.9 days, p ≤ 0.001) than pre-RFBHC patients. After the RFBHC establishment, patients who attended the RFBHC had a shorter mean wait time to breast cancer diagnosis (24.4 vs. 36.9 days, p = 0.005) and to initial treatment (49.1 vs. 73.1 days, p ≤ 0.001) than patients who did not attend the clinic. Compliance with national and provincial breast cancer standards improved after the RFBHC establishment and the wait time disparity between screening mammography referrals and symptomatic patient referrals decreased. Survey results indicate that the RFBHC is meeting patient expectations. We concluded that the establishment of a breast health clinic in a Canadian center serving urban and rural-remote communities improved breast diagnostic services.

Factors Associated with the Breast Cancer Diagnostic Interval across Five Canadian Provinces: A CanIMPACT Retrospective Cohort Study

The cancer diagnostic process can be protracted, and it is a time of great anxiety for patients. The objective of this study was to examine inter- and intra-provincial variation in diagnostic intervals and explore factors related to the variation. This was a multi-province retrospective cohort study using linked administrative health databases. All females with a diagnosis of histologically confirmed invasive breast cancer in British Columbia (2007-2010), Manitoba (2007-2011), Ontario (2007-2010), Nova Scotia (2007-2012), and Alberta (2004-2010) were included. The start of the diagnostic interval was determined using algorithms specific to whether the patient's cancer was detected through screening. We used multivariable quantile regression analyses to assess the association between demographic, clinical and healthcare utilization factors with the diagnostic interval outcome. We found significant inter- and intra-provincial variation in the breast cancer diagnostic interval and by screen-detection status; patients who presented symptomatically had longer intervals than screen-detected patients. Interprovincial diagnostic interval variation was 17 and 16 days for screen- and symptom-detected patients, respectively, at the median, and 14 and 41 days, respectively, at the 90th percentile. There was an association of longer diagnostic intervals with increasing comorbid disease in all provinces in non-screen-detected patients but not screen-detected. Longer intervals were observed across most provinces in screen-detected patients living in rural areas. Having a regular primary care provider was not associated with a shorter diagnostic interval. Our results highlight important findings regarding the length of the breast cancer diagnostic interval, its variation within and across provinces, and its association with comorbid disease and rurality. We conclude that diagnostic processes can be context specific, and more attention should be paid to developing tailored processes so that equitable access to a timely diagnosis can be achieved.

Multiple Sclerosis and the Cancer Diagnosis: Diagnostic Route, Cancer Stage, and the Diagnostic Interval in Breast and Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The multiple sclerosis (MS) population's survival from breast cancer and colorectal cancer is compromised. Cancer screening and timely diagnoses affect cancer survival and have not been studied in the MS cancer population. We investigated whether the diagnostic route, cancer stage, or diagnostic interval differed in patients with cancer with and without MS.

METHODS

We conducted a matched population-based cross-sectional study of breast cancers (2007-2015) and colorectal cancers (2009-2012) in patients with MS from Ontario, Canada, using administrative data. Exclusion criteria included second or concurrent primary cancers, no health care coverage, and, for the patients without MS, those with any demyelinating disease. We based 1:4 matching of MS to non-MS on birth year, sex (colorectal only), postal code, and cancer diagnosis year (breast only). Cancer outcomes were diagnostic route (screen-detected vs symptomatic), stage (stage I vs all others), and diagnostic interval (time from first presentation to diagnosis). Multivariable regression analyses controlled for age, sex (colorectal only), diagnosis year, income quintile, urban/rural residence, and comorbidity.

RESULTS

We included 351 patients with MS and breast cancer, 1,404 matched patients with breast cancer without MS, 54 patients with MS and colorectal cancer, and 216 matched patients with colorectal cancer without MS. MS was associated with fewer screen-detected cancers in breast (odds ratio [OR] 0.68 [95% CI 0.52, 0.88]) and possibly colorectal (0.52 [0.21, 1.28]) cancer. MS was not associated with differences in breast cancer stage at diagnosis (stage I cancer, OR 0.81 [0.64, 1.04]). MS was associated with greater odds of stage I colorectal cancer (OR 2.11 [1.03, 4.30]). The median length of the diagnostic interval did not vary between people with and without MS in either the breast or colorectal cancer cohorts. Controlling for disability status attenuated some findings.

