Clinical Image Quality and Sensitivity in an Organized Mammography Screening Program.

PURPOSE: The study sought to examine the association between clinical image quality of mammograms and screening sensitivity. METHODS: Four radiologists evaluated the clinical image quality of 374 invasive screen-detected cancers and 356 invasive interval breast cancers for which quality evaluation of screening mammograms could be assessed from cancers diagnosed among participants in the Quebec Breast Cancer Screening Program in 2007. Quality evaluation was based on the Canadian Association of Radiologists accreditation criteria, which are similar to those of the American College of Radiology. The association between clinical quality and screening sensitivity was assessed by logistic regression. Adjusted sensitivity and adjusted sensitivity ratios were obtained through marginal standardization. No institutional review board approval was required. RESULTS: A proportion of 28% (206 of 730) of screening mammograms had lower overall quality for the majority of assessments. Positioning was the quality attribute that was the most frequently deficient. The 2-year screening sensitivity reached 68%. Sensitivity of screening was not statistically associated with the overall quality (ratio of 2-year sensitivity = 1.03; 95% confidence interval: 0.93-1.15) or with any quality attributes (positioning, exposure, compression, sharpness, artifacts, contrast). Results were similar for the 1-year sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: Although not all mammograms in the Quebec screening program met the optimum quality required by the Canadian Association of Radiologists or American College of Radiology accreditation, the screening mammograms produced in this population-based organized screening program reached a high enough level of quality so that the remaining variation in quality is too little to impair screening sensitivity.

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.

Clinical image quality in daily practice of breast cancer mammography screening.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of screening mammograms performed in daily practice in the Quebec Breast Cancer Screening Program. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Clinical image quality of a random subsample of 197 screening mammograms performed in 2004-2005 was independently evaluated by 2 radiologists based on the criteria by Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR). When disagreement occurred for overall judgement or positioning score, the mammograms were reviewed by a third radiologist. Cohen's kappas for interrater agreement were computed. Multivariable robust Poisson regression models were used to study associations of overall quality and positioning with body mass index (BMI) and breast density. RESULTS: The CAR criteria were not satisfied for 49.7% of the mammograms. Positioning was the quality attribute most often deficient, with 37.2% of mammograms failing positioning. Interrater agreement ranged from slight (kappa = 0.02 for compression and sharpness) to fair (kappa = 0.30 for exposure). For overall quality, women with a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2) had a failure proportion of 67.5% compared with 34.9% for women with a BMI<25 kg/m(2) (risk ratio 2.1 [95% confidence interval, 1.5-3.0]). For positioning, women with a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2) had a failure proportion of 53.8% compared with 27.9% for women with a BMI < 25 kg/m(2) (risk ratio 1.9 [95% confidence interval, 1.2-3.1]). Effects of breast density on image quality differed among radiologists. CONCLUSION: Despite measures to ensure high-quality imaging, including CAR accreditation, approximately half of this random sample of screening mammograms failed the CAR quality standards. It would be important to define quality targets for screening mammograms carried out in daily practice to interpret such observations.

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.

Recording of hormone therapy and breast density in breast screening programs: summary and recommendations of the International Cancer Screening Network.

Breast density and the use of hormone therapy (HT) for menopausal symptoms alter the risk of breast cancer and both factors influence screening mammography performance. The International Cancer Screening Network (ICSN) surveyed its 29 member countries and found that few programs record breast density or the use of HT among screening participants. This may affect the ability of programs to assess their effectiveness in reducing breast cancer mortality. Seven countries recorded the use of HT at screening, and some were able to link screening records to individual prescribing records of HT. Eight countries reported recording breast density at screening mammography for some or all women screened. The recommendations of the ICSN for recording information about breast density and HT are presented.

Outcomes of surveillance mammography after treatment of primary breast cancer: a population-based case series.

