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.

The Impact of Radiologist Screening Mammogram Reading Volume on Performance in the Ontario Breast Screening Program.

PURPOSE: Although some studies have shown increasing radiologists' mammography volumes improves performance, there is a lack of evidence specific to digital mammography and breast screening program performance targets. This study evaluates the relationship between digital screening volume and meeting performance targets. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 493 radiologists in the Ontario Breast Screening Program who interpreted 1,762,173 screening mammograms in participants ages 50-90 between 2014 and 2016. Associations between annual screening volume and meeting performance targets for abnormal call rate, positive predictive value (PPV), invasive cancer detection rate (CDR), sensitivity, and specificity were modeled using mixed-effects multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Most radiologists read 500-999 (36.7%) or 1,000-1,999 (31.0%) screens annually, and 18.5% read ≥2,000. Radiologists who read ≥2,000 annually were more likely to meet abnormal call rate (OR = 3.85; 95% CI: 1.17-12.61), PPV (OR = 5.36; 95% CI: 2.53-11.34), invasive CDR (OR = 4.14; 95% CI: 1.50-11.46), and specificity (OR = 4.07; 95% CI: 1.89-8.79) targets versus those who read 100-499 screens. Radiologists reading 1,000-1,999 screens annually were more likely to meet PPV (OR = 2.32; 95% CI: 1.22-4.40), invasive CDR (OR = 3.36; 95% CI: 1.49-7.59) and specificity (OR = 2.00; 95% CI: 1.04-3.84) targets versus those who read 100-499 screens. No significant differences were observed for sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: Annual reading volume requirements of 1,000 in Canada are supported as screening volume above 1,000 was strongly associated with achieving performance targets for nearly all measures. Increasing the minimum volume to 2,000 may further reduce the potential limitations of screening due to false positives, leading to improvements in overall breast screening program quality.

Annual vs Biennial Screening: Diagnostic Accuracy Among Concurrent Cohorts Within the Ontario Breast Screening Program.

BACKGROUND: The Ontario Breast Screening Program recommends annual mammography to women age 50-74 years at increased risk because of family history of breast or ovarian cancer or personal history of ovarian cancer or mammographic density 75% or greater. Few studies have examined the diagnostic accuracy of recommendations based on risk factors and included screen film as well as digital mammography. METHODS: A retrospective design identified concurrent cohorts of women age 50-74 years screened annually or biennially with digital mammography only between 2011 and 2014 and followed until 2016 or breast cancer diagnosis. Diagnostic accuracy measures were compared between women screened annually because of first-degree relative of breast or ovarian cancer or personal history of ovarian cancer (n = 67 795 women), mammographic density 75% or greater (n = 51 956), or both (n = 3758) and those screened biennially (n = 526 815). The association between recommendation and sensitivity and specificity was assessed using generalized estimating equation models. All P values are two-sided. RESULTS: For annual screening because of family or personal history vs biennial, sensitivity was statistically significantly higher (81.7% vs 70.6%; OR = 1.86, 95% CI = 1.48 to 2.34), particularly for invasive cancers and postmenopausal women. Although there was no statistically significant difference in sensitivity for annual screening for mammographic density 75% or greater, specificity was statistically significantly lower (91.3%; OR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.80 to 0.96) vs biennial (92.3%), particularly for women age 50-59 years. CONCLUSION: Compared with biennial screening, annual screening improved detection for women with a family or personal history of breast and/or ovarian cancer, supporting screening that is more frequent. The benefit for annual screening for women with higher mammographic density must be weighed against possible harms of increased false positives.

Performance Measures of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Plus Mammography in the High Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program.

