Literature DB >> 18767265

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

Marilyn J Borugian1, Lisa Kan, Christina C Y Chu, Kathy Ceballos, Karen A Gelmon, Paula B Gordon, Barbara Poole, Scott Tyldesley, Ivo A Olivotto.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18767265      PMCID: PMC6976254     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Public Health        ISSN: 0008-4263


  12 in total

1.  Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening program.

Authors:  L Kan; I A Olivotto; L J Warren Burhenne; E A Sickles; A J Coldman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Improving the time to diagnosis after an abnormal screening mammogram.

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

3.  Satisfaction and anxiety for women during investigation of an abnormal screening mammogram.

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

4.  Investigation of lesions detected by mammography. The Steering Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Care and Treatment of Breast Cancer. Canadian Association of Radiation Oncologists.

Authors: 
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1998-02-10       Impact factor: 8.262

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

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

6.  Short- and long-term anxiety and depression in women recalled after breast cancer screening.

Authors:  C Lampic; E Thurfjell; J Bergh; P O Sjödén
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 9.162

7.  Ten years of breast screening in the Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia, 1988-97.

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

8.  Patient navigation: improving timeliness in the diagnosis of breast abnormalities.

Authors:  Brian J Psooy; Dianna Schreuer; Joy Borgaonkar; Judy S Caines
Journal:  Can Assoc Radiol J       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 2.248

9.  Mammography screening in the Netherlands: delay in the diagnosis of breast cancer after breast cancer screening.

Authors:  L E M Duijm; J H Groenewoud; F H Jansen; J Fracheboud; M van Beek; H J de Koning
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2004-11-15       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Comparison of 1- and 2-year screening intervals for women undergoing screening mammography.

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

View more
  10 in total

1.  Cost-effectiveness of non-invasive assessment in the Dutch breast cancer screening program versus usual care: a randomized controlled trial.

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

2.  Coordination of radiologic and clinical care reduces the wait time to breast cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  E C McKevitt; C K Dingee; R Warburton; J S Pao; C J Brown; C Wilson; U Kuusk
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2017-10-25       Impact factor: 3.677

3.  Barriers to optimizing investments in the built environment to reduce youth obesity: policy-maker perspectives.

Authors:  Jill L Grant; Kathryn C MacKay; Patricia M Manuel; Tara-Leigh F McHugh
Journal:  Can J Public Health       Date:  2010 May-Jun

4.  Time from Screening Mammography to Biopsy and from Biopsy to Breast Cancer Treatment among Black and White, Women Medicare Beneficiaries Not Participating in a Health Maintenance Organization.

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

5.  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

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

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

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

Authors:  L Jiang; J Gilbert; H Langley; R Moineddin; P A Groome
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2015-05-05       Impact factor: 7.640

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

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

9.  Determining the Cancer Diagnostic Interval Using Administrative Health Care Data in a Breast Cancer Cohort.

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

10.  Diagnostics in Patients Suspect for Breast Cancer in The Netherlands.

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

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.