DISCUSSION

Breast cancers were less likely to be detected through screening and colorectal cancer more likely to be detected at early stage in people with MS than without MS. MS-related disability may prevent people from getting mammograms and colonoscopies. Understanding the pathways to earlier detection in both cancers is critical to developing and planning interventions to ameliorate outcomes for people with MS and cancer.

Differences in breast cancer diagnosis by patient presentation in Ontario: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

In Ontario, patients with breast cancer typically receive their diagnoses through the Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP) after an abnormal screen, through screening initiated by a primary care provider or other referring physician, or through follow-up of symptoms by patients' primary care providers. We sought to explore the association of the route to diagnosis (screening within or outside the OBSP or via symptomatic presentation) with use of OBSP-affiliated breast assessment sites (O-BAS), wait times until diagnosis or treatment, health care use and overall survival for patients with breast cancer.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, we used the Ontario Cancer Registry to identify adults (aged 18-105 yr) who received a diagnosis of breast cancer from 2013 to 2017. We excluded patients if they were not Ontario residents or had missing age or sex, or who died before diagnosis. We used logistic regression to evaluate factors associated with categorical variables (whether patients were or were not referred to an OBAS, whether patients were screened or symptomatic) and Cox proportional hazards regression to identify factors associated with all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Of 51 460 patients with breast cancer, 42 598 (83%) received their diagnoses at an O-BAS. Patients whose cancer was first detected through the OBSP were more likely than symptomatic patients to be given a diagnosis at an O-BAS (adjusted odds ratio 1.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.57 to 1.80). Patients screened by the OBSP were given their diagnoses 1 month earlier than symptomatic patients, but diagnosis at an O-BAS did not affect the time until either diagnosis or treatment. Patients referred to an O-BAS had significantly better overall survival than those who were not referred (adjusted hazard ratio 0.73, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.80).

INTERPRETATION

Patients screened through the OBSP were given their diagnoses earlier than symptomatic patients and were more likely to be referred to an O-BAS, which was associated with better survival. Our findings suggest that individuals with signs and symptoms of breast cancer would benefit from similar referral processes, oversight and standards to those used by the OBSP.

Diagnostic interval for non-screening patients undergoing mammography during the COVID-19 pandemic

Objective

During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a temporary cessation of mammography screening. However, in some facilities, diagnostic breast imaging services continued for patients with a high clinical suspicion of breast cancer. The objective of this study was to evaluate changes in the diagnostic interval (DI) of non-screening patients presenting for diagnostic mammography during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

Retrospective chart review was performed on patients presenting for non-screening diagnostic mammography from April 1 to June 30, 2020 (pandemic group) and April 1 to June 30, 2019 (pre-pandemic group). Age, reason for referral, number and type of imaging studies/biopsies necessary for a final diagnosis were recorded. Diagnostic interval (DI) was defined as the number of days from the date of the diagnostic mammogram to the date of the final diagnosis.

Results

Compared to the pre-pandemic group (n = 64), the pandemic group (n = 77) showed a reduction in DI of the entire cohort (pandemic: 1 day; pre-pandemic: 15 days, p < 0.0001) for patients not requiring tissue sampling (pandemic: 1 day; pre-pandemic: 11 days, .p < 0.0001) and those requiring tissue sampling with benign pathology (pandemic 9 days; pre-pandemic, 33 days, p = 0.0002). A higher percentage of patients in the pandemic group had their assessment completed during the initial visit (pandemic: 50.6%; pre-pandemic: 23.4%, p = 0.0009).

Conclusion

During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, the DI for patients with non-screening-related diagnostic mammography was significantly shorter, with a higher percentage of patients completing their assessments on the initial visit, compared to one year prior.

Key Points

• Despite reductions in manpower and clinical services, during pandemic times, it is possible to maintain a diagnostic breast imaging service for women at high clinical suspicion for breast cancer.

• During pandemic times, breast imaging departments should consider restructuring to a Rapid Diagnostic Unit model with a navigation team that follows patients through the assessment process to a final diagnosis.

• Departmental restructuring and patient navigation during pandemic times could either maintain or shorten the diagnostic interval for patients presenting for diagnostic mammography.

Breast cancer diagnosis and treatment wait times in specialized diagnostic units compared with usual care: a population-based study

Background

Breast assessment sites (bass) were developed to provide expedited and coordinated care for patients being evaluated for breast cancer (bca) in Ontario. We compared the diagnostic and treatment intervals for patients diagnosed at a bas and for those diagnosed through a usual care (uc) route.

