BACKGROUND: The Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia (SMPBC) implemented voluntary, facilitated referral to diagnostic imaging ("Fast Track") after testing 5 interventions to reduce time from an abnormal screening mammogram to diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to compare time intervals for patients evaluated through the Fast Track process with patients who were not. METHODS: Data were extracted from the SMPBC database for women with abnormal screens conducted from January 1, 2003 to June 30, 2005 (N = 40,292). After exclusions, 39,607 screens were analyzed. Median and 90th percentile times were calculated from abnormal screen to diagnosis and for three subintervals: abnormal screen to notification, notification to first assessment, and first assessment to diagnosis. RESULTS: One third of abnormal screens were investigated through Fast Track imaging facilities. Overall, the median time from abnormal screen to diagnosis was 8 days faster for Fast Track compared with non-Fast Track. There was no clinically significant difference in time from abnormal screen to notification. The median time from notification to first assessment was 1.1 weeks (Fast Track) compared with 2.4 weeks (non-Fast Track), a reduction of 9 days or 54% in the interval targeted by the Fast Track strategy. The time interval distribution from first assessment to diagnosis was significantly different only for those having a core biopsy (average 3 days faster for Fast Track). INTERPRETATION: Facilitated referral to diagnostic imaging reduces average time from notification of abnormal screen to first assessment by more than half. Additional strategies are needed to address diagnostic investigation beyond initial imaging procedures.
BACKGROUND: The Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia (SMPBC) implemented voluntary, facilitated referral to diagnostic imaging ("Fast Track") after testing 5 interventions to reduce time from an abnormal screening mammogram to diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to compare time intervals for patients evaluated through the Fast Track process with patients who were not. METHODS: Data were extracted from the SMPBC database for women with abnormal screens conducted from January 1, 2003 to June 30, 2005 (N = 40,292). After exclusions, 39,607 screens were analyzed. Median and 90th percentile times were calculated from abnormal screen to diagnosis and for three subintervals: abnormal screen to notification, notification to first assessment, and first assessment to diagnosis. RESULTS: One third of abnormal screens were investigated through Fast Track imaging facilities. Overall, the median time from abnormal screen to diagnosis was 8 days faster for Fast Track compared with non-Fast Track. There was no clinically significant difference in time from abnormal screen to notification. The median time from notification to first assessment was 1.1 weeks (Fast Track) compared with 2.4 weeks (non-Fast Track), a reduction of 9 days or 54% in the interval targeted by the Fast Track strategy. The time interval distribution from first assessment to diagnosis was significantly different only for those having a core biopsy (average 3 days faster for Fast Track). INTERPRETATION: Facilitated referral to diagnostic imaging reduces average time from notification of abnormal screen to first assessment by more than half. Additional strategies are needed to address diagnostic investigation beyond initial imaging procedures.
Authors: I A Olivotto; M J Borugian; L Kan; S R Harris; E J Rousseau; S E Thorne; J A Vestrup; C J Wright; A J Coldman; T G Hislop Journal: Can J Public Health Date: 2001 Sep-Oct
Authors: T Gregory Hislop; Susan R Harris; Jeremy Jackson; Sally E Thorne; Eunice J Rousseau; Andrew J Coldman; Judith A Vestrup; Charles J Wright; Ivo A Olivotto Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Ivo A Olivotto; Asako Gomi; Christina Bancej; Jacques Brisson; Jon Tonita; Lisa Kan; Zeva Mah; Marion Harrison; Rene Shumak Journal: Cancer Date: 2002-04-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: I A Olivotto; L Kan; Y d'Yachkova; L J Burhenne; M Hayes; T G Hislop; A J Worth; V E Basco; S King Journal: J Med Screen Date: 2000 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: E S Wai; Y D'yachkova; I A Olivotto; S Tyldesley; N Phillips; L J Warren; A J Coldman Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2005-03-14 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Johanna M Timmers; Johanna A Damen; Ruud M Pijnappel; André L Verbeek; Gerard J den Heeten; Eddy M Adang; Mireille J Broeders Journal: Can J Public Health Date: 2014-07-31
Authors: Rebecca Selove; Barbara Kilbourne; Mary Kay Fadden; Maureen Sanderson; Maya Foster; Regina Offodile; Baqar Husaini; Charles Mouton; Robert S Levine Journal: Womens Health Issues Date: 2016-10-20
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
Authors: Li Jiang; Julie Gilbert; Hugh Langley; Rahim Moineddin; Patti A Groome Journal: Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Anna M Chiarelli; Derek Muradali; Kristina M Blackmore; Courtney R Smith; Lucia Mirea; Vicky Majpruz; Frances P O'Malley; May Lynn Quan; Claire Mb Holloway Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2017-03-30 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Patti A Groome; Colleen Webber; Marlo Whitehead; Rahim Moineddin; Eva Grunfeld; Andrea Eisen; Julie Gilbert; Claire Holloway; Jonathan C Irish; Hugh Langley Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2019-05
Authors: Madelon M Voets; Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn; Liset H J Veneklaas; Srirang Manohar; Mariël Brinkhuis; Jeroen Veltman; Linda de Munck; Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei; Mireille J M Broeders; Sabine Siesling Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2021-11-29 Impact factor: 3.677