BACKGROUND: The Ontario Breast Screening Program expanded in July 2011 to screen high-risk women age 30-69 years with annual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and digital mammography. This study examined the benefits of screening with mammography and MRI by age and risk criteria. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included 8782 women age 30-69 years referred to the High Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program from July 2011 to June 2015, with final results to December 2016. Cancer detection rates, sensitivity, and specificity of MRI and mammography combined were compared with each modality individually within risk groups stratified by age using generalized estimating equation models. Prognostic features of screen-detected breast cancers were compared by modality using Fisher exact test. All P values are two-sided. RESULTS: Among 20 053 screening episodes, there were 280 screen-detected breast cancers (cancer detection rate = 14.0 per 1000, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 12.4 to 15.7). The sensitivity of mammography was statistically significantly lower than that of MRI plus mammography (40.8%, 95% CI = 29.3% to 53.5% vs 96.0%, 95% CI = 92.2% to 98.0%, P < .001). In mutation carriers age 30-39 years, sensitivity of the combination was comparable with MRI alone (100.0% vs 96.8%, 95% CI = 79.2% to 100.0%, P = .99) but with statistically significantly decreased specificity (78.0%, 95% CI = 74.7% to 80.9% vs 86.2%, 95% CI = 83.5% to 88.5%, P < .001). In women age 50-69 years, combining MRI and mammography statistically significantly increased sensitivity compared with MRI alone (96.3%, 95% CI = 90.6% to 98.6% vs 90.9%, 95% CI = 83.6% to 95.1%, P = .02), with a small but statistically significant decrease in specificity (84.2%, 95% CI = 83.1% to 85.2% vs 90.0%, 95% CI = 89.2% to 90.9%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Screening high risk women age 30-39 years with annual MRI only may be sufficient for cancer detection and should be evaluated further, particularly for mutation carriers. Among women age 50-69 years, detection is most effective when mammography is included with annual MRI.

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

OBJECTIVE: The benefit of organized breast assessment on wait times to treatment among asymptomatic women is unknown. The Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP) offers screening and organized assessment through Breast Assessment Centres (BAC). This study compares wait times across the treatment pathway among screened women diagnosed with breast cancer through BAC and usual care (UC). METHODS: A retrospective design identified two concurrent cohorts of postmenopausal women aged 50-69 within the OBSP diagnosed with screen-detected invasive breast cancer and assessed in BAC (n = 2010) and UC (n = 1844) between 2002 and 2010. Demographic characteristics were obtained from the OBSP. Medical chart abstraction provided prognostic and treatment data. Multinomial logistic regression examined associations of assessment type with wait times from abnormal mammogram to surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy. RESULTS: Compared with through UC, postmenopausal women diagnosed through BAC were significantly less likely to have longer wait times (days) from an abnormal mammogram to definitive surgery (> 89 vs. ≤ 47; OR = 0.63; 95% CI = 0.52-0.77), from final surgery to radiotherapy (> 88 vs. ≤ 55; OR = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.54-0.93) and from final chemotherapy to radiotherapy (> 41 vs. ≤ 28; OR = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.36-0.76). Conversely, women assessed through BAC compared with through UC were more likely to experience longer wait times from final surgery to chemotherapy (> 64 vs. ≤ 40; OR = 1.49; 95% CI = 1.04-2.14). CONCLUSION: Shorter wait times to most treatments for postmenopausal women diagnosed in BAC further supports that women with an abnormal mammogram should be managed through organized assessment. Continued evaluation of factors influencing wait times to treatment is essential for quality improvement and patient outcomes.

The impact of organized breast assessment on survival by stage for screened women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Since 1998, the Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP) has offered organized assessment through Breast Assessment Centres (BAC). This study compares survival between screened women diagnosed with breast cancer who have undergone assessment through a BAC and usual care (UC). METHODS: A retrospective design identified two concurrent cohorts of women aged 50 to 69 within the OBSP diagnosed with screen-detected invasive breast cancer at a BAC (n = 2010) and UC (n = 1844) between 2002 and 2010 and followed until 2016. Demographic and assessment characteristics were obtained from the OBSP. Abstraction of medical charts provided prognostic and treatment data. Death data were assessed from the Registered Person's Database and the Ontario Registrar General All-Cause Mortality File. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models compared overall survival by assessment type (BAC/UC), stratified by stage. RESULTS: There were 505 deaths during the study (BAC = 239; UC = 266). Among women with stage I screen-detected breast cancer, those diagnosed through a BAC had 31% reduced risk of all-cause mortality (HR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.53-0.90) compared to UC. Diagnosis within 7 weeks of an abnormal mammogram reduced the hazard of death from all causes by 34% among all women with stage I breast cancers (HR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.47-0.91), and was more likely in BAC (79.7%) than UC (66.9%). CONCLUSION: The significant improvement in overall survival for women with stage I screen-detected invasive breast cancer assessed through BACs further supports the recommendation that women with abnormal mammograms should be managed through organized assessment.