Methods

This population-based, cross-sectional study of patients diagnosed with bca in Ontario during 2007-2015 used linked administrative data. "Diagnostic interval" was the time from the earliest cancer-related health care encounter before diagnosis to diagnosis; "treatment interval" was the time from diagnosis to treatment. Diagnosis at a bas was determined from the patient's biopsy and mammography institutions. Interval lengths for the bas and uc groups were compared using multivariable quantile regression, stratified by detection method.

Results

The diagnostic interval was shorter for patients who were bas-diagnosed than for those who were uc-diagnosed, with adjusted median differences of -4.0 days [95% confidence interval (ci): -3.2 days to -4.9 days] for symptomatic patients and -5.4 days (95% ci: -4.7 days to -6.1 days) for screen-detected patients. That association was modified by stage at diagnosis, with larger differences in patients with early-stage cancers. In contrast, the treatment interval was longer in patients who were bas-diagnosed than in those who were uc-diagnosed, with adjusted median differences of 4.2 days (95% ci: 3.8 days to 4.7 days) for symptomatic patients and 4.2 days (95% ci: 3.7 days to 4.8 days) for screen-detected patients.

Conclusions

Diagnosis of bca through a bas was associated with a shorter diagnostic interval, but a longer treatment interval. Although efficiencies in the diagnostic interval might help to reduce distress experienced by patients, the longer treatment intervals for patients who are bas-diagnosed remain a cause for concern.

Inter- and intra-provincial variation in screen-detected breast cancer across five Canadian provinces: a CanIMPACT study

OBJECTIVE

Breast cancer screening aims to identify cancers in early stages when prognosis is better and treatments less invasive. We describe inter- and intra-provincial variation in the percentage of screen-detected cases under publicly funded healthcare systems and factors related to having screen- vs non-screen-detected breast cancer across five Canadian provinces.

METHODS

Women aged 40+ diagnosed with incident breast cancer from 2007 to 2012 in five Canadian provinces were identified from their respective provincial cancer registries. Standardized provincial datasets were created linking screening, health administrative, and claims data. Province-specific logistic regression models were used to evaluate the association of demographic and healthcare utilization factors in each province with the odds of screen-detected cancer.

RESULTS

There was significant inter- and intra-provincial variation by age. Screen detection ranged from 42% to 52% in ages 50-69 but women aged 50-59 had approximately 4-8% lower screen detection than those aged 60-69 in all provinces. Screening associations with income quintile and rurality varied across provinces. Those least likely to be screen-detected within a province were consistently in the lowest income quintile; OR ranged from 0.62-0.89 relative to highest income quintile/urban patients aged 50-69. Lack of visits to primary care 30 months prior to diagnosis was also consistently associated with lower odds of screen detection (OR range, 0.37-0.76).

CONCLUSION

Breast cancer screen detection rates in the Canadian provinces examined are relatively high. Associations with income-rurality indicate a need for greater attention and/or targeted outreach to specific communities and/or provincial regions to improve access to breast cancer screening services intra-provincially.

Impact of a Same-Day Breast Biopsy Program on Disparities in Time to Biopsy

BACKGROUND

Disparities in breast cancer diagnosis are established. In usual practice, biopsies are performed days or weeks after recommendation. Our aim was to measure the impact of a same-day biopsy program on disparities in time from biopsy recommendation to performance.

METHODS

After Institutional Review Board approval, we identified all diagnostic examinations leading to biopsy pre- (September 2016 to March 2017) and post- (September 2017 to March 2018) implementation of our same-day biopsy program. We compared demographic characteristics (age, race, language, and insurance) and biopsy information (days from biopsy recommendation to biopsy, and proportion of same-day biopsies in all biopsies) in pre- versus postimplementation groups. Multivariable linear and logistic models in pre- and postimplementation groups assessed if days from biopsy recommendation to biopsy and having a same-day biopsy were associated with patient subgroups.

