Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28359079›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2017

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

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

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Use, Facility Mammography Volume, and Timely Follow-Up After Abnormal Screening Mammograms in Appalachia, United States.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Return on Investment of a Breast Cancer Screening Program in Tanzania: Opportunity for Patient and Public Education.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Evaluation of waiting times for breast cancer diagnosis and surgical treatment.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2018
    Observational
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Anna M ChiarelliPrevention and Cancer Control, Cancer Care Ontario, 620 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M5G 2L7, Canada.
Derek MuradaliPrevention and Cancer Control, Cancer Care Ontario, 620 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M5G 2L7, Canada.
Kristina M BlackmorePrevention and Cancer Control, Cancer Care Ontario, 620 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M5G 2L7, Canada.
Courtney R SmithPrevention and Cancer Control, Cancer Care Ontario, 620 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M5G 2L7, Canada.
Lucia MireaPhoenix Children's Hospital, 1919 East Thomas Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85016, USA.
Vicky MajpruzPrevention and Cancer Control, Cancer Care Ontario, 620 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M5G 2L7, Canada.
Frances P O'MalleyDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, St Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1W8, Canada.
May Lynn QuanCalgary Breast Health Program, Foothills Medical Centre, 1403-29 Street NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 2T9, Canada.
Claire Mb HollowaySunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4N 3M5, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTimely 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.

methodsOf 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.

resultsScreened 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.

conclusionsWomen 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.

Indexed as

MammographyAgedBiopsy, Fine-NeedleBreastBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingCritical PathwaysEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansLymphatic MetastasisMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingOntarioReferral and Consultation

Identifiers

PMID28359079
PMCPMC5482732

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.