Literature DB >> 23077438

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

May Lynn Quan1, Rene S Shumak, Vicky Majpruz, Claire M D Holloway, Frances P O'Malley, Anna M Chiarelli.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Women with an abnormal screening mammogram should ideally undergo an organized assessment to attain a timely diagnosis. This study evaluated outcomes of women undergoing work-up after abnormal mammogram through a formal breast assessment affiliate (BAA) program with explicit care pathways compared with usual care (UC) using developed quality indicators for screening mammography programs.
METHODS: Between January 1 and December 31, 2007, a total of 320,635 women underwent a screening mammogram through the Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP), of whom 25,543 had an abnormal result requiring further assessment. Established indicators assessing timeliness, appropriateness of follow-up, and biopsy rates were compared between women who were assessed through either a BAA or UC using χ(2) analysis.
RESULTS: Work-up of the abnormal mammogram for patients screened through a BAA resulted in a greater proportion of women attaining a definitive diagnosis within the recommended time interval when a histologic diagnosis was required. In addition, use of other quality measures including specimen radiography for both core biopsies and surgical specimens and preoperative core needle biopsy was greater in BAA facilities.
CONCLUSION: These findings support future efforts to increase the number of BAAs within the OBSP, because the pathways and reporting methods associated with them result in improvements in our ability to provide timely and appropriate care for women requiring work-up of an abnormal mammogram.

Entities:  

Year:  2012        PMID: 23077438      PMCID: PMC3457814          DOI: 10.1200/JOP.2011.000413

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Oncol Pract        ISSN: 1554-7477            Impact factor:   3.840


  18 in total

1.  The Swedish Two-County Trial twenty years later. Updated mortality results and new insights from long-term follow-up.

Authors:  L Tabár; B Vitak; H H Chen; S W Duffy; M F Yen; C F Chiang; U B Krusemo; T Tot; R A Smith
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 2.303

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.  Are percutaneous biopsy rates a reasonable quality measure in breast cancer management?

Authors:  Windy Olaya; Won Bae; Jan Wong; Jasmine Wong; Sharmila Roy-Chowdhury; Kevork Kazanjian; Sharon Lum
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2010-09-19       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 4.  The psychosocial consequences of mammography.

Authors:  B K Rimer; L G Bluman
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  1997

5.  Reducing deaths from breast cancer in Canada. The Workshop Group.

Authors: 
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1989-08-01       Impact factor: 8.262

6.  Efficacy of screening mammography. A meta-analysis.

Authors:  K Kerlikowske; D Grady; S M Rubin; C Sandrock; V L Ernster
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-01-11       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Performance of screening mammography in organized programs in Canada in 1996. The Database Management Subcommittee to the National Committee for the Canadian Breast Cancer Screening Initiative.

Authors:  D Paquette; J Snider; F Bouchard; I Olivotto; H Bryant; K Decker; G Doyle
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2000-10-31       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 8.  Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Heidi D Nelson; Kari Tyne; Arpana Naik; Christina Bougatsos; Benjamin K Chan; Linda Humphrey
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Canadian National Breast Screening Study: 2. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 50 to 59 years.

Authors:  A B Miller; C J Baines; T To; C Wall
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1992-11-15       Impact factor: 8.262

10.  Variation in the use of percutaneous biopsy for diagnosis of breast abnormalities in Ontario.

Authors:  Claire M B Holloway; Refik Saskin; Muriel Brackstone; Lawrence Paszat
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2007-07-10       Impact factor: 5.344

View more
  8 in total

1.  Comparison of wait times across the breast cancer treatment pathway among screened women undergoing organized breast assessment versus usual care.

Authors:  Kristina M Blackmore; Ashini Weerasinghe; Claire M B Holloway; Vicky Majpruz; Lucia Mirea; Frances P O'Malley; Cathy Paroschy Harris; Ashley Hendry; Amanda Hey; Anat Kornecki; George Lougheed; Barbara-Anne Maier; Patricia Marchand; David McCready; Carol Rand; Simon Raphael; Roanne Segal-Nadler; Neelu Sehgal; Derek Muradali; Anna M Chiarelli
Journal:  Can J Public Health       Date:  2019-04-29

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

Authors:  C Webber; M Whitehead; A Eisen; C M B Holloway; P A Groome
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2020-08-01       Impact factor: 3.677

3.  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

4.  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

5.  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

6.  Factors influencing the delivery of cancer pathways: a summary of the literature.

Authors:  Syaribah Noor Brice; Paul Harper; Tom Crosby; Daniel Gartner; Edilson Arruda; Tracey England; Emma Aspland; Kieran Foley
Journal:  J Health Organ Manag       Date:  2021-03-24

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

Authors:  Steven Habbous; Esha Homenauth; Andriana Barisic; Sharmilaa Kandasamy; Vicky Majpruz; Katharina Forster; Marta Yurcan; Anna M Chiarelli; Patti Groome; Claire M B Holloway; Andrea Eisen
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2022-04-05

8.  Clinical and prognostic factors associated with diagnostic wait times by breast cancer detection method.

Authors:  Amalia Plotogea; Anna M Chiarelli; Lucia Mirea; Maegan V Prummel; Nelson Chong; Rene S Shumak; Frances P O'Malley; Claire Mb Holloway
Journal:  Springerplus       Date:  2014-03-06
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.