Validity of Administrative Databases in Comparison to Medical Charts for Breast Cancer Treatment Data.

OBJECTIVE: Medical chart abstraction is the gold standard for collecting breast cancer treatment data for monitoring and research. A less costly alternative is the use of administrative databases. This study will evaluate administrative data in comparison to medical charts for breast cancer treatment information. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective cohort design identified 2,401 women in the Ontario Breast Screening Program diagnosed with invasive breast cancer from 2006 to 2009. Treatment data were obtained from the Activity Level Reporting and Canadian Institute of Health Information databases. Medical charts were abstracted at cancer centres. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and kappa were calculated for receipt and type of treatment, and agreement was assessed for dates. Logistic regression evaluated factors influencing agreement. RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity for receipt of radiotherapy (92.0%, 99.3%), chemotherapy (77.7%, 99.2%), and surgery (95.8%, 100%) were high but decreased slightly for specific radiotherapy anatomic locations, chemotherapy protocols, and surgeries. Agreement increased by radiotherapy year (trend test, p < 0.0001). Stage II/III compared to stage I cancer decreased odds of agreement for chemotherapy (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.48-0.91) and increased agreement for partial mastectomy (OR = 3.36, 95% CI: 2.27-4.99). Exact agreement in treatment dates varied from 83.0% to 96.5%. CONCLUSION: Administrative data can be accurately utilized for future breast cancer treatment studies.

Genetic assessment wait time indicators in the High Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program.

BACKGROUND: The Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP) expanded in July 2011 to screen high-risk women aged 30-69 with annual MRI and mammography. This study evaluated wait time (WT) indicators along the genetic assessment (GA) pathway for women referred to the High Risk OBSP. METHODS: Information was collected for 27,170 women referred to the High Risk OBSP from July 2011 to June 2015 and followed for GA until June 2016. Median duration (days), interquartile range (IQR) were measured for each WT indicator by program year, age, prior breast cancer, and risk criteria. RESULTS: Among 24,811 women who completed GA, 16,367 (66.0%) had genetic counseling only, 8,444 (34.0%) had counseling and testing and 8,027 (32.4%) met the high risk criteria. Median WT from physician visit to first screen was longer for women having genetic counseling only compared to those having counseling and testing (244 vs. 197 days). Women having counseling only also experienced the longest WT from physician visit to genetic counseling (88 days; IQR = 10-174), which increased by year from 71 to 100 days (p < .0001). Among women having counseling and testing, WT from physician visit to counseling was shortest for mutation carriers (39 days; IQR = 4-100). Median WT from testing to laboratory report issue was 41 days (IQR = 22-70) and 17 days to disclosure of test results (IQR = 7-33). Both WTs decreased with year and were shorter for mutation carriers (33 days, IQR = 19-58; 15 days, IQR = 7-28, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: After implementation of the High Risk OBSP, women received timely genetic counseling, in particular those having counseling and testing. Effective triage models for physicians could reduce WT to GA after physician referral.

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.

Digital Compared with Screen-Film Mammography: Measures of Diagnostic Accuracy among Women Screened in the Ontario Breast Screening Program.

PURPOSE: To compare measures of diagnostic accuracy between large concurrent cohorts of women screened with digital computed radiography (CR), direct radiography (DR), and screen-film mammography (SFM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by the University of Toronto Research Ethics Board; informed consent was not required. Three concurrent cohorts of women aged 50-74 years who were screened from 2008-2009 in the Ontario Breast Screening Program with SFM (487,334 screening examinations, 403,688 women), DR (254,758 screening examinations, 220,520 women), or CR (74,140 screening examinations, 64,210 women) were followed for 2 years or until breast cancer diagnosis. Breast cancers were classified as screening-detected or interval on the basis of the woman's final screening and assessment results. Interval cancer rate (per 10 000 negative screening examinations), sensitivity, and specificity were compared across the cohorts by using mixed-effects logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Interval cancer rates were higher, although not significantly so, for CR (15.2 per 10,000; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.8, 17.8) and were similar for DR (13.7 per 10,000; 95% CI: 12.4, 15.0) compared with SFM (13.0 per 10,000; 95% CI: 12.1, 13.9). For CR versus SFM, specificity was similar while sensitivity was significantly lower (odds ratio [OR] = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.47, 0.83; P = .001), particularly for invasive cancers detected at a rescreening examination, for women with breast density of less than 75%, for women with no family history, and for postmenopausal women. For DR versus SFM, sensitivity was similar while specificity was lower (OR = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.87, 0.98; P = .01), particularly for rescreening examinations, for women aged 60-74 years, for women with breast density of less than 75%, for women with a family history, and for women who were postmenopausal. CONCLUSION: Given the 38% lower sensitivity of CR imaging systems compared with SFM, programs should assess the continued use of this technology for breast screening.

