Breast screening in symptomatic women over 35 years of age: improvements in service efficiency

  • Roisin M. O’Cearbhaill
  • Sandra Hembrecht
  • Liam A. Devane
  • Jane Rothwell
  • Denis Evoy
  • James Geraghty
  • Damian P. McCartan
  • Sorcha McNally
  • Ann O’Doherty
  • Enda W. McDermott
  • Ruth S. Prichard
Original Article

Abstract

Introduction

The rationalization of cancer services in Ireland saw all women with symptomatic breast problems referred to one of the eight regional cancer centers. A pilot triaging system was introduced in St Vincent’s University Hospital to streamline these services. Women over 35 years who do not meet urgent referral criteria are referred for a mammogram prior to a clinic appointment (“image first”). The aim of this study was to retrospectively determine the recall rates, biopsy rates, and rate of breast cancer identification within this cohort of patients. This was compared to a screening population of patients.

Methods

Patients triaged into the “image first” group within a one-year period were identified. Results of the initial mammogram, further imaging and subsequent biopsies were recorded. Data relating to number of recalls, number of patients biopsied and number of cancers identified within the Merrion Unit of the National Breastcheck Screening Program was obtained for comparison.

Results

One thousand six hundred eighty-eight referrals were triaged as “image first” over this period. 185 (11%) of patients required a biopsy of an identified lesion. Breast cancer was diagnosed in 65 patients (3.9%). During the same study period, of the 42,099 women who were screened for breast cancer, 496 (1.8%) underwent biopsy and 267 (0.63%) were diagnosed with breast cancer.

Conclusion

Image first patients, who represent a cohort of “symptomatic” non-urgent women, have a greater rate of breast cancer detection than an asymptomatic screening population. This may have an impact on the appropriate triaging of symptomatic women in a national cancer center.

Keywords

Breast cancer Mammography Screening Symptomatic 

References

  1. 1.
    A strategy for cancer control in Ireland (2006) National Cancer Forum-Department of Health and ChildrenGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Programme NCC, O’Rourke N (2012) Review of referral patterns and triage processes in symptomatic breast units. A hospital perspective. National Cancer Control ProgrammeGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Programme NCC (2013) Report for 2011 on the symptomatic breast disease key performance indicatorsGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Programme NCC (2009) National Breast Cancer GP Referral Guidelines. National Breast Cancer GP Referral Guidelines Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Neary M, Lowery AJ, O’Conghaile A et al (2011) NCCP breast cancer referral guidelines—are breast cancer patients prioritised? Ir Med J 104(2):39–41PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ahmed A, Marginan A, Sweeney K, Malone C, McLaughlin R, Kerin M (2016) Medicolegal implications of accuracy of GP referral letters to specialist breast clinic. Ir J Med Sci 185(1):69–73CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH (2002) Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 225(1):165–175CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC (2003) Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 138(3):168–175CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Purushothaman HN, Wilson R, Michell MJ (2012) Medico-legal issues in breast imaging. Clin Radiol 67(7):638–642CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dee KE, Sickles EA (2001) Medical audit of diagnostic mammography examinations: comparison with screening outcomes obtained concurrently. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176(3):729–733CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wang WV, Tan SM, Chow WL (2011) The impact of mammographic breast cancer screening in Singapore: a comparison between screen-detected and symptomatic women. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 12(10):2735–2740PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hofvind S, Holen A, Roman M et al (2016) Mode of detection: an independent prognostic factor for women with breast cancer. J Med Screen 23(2):89–97CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Redondo M, Funez R, Medina-Cano F, Rodrigo I, Acebal M, Tellez T, Roldan MJ, Hortas ML, Bellinvia A, Pereda T, Domingo L, Morales-Suarez Varela M, Sala M, Rueda A (2012) Detection methods predict differences in biology and survival in breast cancer patients. BMC Cancer 12:604CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Allgood PC, Duffy SW, Kearins O, O'Sullivan E, Tappenden N, Wallis MG, Lawrence G (2011) Explaining the difference in prognosis between screen-detected and symptomatic breast cancers. Br J Cancer 104(11):1680–1685CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roisin M. O’Cearbhaill
    • 1
  • Sandra Hembrecht
    • 1
  • Liam A. Devane
    • 1
  • Jane Rothwell
    • 1
  • Denis Evoy
    • 1
  • James Geraghty
    • 1
  • Damian P. McCartan
    • 1
  • Sorcha McNally
    • 1
  • Ann O’Doherty
    • 1
  • Enda W. McDermott
    • 1
  • Ruth S. Prichard
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Breast SurgerySt Vincent’s University HospitalDublin 4Ireland

Personalised recommendations