The American Journal of Managed Care February 2011
Timing of Follow-up After Abnormal Screening and Diagnostic Mammograms
This study was conducted in a well-characterized defined population of women who receive healthcare through an integrated delivery system. There was thorough assessment and follow-up of mammography screening because of the Breast Cancer Screening Program at Group Health. We might have missed some clinical care that occurred at outside facilities that was not submitted for a claim. However, this is unlikely for women with their primary insurance at the health plan, because filing a claim would enable payment for outside services and women would be motivated to do so.
Clinical guidelines for promptness in obtaining an evaluation after an abnormality is noted on mammography examination are not well established. An assessment of the National Initiative on Cancer Care Quality in the United States suggests that 90% of patients should be seen within 3 weeks of an abnormal screening mammogram for a diagnostic mammogram, within 14 days from needing an open biopsy to cancer diagnosis, and within 5 working days from breast cancer diagnosis to an appointment with the treating physician.24 While we cannot make a direct comparison to the National Initiative for Cancer Care Quality, we can report that 82% of women received the recommended follow-up care within 3 weeks of their abnormal screening mammogram. Further, 69% of women with abnormal diagnostic mammograms received recommended follow-up care within 7 days. In 2004, the National Quality Measures for Breast Centers identified 2 measures of timely follow-up: imaging timeliness of care (ie, time between screening mammogram, diagnostic mammogram, needle biopsy, surgery) and surgical timeliness (ie, time between diagnostic mammogram, open surgical biopsy/excision, initial breast cancer surgery).25 There are characteristics that influence women’s timeliness to follow-up that future interventions may address to reduce delays in breast cancer diagnosis.
Author Affiliations: From Group Health Research Institute (KJW, EJAB, SH, DSMB), Seattle, WA; and Department of General Internal Medicine (JGE), University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Funding Source: This research was supported by the National Cancer Institute (Dr Buist, Principal Investigator, U01CA63731; and Dr Elmore, Principal Investigator, K05CA104699).
Author Disclosures: The authors (KJW, EJAB, SH, JGE, DSMB) report no relationship or financial interest with any entity that would pose a conflict of interest with the subject matter of this article.
Authorship Information: Concept and design (EJAB, DSMB); acquisition of data (DSMB); analysis and interpretation of data (KJW, EJAB, SH, JGE, DSMB); drafting of the manuscript (KJW, JGE, DSMB); critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content (KJW, EJAB, SH, JGE, DSMB); statistical analysis (KJW, SH, DSMB); provision of study materials or patients (DSMB); obtaining funding (DSMB); administrative, technical, or logistic support (DSMB); and supervision (DSMB).
Address correspondence to: Karen J. Wernli, PhD, Group Health Research Institute, 1730 Minor Ave, Ste 1600, Seattle, WA 98101. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org.
1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Use of mammograms among women age > or = 40 years-United States, 2000-2005. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2007;56(3):49-51.
2. Rosenberg RD, Yankaskas BC, Abraham LA, et al. Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. Radiology. 2006;241(1): 55-66.
3. Sickles EA, Miglioretti DL, Ballard-Barbash R, et al. Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography. Radiology. 2005;235(3): 775-790.
4. Battaglia TA, Roloff K, Posner MA, Freund KM. Improving follow-up to abnormal breast cancer screening in an urban population. A patient navigation intervention. Cancer. 2007;109(2 suppl):359-367.
5. Jones BA, Dailey A, Calvocoressi L, et al. Inadequate follow-up of abnormal screening mammograms: findings from the race differences in screening mammography process study (United States). Cancer Causes Control. 2005;16(7):809-821.
6. Burack RC, Simon MS, Stano M, George J, Coombs J. Follow-up among women with an abnormal mammogram in an HMO: is it complete, timely, and efficient? Am J Manag Care. 2000;6(10):1102-1113.
7. Ganry O, Peng J, Dubreuil A. Influence of abnormal screens on delays and prognostic indicators of screen-detected breast carcinoma. J Med Screen. 2004;11(1):28-31.
8. Gold HT, Do HT, Dick AW. Correlates and effect of suboptimal radiotherapy in women with ductal carcinoma in situ or early invasive breast cancer. Cancer. 2008;113(11):3108-3115.
9. Hershman DL, Wang X, McBride R, Jacobson JS, Grann VR, Neugut AI. Delay of adjuvant chemotherapy initiation following breast cancer surgery among elderly women. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006;99(3): 313-321.
10. Weinmann S, Taplin SH, Gilbert J, et al. Characteristics of women refusing follow-up for tests or symptoms suggestive of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2005(35):33-38.
11. Rojas M, Mandelblatt J, Cagney K, Kerner J, Freeman H. Barriers to follow-up of abnormal screening mammograms among low-income minority women. Cancer Control Center of Harlem. Ethn Health. 1996; 1(3):221-228.
12. McCarthy BD, Yood MU, Boohaker EA, Ward RE, Rebner M, Johnson CC. Inadequate follow-up of abnormal mammograms. Am J Prev Med. 1996;12(4):282-288.
13. Juarbe TC, Kaplan CP, Somkin CP, Pasick R, Gildengorin G, Perez- Stable EJ. Are risk factors for breast cancer associated with follow-up procedures in diverse women with abnormal mammography? Cancer Causes Control. 2005;16(3):245-253.
14. Press R, Carrasquillo O, Sciacca RR, Giardina EG. Racial/ethnic disparities in time to follow-up after an abnormal mammogram. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2008;17(6):923-930.
15. Caplan LS, May DS, Richardson LC. Time to diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer: results from the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, 1991-1995. Am J Public Health. 2000; 90(1):130-134.
16. American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas (BI-RADSÂ® Atlas). Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2003.
17. Taplin SH, Ichikawa L, Buist DS, Seger D, White E. Evaluating organized breast cancer screening implementation: the prevention of latestage disease? Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004;13(2):225-234.
18. Group Health Research Institute. Breast Cancer Surveillance, Group Health Research Institute. 2008. http://www.grouphealthresearch.org/ surveillanceproject/default.htm. Accessed June 2, 2010.
19. Agresti A. Categorical Data Analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience; 2002.
20. Karliner LS, Kaplan CP, Juarbe T, Pasick R, Perez-Stable EJ. Poor patient comprehension of abnormal mammography results. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(5):432-437.
21. Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92(13):1081-1087.
22. Kerlikowske K. Timeliness of follow-up after abnormal screening mammography. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1996;40(1):53-64.
23. Monticciolo DL, Sickles EA. Computerized follow-up of abnormalities detected at mammography screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1990;155(4):751-753.
24. Malin JL, Schneider EC, Epstein AM, Adams J, Emanuel EJ, Kahn KL. Results of the National Initiative for Cancer Care Quality: how can we improve the quality of cancer care in the United States [published correction appears in J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(12):1966]? J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(4):626-634.
25. Kaufman CS. National quality validation programs for breast centers. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2007;7(10):1357-1362.