Literature DB >> 12001110

Influence of delay to diagnosis on prognostic indicators of screen-detected breast carcinoma.

Ivo A Olivotto1, Asako Gomi, Christina Bancej, Jacques Brisson, Jon Tonita, Lisa Kan, Zeva Mah, Marion Harrison, Rene Shumak.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although delay to diagnosis after a breast screening abnormality causes anxiety, its effect on prognosis is unknown.
METHODS: Using pooled data from five Canadian organized breast cancer screening programs, the authors used unconditional logistic regression to evaluate the effect of delay to diagnosis on prognostic indicators among 4465 women with invasive breast carcinoma diagnosed in the ipsilateral breast within 3 years of an abnormal screen performed during 1990-1996.
RESULTS: Women with high-suspicion screens (n = 1569) compared with those without (n = 2896) were more promptly investigated (median days from screen to diagnosis, 31 vs. 47; P < or = 0.0001), had larger tumors (79.4% vs. 55.9% > 10 mm; P < or = 0.0001), and were more likely to be lymph node positive (33.9% vs. 17.3%; P < or = 0.0001). For delays beyond > 12 to < or = 20 weeks, a linear trend of increased tumor size and lymph node positivity began to emerge. Controlling for suspicion, the authors found that odds ratios for tumor size greater than 10 mm were 0.9 (95% CI, 0.66-1.17), 1.2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88-1.56), 1.5 (95% CI, 1.05-2.16), and 2.1 (95% CI, 1.15-3.86) for delays of > 12 to < or = 20, > 20 to < or = 52, > 52 to < or = 104, and > 104 < or = 156 weeks, respectively (p(trend) < or = 0.0001), compared with delays of > 4 to < or = 12 weeks. Similarly, odds ratios for lymph node metastasis were 1.0 (95% CI, 0.67-1.42), 1.2 (95% CI, 0.84-1.69), 2.2 (95% CI, 1.48-3.15), and 3.2 (95% CI, 1.84-5.55) for the same time intervals (p(trend) = 0.0033).
CONCLUSIONS: The authors' findings suggest that delays to diagnosis of asymptomatic breast carcinoma of 6 to 12 months are associated with progression of breast carcinoma as measured by increasing risk of lymph node metastases and larger tumor size. A policy of early recall rather than biopsy for low suspicion mammographic abnormalities may introduce delays of this magnitude. The tendency to more expediently investigate women with high-suspicion, worse prognosis screens (suspicion bias) obscures whether delays shorter than 20 weeks also worsen prognostic indicators. Suspicion bias should be considered when interpreting the effect of delay on prognosis. Copyright 2002 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12001110     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.10453

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  35 in total

1.  Effect of screening result on waiting times to assessment and breast cancer diagnosis: results from the Ontario Breast Screening Program.

Authors:  Anna M Chiarelli; Verna Mai; Erika E Halapy; Rene S Shumak; Frances P O'Malley; Neil S Klar
Journal:  Can J Public Health       Date:  2005 Jul-Aug

Review 2.  Challenges to the early diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer in developing countries.

Authors:  Karla Unger-Saldaña
Journal:  World J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-08-10

3.  Errors in completion of referrals among older urban adults in ambulatory care.

Authors:  Michael Weiner; Anthony J Perkins; Christopher M Callahan
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 2.431

4.  Improving Breast Cancer Outcomes Through Patient Navigation.

Authors:  Lisa C Richardson
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2016-11-21       Impact factor: 2.681

5.  Diagnostic delay and complications for older adults with multiple myeloma.

Authors:  Christopher R Friese; Gregory A Abel; Lysa S Magazu; Bridget A Neville; Lisa C Richardson; Craig C Earle
Journal:  Leuk Lymphoma       Date:  2009-03

6.  Timeliness of breast cancer diagnosis and initiation of treatment in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, 1996-2005.

Authors:  Lisa C Richardson; Janet Royalty; William Howe; William Helsel; William Kammerer; Vicki B Benard
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2009-12-17       Impact factor: 9.308

7.  Impact of patient navigation on timely cancer care: the Patient Navigation Research Program.

Authors:  Karen M Freund; Tracy A Battaglia; Elizabeth Calhoun; Julie S Darnell; Donald J Dudley; Kevin Fiscella; Martha L Hare; Nancy LaVerda; Ji-Hyun Lee; Paul Levine; David M Murray; Steven R Patierno; Peter C Raich; Richard G Roetzheim; Melissa Simon; Frederick R Snyder; Victoria Warren-Mears; Elizabeth M Whitley; Paul Winters; Gregory S Young; Electra D Paskett
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-06-17       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Delay in diagnostic testing after abnormal mammography in low-income women.

Authors:  Debra Wujcik; Yu Shyr; Ming Li; Margaret F Clayton; Lee Ellington; Usha Menon; Kathi Mooney
Journal:  Oncol Nurs Forum       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 2.172

9.  Improving work-up of the abnormal mammogram through organized assessment: results from the ontario breast screening program.

Authors:  May Lynn Quan; Rene S Shumak; Vicky Majpruz; Claire M D Holloway; Frances P O'Malley; Anna M Chiarelli
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2012-02-14       Impact factor: 3.840

10.  Facilitated "fast track" referral reduces time from abnormal screening mammogram to diagnosis.

Authors:  Marilyn J Borugian; Lisa Kan; Christina C Y Chu; Kathy Ceballos; Karen A Gelmon; Paula B Gordon; Barbara Poole; Scott Tyldesley; Ivo A Olivotto
Journal:  Can J Public Health       Date:  2008 Jul-Aug
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.