RESULTS

In all, 663 and 482 patients underwent biopsy during pre- and postimplementation periods, respectively. Patient subgroups were similar between periods. For all patients, the same-day biopsy program decreased median time from diagnostic examination to biopsy from 8 (interquartile range: 4-13) to 0 (interquartile range: 0-4) days (P < .001). During the pre-implementation period, nonwhite patients and having Medicare insurance were associated with longer days to biopsy (nonwhite Adjusted Coefficient: 2.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58-4.03; insurance Adjusted Coefficient: 2.47, 95% CI: 0.58-4.37; P < .05), after adjustment. During the postimplementation period, the previously seen disparities did not persist (nonwhite Adjusted Coefficient: -0.416, 95% CI: -2.16-1.33; insurance Adjusted Coefficient: 0.812, 95% CI: -1.18-2.80; P > .05).

CONCLUSION

There was no evidence of racial/ethnic or insurance disparities in time from biopsy recommendation to performance after implementation of a same-day biopsy program.

[Systematic second opinion review of outside imaging in breast cancer diagnosis: An added value]

INTRODUCTION

The systematic second opinion review in cancer centers after breast cancer detection is currently under development. The purposes were the evaluation of review's consequences, in particularly of the axillary staging and the evolution of the delays.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on patients who consulted a clinician at Cancer Center of Lorraine in Nancy from January 1st, 2016 to December 31th, 2016. We analyzed from their medical charts: the outside exams, the initial therapeutic plan, the second opinion review, the additional exams, the multidisciplinary consultation conclusions, the first treatment, the multidisciplinary consultation after surgery.

RESULTS

In all, 251 patients were analyzed. Second opinion review discrepancies were seen in 72.5%. As a result, 43.4% of all patients had new breast-axillary biopsies. New malignancies lesions were identified in 19.9% of patients. Modifications in therapeutic plan were recommended in 19.9% of patients (including patients with and without new malignancies lesions diagnosed). Before a second opinion review, 9.8% of axillary ultrasound lead to a positive fine-needle biopsy. The additional exams identified 9.6% additional lesions. After a positive sentinel lymph node excision biopsy, the multidisciplinary consultation recommended a revision surgery of axillary lymph node dissection for 27% of patients with axillary ultrasound performed in our cancer center, and for 70% of patients without ultrasound (P=0.023).

DISCUSSION

The systematic second opinion at cancer center allows the detection of new malignancies lesions and significant modifications in the therapeutic plan. A systematic evaluation of axillary ultrasound in cancer center could be considered.

Clinical pathways of breast cancer patients treated in the Federal District, Brazil

OBJECTIVE

To identify the clinical pathways of women with breast cancer treated in public hospitals, and to analyze the factors that influence the time interval between the first appointment and the start of therapy.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted with 600 women with breast cancer treated in nine public hospitals in the Brazilian Federal District. Patients were interviewed between September 2012 and September 2014. Simple and multiple logistic regression models were adjusted to evaluate the variables associated with the time interval studied. The most frequent pathway was the one that started in primary care with following care in the therapy service (28.9%). In the multiple adjustment, factors associated to a longer time interval between the first appointment and therapy were: lower family income (OR = 1.89; 95%CI 1.32-2.68), the first appointment in public services (OR = 1.78; 95%CI 1.20-2.64), care in more than two health services in the clinical pathway (OR = 1.71; 95%CI 1.19-2.44); and obtaining the anatomopathological analysis of the biopsy in public services instead of private health services (OR = 1.87; 95%CI 1.29-2.71). Independently, the implementation of specialist appointment scheduling, with care regulation, was associated with a shorter time interval between first appointment and therapy (OR = 0.33; 95%CI 0.16-0.65).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed that multiple pathways were covered by women with breast cancer treated in public services of the Federal District. Socioeconomic iniquities and several aspectos of the pathways covered were associated with a longer time interval between the first appointment and the start of breast cancer therapy.

Breast cancer detection method, diagnostic interval and use of specialized diagnostic assessment units across Ontario, Canada

INTRODUCTION

Breast cancer is detected through screening or through signs and symptoms. In Canada, mammograms for breast cancer screening are offered in organized programs or independently (opportunistic screening). Province of Ontario breast Diagnostic Assessment Units (DAUs) are facility-based programs that provide coordinated breast cancer diagnostic services, as opposed to usual care, in which the primary care provider arranges the tests and consultations. This study describes breast cancer detection method, diagnostic interval and DAU use across Ontario.