GOAL: To ascertain outcomes of surveillance mammography (SM) following treatment of early stage unilateral primary breast cancer (PBC) in a population based case series. METHODS: Random samples from all 12,279 women having breast surgery within 4 months after diagnosis of PBC, between July 1991 and December 1993 in Ontario, were drawn from a database created by deterministic linkage of PBC files from the Ontario Cancer Registry (OCR) with episodes of breast surgery extracted from the hospital Discharge Abstract Database (DAD), and mammography from the Ontario physician billings database (OHIP). Among women having >or=1 episode(s) of breast surgery subsequent (SBS) to the date of diagnosis up to December 2000, a sample of 1,200/5,064 (23.7%) was drawn, and among women with no SBS, a sample of 400/7,215 (5.5%). Among these two samples, operative, pathology, and mammography reports were abstracted from original charts. Treatments were abstracted and categorized. Women with complete data for Stages 1 and 2 unilateral PBC were included. From the subsequent surgery sample, 609/1,200 (50.8%) were excluded because of simultaneous or sequential bilateral breast cancers or mastectomies within 6 months, missing stage information, Stage 3 or 4 PBC, or missing primary charts. From the no subsequent surgery sample, 90/400 (22.5%) were excluded by the same criteria. Episodes of bilateral 2-view X-ray mammography, beginning >or=6 months after the diagnosis of unilateral PBC, and if multiple, at least 11 months apart, and not prompted by a clinical concern or symptom, were classified as SM. We confirmed episodes of cancer recurrence within the ipsilateral conserved breast (CRICB) and metachronous contralateral primary breast cancer (CPBC) >or=6 months after the diagnosis of the unilateral PBC from original operative and pathology reports. We used Cox models to describe the association of exposure to >or=1 episode(s) of SM with the risk of death from breast cancer among the study population, and separately among women experiencing CRICB or CPBC. RESULTS: Eligible women comprising 591/1,200 and 310/400 produced a combined case series of 901/1,600 (56.3%). Women with >or=1 episode(s) of SM numbered 721/901 (80.0%). We confirmed 84 CRICB events among 584 women initially treated by lumpectomy (14.4%), and 49 CPBC events among all 901 women in the study population (5.4%). Among women having >or=1 episode(s), the 25th percentile of observed follow up was 1,631 days, the 50th, 4,287 days, and the 75th 5,011 days. Among women without any SM, the 25th percentile of observed follow-up was 440 days, the 50th, 891 days, and the 75th, 1,849 days. Hazard ratio (HR) for death due to breast cancer associated with >or=1 episode of SM was 0.28 (95% CI 0.22-0.37), adjusted for age, stage, type of surgery, adjuvant chemotherapy, and tamoxifen. Among 84/584 women with CRICB, unadjusted HR = 0.36 (95%CI 0.13, 1.00) and among 49/901 women with CPBC, unadjusted HR = 0.86 (0.20-3.77). CONCLUSION: SM was associated with a significant reduction in the hazard for breast cancer death. Among women who experienced CRICB, the reduction was of borderline significance, and the reduction was not significant among women who experienced CPBC.