Digital versus screen-film mammography: impact of mammographic density and hormone therapy on breast cancer detection.

Most studies that have examined the effects of mammographic density and hormone therapy use on breast cancer detection have included screen-film mammography. This study further examines this association in post-menopausal women screened by digital mammography. Approved by the University of Toronto Research Ethics Board, this study identified 688,418 women of age 50-74 years screened with digital or screen-film mammography from 2008 to 2009 within the Ontario Breast Screening Program. Of 2993 eligible women with invasive breast cancer, 2450 were contacted and 1421 participated (847 screen-film mammography, 574 digital direct radiography). Mammographic density was measured by study radiologists using the standard BI-RADS classification system and by a computer-assisted method. Information on hormone therapy use was collected by a telephone-administered questionnaire. Logistic regression and two-tailed tests for significance evaluated associations between factors and detection method by mammography type. Women with >75 % radiologist-measured mammographic density compared to those with <25 % were more likely to be diagnosed with an interval than screen-detected cancer, with the difference being greater for those screened with screen-film (OR = 6.40, 95 % CI 2.30-17.85) than digital mammography (OR = 2.41, 95 % CI 0.67-8.58) and aged 50-64 years screened with screen-film mammography (OR = 10.86, 95 % CI 2.96-39.57). Recent former hormone therapy users were also at an increased risk of having an interval cancer with the association being significant for women screened with digital mammography (OR = 2.08, 95 % CI 1.17-3.71). Breast screening using digital mammography lowers the risk of having an interval cancer for post-menopausal women aged 50-64 with greater mammographic density.

Digital compared to screen-film mammography: breast cancer prognostic features in an organized screening program.

Our previous study found cancer detection rates were equivalent for direct radiography compared to screen-film mammography, while rates for computed radiography were significantly lower. This study compares prognostic features of invasive breast cancers by type of mammography. Approved by the University of Toronto Research Ethics Board, this study identified invasive breast cancers diagnosed among concurrent cohorts of women aged 50-74 screened by direct radiography, computed radiography, or screen-film mammography from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2009. During the study period, 816,232 mammograms were performed on 668,418 women, and 3,323 invasive breast cancers were diagnosed. Of 2,642 eligible women contacted, 2,041 participated (77.3 %). The final sample size for analysis included 1,405 screen-detected and 418 interval cancers (diagnosed within 24 months of a negative screening mammogram). Polytomous logistic regression was performed to evaluate the association between tumour characteristics and type of mammography, and between tumour characteristics and detection method. Odds ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were recorded. Cancers detected by computed radiography compared to screen-film mammography were significantly more likely to be lymph node positive (OR 1.94, 95 %CI 1.01-3.73) and have higher stage (II:I, OR 2.14, 95 %CI 1.11-4.13 and III/IV:I, OR 2.97, 95 %CI 1.02-8.59). Compared to screen-film mammography, significantly more cancers detected by direct radiography (OR 1.64, 95 %CI 1.12-2.38) were lymph node positive. Interval cancers had worse prognostic features compared to screen-detected cancers, irrespective of mammography type. Screening with computed radiography may lead to the detection of cancers with a less favourable stage distribution compared to screen-film mammography that may reflect a delayed diagnosis. Screening programs should re-evaluate their use of computed radiography for breast screening.

Effectiveness of screening with annual magnetic resonance imaging and mammography: results of the initial screen from the ontario high risk breast screening program.

