Cargando…

Importance of quality in breast cancer screening practice – a natural experiment in Alberta, Canada

OBJECTIVES: Regular breast cancer screening is a widely used cancer prevention strategy. Important quality indicators of screening include cancer detection rate, false positive rate, benign biopsy rate and post-screen invasive cancer rate. We compared quality indicators of community radiology clinic...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yuan, Yan, Vu, Khanh, Shen, Ye, Dickinson, James, Winget, Marcy
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6955468/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31911508
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028766
_version_ 1783486935335960576
author Yuan, Yan
Vu, Khanh
Shen, Ye
Dickinson, James
Winget, Marcy
author_facet Yuan, Yan
Vu, Khanh
Shen, Ye
Dickinson, James
Winget, Marcy
author_sort Yuan, Yan
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Regular breast cancer screening is a widely used cancer prevention strategy. Important quality indicators of screening include cancer detection rate, false positive rate, benign biopsy rate and post-screen invasive cancer rate. We compared quality indicators of community radiology clinics to those of ‘Screen Test’, which feature centralised batch reading and quality control processes. Both types of providers operated under a single provincial Breast Cancer Screening Programme. SETTING: Community radiology clinics are operated by independent fee-for-service radiologists serving large and small communities throughout the Canadian province of Alberta. Launched by the provincial cancer agency, the Screen Test operates two physical clinics serving metropolises and mobile units serving remote regions. Eligible women may self-refer to any provider for screening mammography. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged 50 to 69 years who had at least one screening mammogram between July 2006 and June 2010 in Alberta were included. Women with missing health region information or prior breast cancer diagnosis were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 389 788 screening mammograms were analysed, of which 12.7% were performed by Screen Test. Compared with Screen Test during 2006 to 2008, community radiology clinics had a lower cancer detection rate (3.6 vs 4.6 per 1000 screens, risk ratio (RR): 0.81, 95% CI: 0.67 to 0.98) and a much higher false positive rate (9.4% vs 3.4%, RR: 2.72, 95% CI: 2.55 to 2.90). Most other performance indicators were also better in Screen Test overall and across all health regions. These performance indicators were similar during 2008 to 2010, showing no improvement with time. CONCLUSIONS: Screen Test has a quality assurance process in place and performed significantly better. This provides empirical evidence of the effectiveness of a quality assurance process and may explain some of the large differences in breast cancer screening indicators between provinces and countries with formal programmes and those without.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6955468
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69554682020-01-27 Importance of quality in breast cancer screening practice – a natural experiment in Alberta, Canada Yuan, Yan Vu, Khanh Shen, Ye Dickinson, James Winget, Marcy BMJ Open Health Services Research OBJECTIVES: Regular breast cancer screening is a widely used cancer prevention strategy. Important quality indicators of screening include cancer detection rate, false positive rate, benign biopsy rate and post-screen invasive cancer rate. We compared quality indicators of community radiology clinics to those of ‘Screen Test’, which feature centralised batch reading and quality control processes. Both types of providers operated under a single provincial Breast Cancer Screening Programme. SETTING: Community radiology clinics are operated by independent fee-for-service radiologists serving large and small communities throughout the Canadian province of Alberta. Launched by the provincial cancer agency, the Screen Test operates two physical clinics serving metropolises and mobile units serving remote regions. Eligible women may self-refer to any provider for screening mammography. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged 50 to 69 years who had at least one screening mammogram between July 2006 and June 2010 in Alberta were included. Women with missing health region information or prior breast cancer diagnosis were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 389 788 screening mammograms were analysed, of which 12.7% were performed by Screen Test. Compared with Screen Test during 2006 to 2008, community radiology clinics had a lower cancer detection rate (3.6 vs 4.6 per 1000 screens, risk ratio (RR): 0.81, 95% CI: 0.67 to 0.98) and a much higher false positive rate (9.4% vs 3.4%, RR: 2.72, 95% CI: 2.55 to 2.90). Most other performance indicators were also better in Screen Test overall and across all health regions. These performance indicators were similar during 2008 to 2010, showing no improvement with time. CONCLUSIONS: Screen Test has a quality assurance process in place and performed significantly better. This provides empirical evidence of the effectiveness of a quality assurance process and may explain some of the large differences in breast cancer screening indicators between provinces and countries with formal programmes and those without. BMJ Publishing Group 2020-01-06 /pmc/articles/PMC6955468/ /pubmed/31911508 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028766 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Health Services Research
Yuan, Yan
Vu, Khanh
Shen, Ye
Dickinson, James
Winget, Marcy
Importance of quality in breast cancer screening practice – a natural experiment in Alberta, Canada
title Importance of quality in breast cancer screening practice – a natural experiment in Alberta, Canada
title_full Importance of quality in breast cancer screening practice – a natural experiment in Alberta, Canada
title_fullStr Importance of quality in breast cancer screening practice – a natural experiment in Alberta, Canada
title_full_unstemmed Importance of quality in breast cancer screening practice – a natural experiment in Alberta, Canada
title_short Importance of quality in breast cancer screening practice – a natural experiment in Alberta, Canada
title_sort importance of quality in breast cancer screening practice – a natural experiment in alberta, canada
topic Health Services Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6955468/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31911508
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028766
work_keys_str_mv AT yuanyan importanceofqualityinbreastcancerscreeningpracticeanaturalexperimentinalbertacanada
AT vukhanh importanceofqualityinbreastcancerscreeningpracticeanaturalexperimentinalbertacanada
AT shenye importanceofqualityinbreastcancerscreeningpracticeanaturalexperimentinalbertacanada
AT dickinsonjames importanceofqualityinbreastcancerscreeningpracticeanaturalexperimentinalbertacanada
AT wingetmarcy importanceofqualityinbreastcancerscreeningpracticeanaturalexperimentinalbertacanada