Systematic review: using magnetic resonance imaging to screen women at high risk for breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: A sensitive and acceptable screening regimen for women at high risk for breast cancer is essential. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast is highly sensitive for diagnosis of breast cancer but has variable specificity. PURPOSE: To summarize the sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and posttest probability associated with adding MRI to annual mammography screening of women at very high risk for breast cancer. DATA SOURCES: English-language literature search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases from January 1995 to September 2007, supplemented by hand searches of pertinent articles. STUDY SELECTION: Prospective studies published after 1994 in which MRI and mammography (with or without additional tests) were used to screen women at very high risk for breast cancer. DATA EXTRACTION: Methods and potential biases of studies were assessed by 2 reviewers, and data were extracted and entered into 2 x 2 tables that compared American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) scores of MRI plus mammography, mammography alone, or MRI alone with results of breast tissue biopsies. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eleven relevant, prospective, nonrandomized studies that ranged from small single-center studies with only 1 round of patient screening to large multicenter studies with repeated rounds of annual screening were identified. Characteristics of women that varied across study samples included age range, history of breast cancer, and BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation status. Studies used dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI with axial or coronal plane images (European studies) or sagittal images (North American studies) that were usually interpreted without knowledge of mammography results. The summary negative likelihood ratio and the probability of a BI-RADS-suspicious lesion (given negative test findings and assuming a 2% pretest probability of disease) were 0.70 (95% CI, 0.59 to 0.82) and 1.4% (CI, 1.2% to 1.6%) for mammography alone and 0.14 (CI, 0.05 to 0.42) and 0.3% (CI, 0.1% to 0.8%) for the combination of MRI plus mammography, using a BI-RADS score of 4 or higher as the definition of positive. LIMITATIONS: Differences in patient population, center experience, and criteria for positive screening results led to between-study heterogeneity. Data on patients with nonfamilial high risk were limited, and no data were available on recurrence or survival. CONCLUSION: Screening with both MRI and mammography might rule out cancerous lesions better than mammography alone in women who are known or likely to have an inherited predisposition to breast cancer.

Influence of patterns of hormone replacement therapy use and mammographic density on breast cancer detection.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that factors such as current hormone replacement therapy (HRT) use and mammographic density may each lower the sensitivity of mammography and are associated with a greater risk of developing an interval cancer. This study explores this relationship further by examining the influence of patterns of HRT use and the percentage of mammographic density on the detection of breast cancer by classification of interval cancer. METHODS: This study uses a case-case design nested within a cohort of women screened by the Ontario Breast Screening Program between 1994 and 2002. Interval cancers, both those missed at screening but seen on retrospective review (n = 87) or true intervals without visible tumor signs at screening (n = 288) were matched to 450 screen-detected cancers. The association between the percentage of mammographic density, measured by radiologists and a computer-assisted method, and HRT use, ascertained from a mailed questionnaire, and the risk of being diagnosed with an interval cancer was estimated using conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: A monotonic gradient of increasing risk for interval cancers was found for each 25% increase in mammographic density [odds ratio (OR), 1.77; 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), 1.07-2.95 for missed intervals and OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.59-2.94 for true intervals]. After adjusting for mammographic density, a significantly increased risk for true-interval cancers remained for women taking estrogen alone (OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.11-2.83) as well as for missed- (OR, 2.84; 95% CI, 1.32-6.13) and true-interval cancers (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.10-2.90) for women taking combined HRT. CONCLUSIONS: Information on mammographic density and HRT use should routinely be collected at the time of screening. Women at risk should be made aware of the lower sensitivity of mammography and offered alternative procedures for screening.

Performance measures from 10 years of breast screening in the Ontario Breast Screening Program, 1990/91 to 2000.

Performance measures for the Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP) by age group, time period and screening modality from 10 years of breast screening were evaluated. Data were available from routine information collected on 283,962 women aged 50 to 69 screened at 73 screening centres between 1 July 1990 and 31 December 2000. Although, initially, participation in the OBSP was low, this rate increased over time and the majority of women screened returned for subsequent screening. Abnormal call rates increased slightly over the time period, were higher in women aged 50 to 59, and for women with mammographic abnormalities. Detection rates of invasive cancer were higher and prognostic features of cancers were better for women age 60 to 69, and those referred by mammography. Along with the prognostic features of cancers, the benign to malignant surgical ratio and diagnostic interval improved over the time periods and for women aged 60 to 69. Greater proportions of women had shorter diagnostic intervals and were more likely to have a diagnosis of breast cancer after surgery if they were referred by both clinical breast examination and mammography. Although some enhancements of the programme are necessary, the OBSP met or exceeded Canadian targets for most performance measures.