PURPOSE: The Ontario Breast Screening Program expanded in July 2011 to screen women age 30 to 69 years at high risk for breast cancer with annual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and digital mammography. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first organized screening program for women at high risk for breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Performance measures after assessment were compared with screening results for 2,207 women with initial screening examinations. The following criteria were used to determine eligibility: known mutation in BRCA1, BRCA2, or other gene predisposing to a markedly increased risk of breast cancer, untested first-degree relative of a gene mutation carrier, family history consistent with hereditary breast cancer syndrome and estimated personal lifetime breast cancer risk ≥ 25%, or radiation therapy to the chest (before age 30 years and at least 8 years previously). RESULTS: The recall rate was significantly higher among women who had abnormal MRI alone (15.1%; 95% CI, 13.8% to 16.4%) compared with mammogram alone (6.4%; 95% CI, 5.5% to 7.3%). Of the 35 breast cancers detected (16.3 per 1,000; 95% CI, 11.2 to 22.2), none were detected by mammogram alone, 23 (65.7%) were detected by MRI alone (10.7 per 1,000; 95% CI, 6.7 to 15.8), and 25 (71%) were detected among women who were known gene mutation carriers (30.8 per 1,000, 95% CI, 19.4 to 43.7). The positive predictive value was highest for detection based on mammogram and MRI (12.4%; 95% CI, 7.3% to 19.3%). CONCLUSION: Screening with annual MRI combined with mammography has the potential to be effectively implemented into an organized breast screening program for women at high risk for breast cancer. This could be considered an important management option for known BRCA gene mutation carriers.

Digital compared with screen-film mammography: performance measures in concurrent cohorts within an organized breast screening program.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the performance of digital direct radiography (DR) and computed radiography (CR) compared with that of screen-film mammography (SFM) in large concurrent cohorts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by the University of Toronto Research Ethics Board and did not require informed consent. Concurrent cohorts of women aged 50-74 years screened with DR (n = 220 520), CR (n = 64 210), or SFM (n = 403 688) between 2008 and 2009 were identified and followed for 12 months. Performance was compared between cohorts, with SFM as the referent cohort. Associations were examined by using mixed-effect logistic regression. RESULTS: The cancer detection rate was similar for DR (4.9 per 1000; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.7, 5.2) and SFM (4.8 per 1000; 95% CI: 4.7, 5.0); however, the rate was significantly lower for CR (3.4 per 1000; 95% CI: 3.0, 3.9) (odds ratio, 0.79; 95% CI: 0.68, 0.93). Recall rates were higher for DR (7.7%; 95% CI: 7.6%, 7.8%) and lower for CR (6.6%; 95% CI: 6.5%, 6.7%) than for SFM (7.4%; 95% CI: 7.3%, 7.5%). Positive predictive value was lower for CR (5.2%; 95% CI: 4.7%, 5.8%) than for SFM (6.6%; 95% CI: 6.4%, 6.8%); however, the adjusted odds were not significant. CONCLUSION: Although DR is equivalent to SFM for breast screening among women aged 50-74 years, the cancer detection rate was lower for CR. Screening programs should monitor the performance of CR separately and may consider informing women of the potentially lower cancer detection rates.

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

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.

Satisfaction with initial screen and compliance with biennial breast screening at centers with and without nurses.

BACKGROUND: A woman's experience during her initial breast screen can influence her participation in subsequent screening. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the association between a woman's satisfaction with her initial screening experience and compliance to biennial screening at centers with and without nurses. METHODS: A stratified random sample of compliers and noncompliers to biennial screening was selected from a cohort of 16 858 eligible women aged 50 to 65 years attending centers with and without nurses for their initial screen at the Ontario Breast Screening Program in 2002. Of these eligible women, 3387 were sent questionnaires, 2640 (77.9%) were contacted, and 1901 (72.0%) were interviewed. The association between satisfaction with initial screen and compliance was estimated separately for centers with and without nurses using logistic regression. RESULTS: Women attending centers with nurses were significantly less likely to comply with their next screen after their clinical breast examination if they were not completely satisfied with the service they received (odds ratio, 0.21; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.57) or agreed that the clinical breast examination caused discomfort to their breasts (odds ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.94). In addition, women attending centers with or without nurses were significantly less likely to comply if they did not understand why they needed to return for screening. CONCLUSIONS: : Nurses at screening centers have an opportunity to significantly impact a woman's compliance to biennial breast screening by providing a positive initial screening experience. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Emphasis should be placed on improving a woman's overall satisfaction with her initial screening experience.

