Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Waiting for a Diagnosis After an Abnormal Screening Mammogram

  • Published:
Canadian Journal of Public Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: Women with abnormal screening mammograms require diagnostic assessment and experience anxiety until a diagnosis is established. This report evaluated the timeliness of diagnosis after an abnormal screening mammogram in the Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia (SMPBC).

Methods: Information on diagnostic interventions following an abnormal screen (N = 10,314) provided through 11 regional SMPBC services between January 1, 1993 and June 30, 1994 were abstracted and analyzed.

Results: The median time from abnormal screen to diagnosis was 3.4 weeks with regional variation of 2.0 to 4.7 weeks; 10% waited 8.7 weeks or longer. For the 19% of women proceeding to open biopsy, the median diagnostic interval was 7.1 weeks with regional variation of 4.6 to 9.3 weeks; 10% waited 13.1 weeks or longer.

Interpretation: After an abnormal screening mammogram, women waited many weeks for a definitive diagnosis, especially those proceeding to open biopsy. Opportunities for process improvement were identified.

Résumé

Contexte: Les femmes qui ont une mammographie anormale et qui nécessitent une évaluation diagnostique, vivent dans l’anxiété jusqu’à la confirmation du diagnostic. Ce rapport a cherché à évaluer les délais d’attente du diagnostic après une mammographie anormale dans le cadre du programme de dépistage par mammographie de la Colombie-Britannique (Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia ou SMPBC).

Méthodologie: Les données relatives aux interventions diagnostiques suite à une mammographie anormale (N = 10 314) provenant de 11 services régionaux faisant partie du Programme, et couvrant la période du 1er janvier 1993 au 30 juin 1994, ont été analysées.

Résultats: L’intervalle moyen entre la mammographie et la pose du diagnostic était de 3,4 semaines, avec des variations régionales de 2 à 4,7 semaines; 10 % des femmes ont dû attendre 8,7 semaines ou plus. Pour les 19 % sur lesquelles on a procédé à une biopsie, l’intervalle de temps avant le diagnostic était de 7,1 semaines, avec des variations régionales de 4,6 à 9,3 semaines; 10 % des femmes ont dû attendre 13,1 semaines ou plus.

Interprétation: Après une mammographie anormale, les femmes ont dû attendre de nombreuses semaines avant d’avoir un diagnostic définitif, notamment dans le cas de celles ayant eu une biopsie. Nous avons identifié un certain nombre de secteurs qui permettraient d’améliorer la procédure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fletcher SW, Black W, Harris R, et al. Report of the International Workshop on Screening for Breast Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85:1644–56.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Nystrom L, Rutqvist LE, Wall S, et al. Breast cancer screening with mammography: Overview of Swedish randomized trials. Lancet 1993;341:973–78 [published erratum appears in Lancet 1993;342:1372].

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Rubin SM, et al. Efficacy of screening mammography. A metaanalysis. JAMA 1995;273:149–54.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Fentiman I. Pensive women, painful vigils: Consequences of delay in assessment of mammographic abnormalities. Lancet 1988;1:1041–42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Gram IT, Lund E, Slenker, SE. Quality of life following a false positive mammogram. Br J Cancer 1990;62:1018–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Ong G, Austokar J. Breast screening: Adverse psychological consequences one month after placing women on early recall because of a diagnostic uncertainty: A multicentre study. J Med Screen 1997;4:158–68.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Lerman C, Trock B, Rimer BK, et al. Psychological and behavioral implications of abnormal mammograms. Ann Intern Med 1991;114:657–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hislop TG, Worth AJ, Kan L, et al. Post screendetected breast cancer within the Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1997;42:235–42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Murray-Sykes K. Organizing Assessment. National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. Breast Screen Publications, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health (CDHSH). National Program for the Early Detection of Breast Cancer: National accreditation requirements. Australia: CDHSH, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Libstug A, Moravan V, Aitken, SE. Results from the Ontario Breast Screening Program, 1990–1995. J Med Screen 1998;5:73–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Caines J, Chantziantoniou K, Wright BA, et al. Nova Scotia breast screening program experience: Use of needle-core biopsy in the diagnosis of screening-detected abnormalities. Radiology 1996;198:125–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. The Workshop Group. Reducing Deaths from Breast Cancer in Canada — Workshop report. CMAJ 1989;141:199–201.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kerlikowske K. Timeliness of follow-up after abnormal screening mammography. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1996;40:53–64.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Chang SW, Kerlikowske K, Napoles-Springer A, et al. Racial differences in timeliness of follow-up after abnormal screening mammography. Cancer 1996;78:1395–402.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Baum M. Delayed assessment of mammographic abnormalities. Lancet 1988;1:1218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Burman ML, Taplin SH, Herta DF, et al. Effect of false-positive mammograms on interval breast cancer screening in a health maintenance organization. Ann Intern Med 1999;131:1–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Panel. National Institutes of Health consensus development conference statement: Breast cancer screening for women ages 40–49, January 21–23, 1997. J Natl Cancer Inst 1997;89:1015–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kerlikowske K. Efficacy of screening mammography among women aged 40–49 years and 50–69 years: Comparison of relative and absolute benefit. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst 1997;22:79–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hendrick RE, Smith RA, Rutledge III JH, et al. Benefit of screening mammography in women aged 40–49: A new meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst 1997;22:87–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bear, HD. Image-guided breast biopsy. How, when, and by whom? J Surg Oncol 1998;67:1–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Britton PD, Flower CDR, Freeman AH, et al. Change to core biopsy in an NHS breast screening unit. Clin Radiol 1997;52:764–67.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Litherland JC, Evans AJ, Wilson ARM, et al. The impact of core biopsy on pre-operative diagnosis rate of screen detected breast cancers. Clin Radiol 1996;51:562–65.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Coates, AS. Breast cancer: Delays, dilemmas and delusions. Lancet 1999;353L:1112–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia (SMPBC) and the BC Cancer Agency, 8th floor, 686 West Broadway, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1G1, Canada

    Ivo A. Olivotto MD, FRCPC (Medical Leader), Lisa Kan MSc & Sheila King RTR

  2. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Ivo A. Olivotto MD, FRCPC (Medical Leader)

Authors
  1. Ivo A. Olivotto MD, FRCPC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lisa Kan MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sheila King RTR
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Peter Blair
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Graham Clay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Eli Cox
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Susan Harris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Maria Hugi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Lisa Kan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Sheila King
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Heather MacNaughton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Carol Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Ivo Olivotto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Denise Pugash
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Geoff Rowlands
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. John Todd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Judith Vestrup
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ivo A. Olivotto MD, FRCPC.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Olivotto, I.A., Kan, L., King, S. et al. Waiting for a Diagnosis After an Abnormal Screening Mammogram. Can J Public Health 91, 113–117 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03404922

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03404922

Search

Navigation