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

BACKGROUND: The effect of severity of screening result on delays to diagnosis has primarily been examined for mammographic abnormalities. This study will examine delays to assessment and diagnosis for women with an abnormal mammogram compared to women with an abnormal clinical breast examination (CBE) or abnormal CBE and mammogram. METHODS: Using data routinely collected by Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP), 12,675 women aged 50 to 69 with an abnormal screening result between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2000 were followed prospectively to the completion of their assessment process. Median waiting times from abnormal screen to first assessment procedure and diagnosis were compared by modality of referral and among women with a breast cancer diagnosis by prognostic features. RESULTS: The median waiting time to first assessment and to diagnosis was significantly longer for women with only a clinical abnormality compared to women with a mammographic abnormality. In addition, women diagnosed with cancers of larger size had longer delays when the abnormality was detected only clinically. However, women referred by both modalities had significantly shorter waiting times to first assessment procedure and to diagnosis of poor prognosis cancers compared to women referred by mammography alone. INTERPRETATION: Women with an abnormal CBE and mammogram are assessed more promptly and have shorter diagnostic times. However, women with only a CBE abnormality had delays to diagnosis as a result of longer waiting times to first assessment procedure. Integration of the OBSP with assessment centres should improve times to diagnosis irrespective of modality of referral.

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

INTRODUCTION: Although prognostic differences between screen-detected, interval and symptomatic breast cancers are known, factors associated with wait times to diagnosis among these three groups have not been studied. METHODS: Of the 16,373 invasive breast cancers diagnosed between January 1, 1995 and December 31, 2003 in a cohort of Ontario women aged 50 to 69, a random sample (N = 2,615) were selected for chart abstraction. Eligible women were classified according to detection method; screen-detected (n = 1181), interval (n = 319) or symptomatic (n = 406). Diagnostic wait time was calculated from the initial imaging or biopsy to breast cancer diagnosis. Logistic regression analysis examined associations between diagnostic wait times dichotomized as greater or less than the median and demographic, clinical and prognostic factors separately for each detection cohort. RESULTS: Women who underwent an open biopsy had significantly longer than median wait times to diagnosis, compared to women who underwent a fine needle aspiration or core biopsy; (screen-detected OR = 2.76, 95% CI = 2.14-3.56; interval OR = 2.56, 95% CI = 1.50-4.35; symptomatic OR = 5.56, 95% CI = 3.33-9.30). Additionally, screen-detected breast cancers diagnosed with stage II and symptomatic cancers diagnosed at stage III or IV had significantly shorter diagnostic wait times compared to those diagnosed at stage 1 (OR = 0.66 95% CI = 0.50-0.87 and OR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.25-0.85 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our study is consistent with expedited diagnostic work-up for breast cancers with more advanced prognostic features. Furthermore, women who had an open surgical biopsy had a greater than the median diagnostic wait time, irrespective of detection method.

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.

Factors associated with wait times across the breast cancer treatment pathway in Ontario.

BACKGROUND: Longer times from diagnosis to breast cancer treatment are associated with poorer prognosis. This study examined factors associated with wait times by phase in the breast cancer treatment pathway. METHODS: There were 1760 women eligible for the study, aged 50-69 diagnosed in Ontario with invasive breast cancer from 1995-2003. Multivariate logistic regression examined factors associated with greater than median wait times for each phase of the treatment pathway; from diagnosis to definitive surgery; from final surgery to radiotherapy without chemotherapy and from final surgery to chemotherapy. RESULTS: The median wait times were 17 days (Inter Quartile Range (IQR) = 0-31) from diagnosis to definitive surgery, 44 days (IQR = 34-56) from final surgery to postoperative chemotherapy and 75 days (IQR = 57-97) from final surgery to postoperative radiotherapy. Diagnosis during 2000-2003 compared to 1995-1999 was associated with significantly longer wait times for each phase of the treatment pathway. Higher income quintile was associated with longer wait time from diagnosis to surgery (OR = 1.47, 95% CI = 1.05-2.06) and shorter wait times from final surgery to radiotherapy (OR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.37-0.96). Greater stage at diagnosis was associated with shorter wait times from diagnosis to definitive surgery (stage III vs I: OR = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.34-0.71). CONCLUSIONS: While diagnosis during the latter part of the study period was associated with significantly longer wait times for all phases of the treatment pathway, there were variations in the associations of stage and income quintile with wait times by treatment phase. Continued assessment of factors associated with wait times across the breast cancer treatment pathway is important, as they indicate areas to be targeted for quality improvement with the ultimate goal of improving prognosis.