METHODS

The study cohort consisted of 6898 women with invasive breast cancer diagnosed in 2011. We used the Ontario Cancer Registry linked to administrative health care databases. We determined the detection method using the Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP) data and physician claims. The diagnostic interval was the time between the initial screen, specialist referral or first diagnostic test and the cancer diagnosis. The diagnostic route (whether through DAU or usual care) was determined based on the OBSP records and biopsy or surgery location. We mapped the diagnostic interval and DAU coverage geographically by women's residence.

RESULTS

In 2011, 36% of Ontario breast cancer patients were screen-detected, with a 48% rate among those aged 50 to 69. The provincial median diagnostic interval was 32 days, with county medians ranging from 15 to 65 days. Provincially, 48.4% were diagnosed at a DAU, and this ranged from zero to 100% across counties.

CONCLUSION

The screening detection rate in age-eligible breast cancer patients was lower than published population-wide screening rates. Geographic mapping of the diagnostic interval and DAU use reveals regional variations in cancer diagnostic care that need to be addressed.

Lessons Learned: It Takes a Village to Understand Inter-Sectoral Care Using Administrative Data across Jurisdictions

Cancer care is complex and exists within the broader healthcare system. The CanIMPACT team sought to enhance primary cancer care capacity and improve integration between primary and cancer specialist care, focusing on breast cancer. In Canada, all medically-necessary healthcare is publicly funded but overseen at the provincial/territorial level. The CanIMPACT Administrative Health Data Group's (AHDG) role was to describe inter-sectoral care across five Canadian provinces: British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia. This paper describes the process used and challenges faced in creating four parallel administrative health datasets. We present the content of those datasets and population characteristics. We provide guidance for future research based on 'lessons learned'. The AHDG conducted population-based comparisons of care for breast cancer patients diagnosed from 2007-2011. We created parallel provincial datasets using knowledge from data inventories, our previous work, and ongoing bi-weekly conference calls. Common dataset creation plans (DCPs) ensured data comparability and documentation of data differences. In general, the process had to be flexible and iterative as our understanding of the data and needs of the broader team evolved. Inter-sectoral data inconsistencies that we had to address occurred due to differences in: 1) healthcare systems, 2) data sources, 3) data elements and 4) variable definitions. Our parallel provincial datasets describe the breast cancer diagnostic, treatment and survivorship phases and address ten research objectives. Breast cancer patient demographics reflect inter-provincial general population differences. Across provinces, disease characteristics are similar but underlying health status and use of healthcare services differ. Describing healthcare across Canadian jurisdictions assesses whether our provincial healthcare systems are delivering similar high quality, timely, accessible care to all of our citizens. We have provided a description of our experience in trying to achieve this goal and, for future use, we include a list of 'lessons learned' and a list of recommended steps for conducting this kind of work.

KEY FINDINGS

The conduct of inter-sectoral research using linked administrative health data requires a committed team that is adequately resourced and has a set of clear, feasible objectives at the start.Guiding principles include: maximization of sectoral participation by including single-jurisdiction expertise and making the most inclusive data decisions; use of living documents that track all data decisions and careful consideration about data quality and availability differences.Inter-sectoral research requires a good understanding of the local healthcare system and other contextual issues for appropriate interpretation of observed differences.

Is being diagnosed at a dedicated breast assessment unit associated with a reduction in the time to diagnosis for symptomatic breast cancer patients?

The length of the cancer diagnostic interval can affect a patient's survival and psychosocial well-being. Ontario Diagnostic Assessment Units (DAUs) were designed to expedite the diagnostic process through coordinated care. We examined the effect of DAUs on the diagnostic interval among female patients with symptomatic breast cancer in Ontario using the Ontario Cancer Registry linked to administrative healthcare data. The diagnostic interval was defined as the time from patients' first referral or test to the cancer diagnosis. DAU use was determined based on the hospital where the breast biopsy/surgery was performed. Multivariable quantile regression and logistic regression analyses adjusted for possible confounders. Forty-seven per cent of patients were diagnosed in a DAU and 53% in usual care (UC). DAUs achieved the Canadian timeliness targets more often than UC (71.7% vs. 58.1%, respectively). DAU use was associated with a 10-day (95% CI: 7.8-11.9) reduction in the median diagnostic interval. This effect increased to 19 days for patients at the 75th percentile and 22 days for those at the 90th percentile of the diagnostic interval distribution. Use of an Ontario DAU is associated with a shorter time to diagnosis in patients with symptomatic breast cancer, especially for those who would otherwise wait the longest.

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

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.