Vicky Majpruz

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.

The Contribution of Clinical Breast Examination to the Accuracy of Breast Screening

BACKGROUND There is controversy about whether adding clinical breast examination (CBE) to mammography improves the accuracy of breast screening. We compared the accuracy of screening among centers that offered CBE in addition to mammography with that among centers that offered only mammography. METHODS The cohort included 290 230 women aged 50-69 years who were screened at regional cancer centers or affiliated centers within the Ontario Breast Screening Program between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2003, and were followed up for 12 months. The regional cancer centers offer screening mammography and CBE performed by a nurse. All affiliated centers provide mammography but not all provide CBE. Performance measures for 232 515 women who were screened by mammography and CBE at the nine regional cancer centers or 59 affiliated centers that provided CBE were compared with those for 57 715 women who were screened by mammography alone at 34 affiliated centers that did not provide CBE. RESULTS Sensitivity of referrals was higher for women who were screened at regional cancer centers or affiliated centers that offered CBE in addition to mammography than for women screened at affiliated centers that did not offer CBE (initial screen: 94.9% and 94.6%, respectively, vs 88.6%; subsequent screen: 94.9% and 91.7%, respectively, vs 85.3%). Mammography sensitivity was similar between centers that offered CBE and those that did not. However, women without cancer who were screened at regional cancer centers or affiliated centers that offered CBE had a higher false-positive rate than women screened at affiliated centers that offered only mammography (initial screen: 12.5% and 12.4%, respectively, vs 7.4%; subsequent screen: 6.3% and 8.3%, respectively, vs 5.4%). CONCLUSIONS Women should be informed of the benefits and risks of having a CBE in addition to mammography for breast screening.

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.

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 womans 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.

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. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 19(3); 697–706

Predisposing Factors Associated with Compliance to Biennial Breast Screening among Centers with and without Nurses

Background: Previous research suggests that predisposing factors such as previous screening experience, participation in preventive health behaviors, and knowledge/beliefs about breast cancer and screening influence a womans decision to make a timely return for a second screen. Methods: A stratified random sample of compliers and noncompliers to biennial screening were selected from a cohort of 51,242 women ages 50 to 65 years who had their initial screen at the Ontario Breast Screening Program. In total, 1,901 women were telephone-interviewed. The associations between predisposing factors and compliance were estimated separately for centers with and without nurses using logistic regression analyses adjusted for demographics and smoking status. Results: Women screened at nurse centers were less likely to comply if they thought women should stop having mammograms before age 70 years [odds ratio (OR), 0.39; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.19-0.79], did not consider mammograms very likely to find cancer (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56-0.95), felt their likeliness of getting breast cancer was below average (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54-0.89), or believed a high-fat diet was not an important risk factor for breast cancer (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.36-0.97). Women attending nurse centers were significantly more likely to comply if they sometimes had thoughts or worries about developing breast cancer (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.10-1.80). Conclusions: Nurses at screening centers may reinforce a womans knowledge or beliefs about breast cancer or screening and as a result increase their compliance to biennial breast screening. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18(3):739–47)

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.

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

Background:Timely 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.Methods:Of 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.Results:Screened 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.Conclusions:Women 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.

The impact of organized breast assessment on survival by stage for screened women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer

PURPOSE Since 1998, the Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP) has offered organized assessment through Breast Assessment Centres (BAC). This study compares survival between screened women diagnosed with breast cancer who have undergone assessment through a BAC and usual care (UC). METHODS A retrospective design identified two concurrent cohorts of women aged 50 to 69 within the OBSP diagnosed with screen-detected invasive breast cancer at a BAC (n = 2010) and UC (n = 1844) between 2002 and 2010 and followed until 2016. Demographic and assessment characteristics were obtained from the OBSP. Abstraction of medical charts provided prognostic and treatment data. Death data were assessed from the Registered Persons Database and the Ontario Registrar General All-Cause Mortality File. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models compared overall survival by assessment type (BAC/UC), stratified by stage. RESULTS There were 505 deaths during the study (BAC = 239; UC = 266). Among women with stage I screen-detected breast cancer, those diagnosed through a BAC had 31% reduced risk of all-cause mortality (HR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.53-0.90) compared to UC. Diagnosis within 7 weeks of an abnormal mammogram reduced the hazard of death from all causes by 34% among all women with stage I breast cancers (HR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.47-0.91), and was more likely in BAC (79.7%) than UC (66.9%). CONCLUSION The significant improvement in overall survival for women with stage I screen-detected invasive breast cancer assessed through BACs further supports the recommendation that women with abnormal mammograms should be managed through organized assessment.

Genetic assessment wait time indicators in the High Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program

The Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP) expanded in July 2011 to screen high‐risk women aged 30–69 with annual MRI and mammography. This study evaluated wait time (WT) indicators along the genetic assessment (GA) pathway for women referred to the High Risk OBSP.