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.

Favourable prognostic factors of subsequent screen-detected breast cancers among women aged 50-69.

Most studies reporting more favourable biological features of screen-detected breast cancers compared with symptomatic or interval cancers include initial or prevalent screens and therefore may not indicate the real benefit of screening on breast cancer mortality. We conducted case-case comparisons within a cohort of eligible women (N=771 715) who were aged 50-69 between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 2003. A randomly selected sample of breast cancers (N=1848) diagnosed among these women were compared by detection method. Tumour characteristics of interval cancers (N=362) diagnosed after 6-24 months of a negative screen or symptomatic breast cancers (N=491) were compared with subsequent screen-detected breast cancers diagnosed within 6 months of a positive screen (N=995) using polytomous logistic regression. Tumours were evaluated for clinical presentation, histology and expression of hormone receptors. Women with symptomatic detected [odds ratio (OR)=7.48, 95% confidence interval (CI)=5.38-10.38] and interval cancers (OR=2.20, 95% CI=1.56-3.10) were more often diagnosed at stage III-IV versus I than women with rescreen-detected cancers. After adjusting for tumour size, women with symptomatic cancers had tumours of higher grade (OR=1.50, 95% CI=1.05-2.15) and mitotic score (OR=1.69, 95% CI=1.15-2.49) and women with interval cancers had tumours of higher mitotic score (OR=1.52, 95% CI=1.01-2.28) compared with women diagnosed at screening. Subsequent screen-detected cancers are not only detected at an earlier stage but are also less aggressive, leading to a better prognosis. As long-term mortality reduction for breast screening may depend on subsequent screens, our study indicates that mammography screening can be effective in women aged 50-69.

Tumor characteristics associated with mammographic detection of breast cancer in the Ontario breast screening program.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have compared the prognostic value of tumor characteristics by type of breast cancer diagnosed in the interval between mammographic screenings with screen-detected breast cancers. METHODS: We conducted a case-case study within the cohort of women (n = 431 480) in the Ontario Breast Screening Program who were aged 50 years and older and were screened between January 1, 1994, and December 31, 2002. Interval cancers, defined as breast cancers diagnosed within 24 months after a negative screening mammogram, were designated as true interval cancers (n = 288) or missed interval cancers (n = 87) if they were not identified at the time of screening but were identified in retrospect. Screen-detected breast cancers (n = 450) were selected to match interval cancers. Tumors were evaluated for stage, grade, mitotic index, histology, and expression of hormone receptors and odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: Both true and missed interval cancers were of higher stage and grade than matched screen-detected breast cancers. However, true interval cancers had a higher mitotic index (OR = 3.13, 95% CI = 1.81 to 5.42), a higher percentage of nonductal histology (OR = 1.94, 95% CI = 1.05 to 3.59), and were more likely to be both estrogen receptor-negative (OR = 2.09, 95% CI = 1.32 to 3.30) and progesterone receptor-negative (OR = 2.49, 95% CI = 1.68 to 3.70) compared with matched screen-detected tumors. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, interval cancers were of higher stage and grade compared with screen-detected cancers. True interval cancers were more likely to have additional adverse prognostic features of estrogen and progesterone receptor negativity and nonductal morphology. The findings suggest a need for more sensitive screening modalities to detect true interval breast cancers and different approaches for early detection of fast-growing tumors.

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.