Influence of nurses on compliance with breast screening recommendations in an organized breast screening program.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from breast screening trials has shown that a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality from screening can be achieved by regular attendance. Few studies have evaluated the influence of nurses on compliance with breast screening recommendations. METHODS: The cohort included 157,788 women ages 50 to 69 years who were screened at 1 of 9 regional cancer centers or 57 affiliated centers with nurses or 26 affiliated centers without nurses between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2002, within the Ontario Breast Screening Program. These women were followed up prospectively for at least 30 months to compare compliance for annual and biennial screening recommendations among women who attended centers with and without nurses. The associations between type of screening center and the odds of compliance were modeled using mixed-effect logistic regression models. All P values are two-sided. RESULTS: Women attending a regional cancer center [odds ratios (OR), 1.96; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.07-3.58] or affiliated center with nurses (OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.38-2.22) were significantly more likely to return within 18 months of their annual screening recommendation than women attending affiliated centers without nurses. In addition, women attending regional cancer centers (OR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.34-3.89) or affiliated centers with nurses (OR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.86-2.83) were significantly more likely to make a timely return within the recommended biennial screening interval of between 18 and 30 months. CONCLUSIONS: Breast screening programs should consider methods of integrating educational activities as provided by the nurses to improve compliance with screening.

The contribution of clinical breast examination to the accuracy of breast screening.

BACKGROUND: There is controversy about whether adding clinical breast examination (CBE) to mammography improves the accuracy of breast screening. We compared the accuracy of screening among centers that offered CBE in addition to mammography with that among centers that offered only mammography. METHODS: The cohort included 290 230 women aged 50-69 years who were screened at regional cancer centers or affiliated centers within the Ontario Breast Screening Program between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2003, and were followed up for 12 months. The regional cancer centers offer screening mammography and CBE performed by a nurse. All affiliated centers provide mammography but not all provide CBE. Performance measures for 232 515 women who were screened by mammography and CBE at the nine regional cancer centers or 59 affiliated centers that provided CBE were compared with those for 57 715 women who were screened by mammography alone at 34 affiliated centers that did not provide CBE. RESULTS: Sensitivity of referrals was higher for women who were screened at regional cancer centers or affiliated centers that offered CBE in addition to mammography than for women screened at affiliated centers that did not offer CBE (initial screen: 94.9% and 94.6%, respectively, vs 88.6%; subsequent screen: 94.9% and 91.7%, respectively, vs 85.3%). Mammography sensitivity was similar between centers that offered CBE and those that did not. However, women without cancer who were screened at regional cancer centers or affiliated centers that offered CBE had a higher false-positive rate than women screened at affiliated centers that offered only mammography (initial screen: 12.5% and 12.4%, respectively, vs 7.4%; subsequent screen: 6.3% and 8.3%, respectively, vs 5.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Women should be informed of the benefits and risks of having a CBE in addition to mammography for breast screening.

Predisposing factors associated with compliance to biennial breast screening among centers with and without nurses.

BACKGROUND: Previous research suggests that predisposing factors such as previous screening experience, participation in preventive health behaviors, and knowledge/beliefs about breast cancer and screening influence a woman's decision to make a timely return for a second screen. METHODS: A stratified random sample of compliers and noncompliers to biennial screening were selected from a cohort of 51,242 women ages 50 to 65 years who had their initial screen at the Ontario Breast Screening Program. In total, 1,901 women were telephone-interviewed. The associations between predisposing factors and compliance were estimated separately for centers with and without nurses using logistic regression analyses adjusted for demographics and smoking status. RESULTS: Women screened at nurse centers were less likely to comply if they thought women should stop having mammograms before age 70 years [odds ratio (OR), 0.39; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.19-0.79], did not consider mammograms very likely to find cancer (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56-0.95), felt their likeliness of getting breast cancer was below average (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54-0.89), or believed a high-fat diet was not an important risk factor for breast cancer (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.36-0.97). Women attending nurse centers were significantly more likely to comply if they sometimes had thoughts or worries about developing breast cancer (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.10-1.80). CONCLUSIONS: Nurses at screening centers may reinforce a woman's knowledge or beliefs about breast cancer or screening and as a result increase their compliance to biennial breast screening.