ArticleJCO oncology practice2025
Time From Screening to Treatment at Accredited Breast Centers in the United States.
Article in JCO oncology practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Socio-Demographic Inequalities in Diagnostic Delays of Breast Cancer: A Multistage Time-to-Diagnosis Analysis.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
- Impact of Second Opinions on Time to Treatment of Breast Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Impact of Quality Improvement Interventions on Biopsy-to-Treatment Time in Breast Cancer: Results from the PROMPT Quality Collaborative of the National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers (NAPBC) launched the Patient-Reported Observations for Medical Procedure Timeliness quality collaborative to assess time intervals between screening and treatment for patients with breast cancer.
methodsSites submitted monthly timeliness data in calendar days from 2019 to 2021 along with their perceptions of timeliness at their centers and facility characteristics. All patients were included in the interval from screening to diagnosis, whereas only patients with cancer were included in the biopsy to treatment intervals. Institutions were compared and assessed for differences and associations with center characteristics via the Kruskal-Wallis test.
resultsThree hundred seventy-three (64.5%) NAPBC-accredited breast centers enrolled, and 311 (83.3%) provided complete timeliness metrics. Two hundred nine (56%) sites did not have trainees, 154 (41.3%) sites were within 10 miles of a major city, and the median number of annual breast cancer cases was 280 (IQR, 189-366). From 2019 to 2021, the time between diagnosis and treatment was as follows: 11-12 days between screening mammogram (MGM) and diagnostic MGM, 8-9 days between diagnostic MGM and biopsy, 32-34 days between biopsy and neoadjuvant therapy, and 39-42 days between biopsy and surgery. The enrolled centers believe that these intervals should be 7, 7, 21, and 28 days, respectively. Higher annual case volume and a larger number of surgeons exclusively devoted to breast disease were significantly associated with longer time intervals.
conclusionTime from biopsy to first treatment is longer than that centers expected compared with time from screening to diagnosis. There is significant variability across NAPBC in time from screening mammogram to treatment, and some institutions will face more challenges with timely quality measures than others. Further investigation into whether these differences confer outcome differences should be pursued.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.