Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention (아시아태평양암예방학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Influence of Service Characteristics on High Priority Performance Indicators and Standards in the BreastScreen Australia Program

  • Published : 2014.07.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: Data from BreastScreen Australia Screening and Assessment Services (SAS) for 2002-2010 were analysed to determine whether some SAS characteristics were more conducive that others to high screening performance, as indicated by high priority performance indicators and standards. Materials And Methods: Indicators investigated related to: numbers of benign open biopsies, screen-detected invasive cancers, and interval cancers, and wait times between screening and assessment. Multivariate Poisson regression was undertaken using as candidate predictors of performance, SAS size (screening volume), urban or rural location, year of screening, accreditation status, and percentages of clients from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, rural and remote areas, and socio-economically disadvantaged areas. Results: Performance standards for benign biopsies and invasive cancer detection were uniformly met irrespective of SAS location and size. The interval cancer standard was also met, except in 2003 when the 95% confidence interval of the rate still incorporated the national standard. Performance indicators improved over time for: benign open biopsy for second or subsequent screening rounds; rates of invasive breast cancer detection for second or subsequent screening rounds; and rates of small cancer detection. No differences were found over time in interval cancer rates. Interval cancer rates did not differ between non-metropolitan and metropolitan SAS, although state-wide SAS had lower rates. The standard for wait time between screening and assessment (being assessed ${\leq}28$ days) was mostly unmet and this applied in particular to SAS with high percentages of culturally and linguistically diverse women in their screening populations. Conclusions: Gains in performance were observed, and all performance standards were met irrespective of SAS characteristics, except wait times to assessment. Additional descriptive data should be collected on SAS characteristics, and their associations with favourable screening performance, as these may be important when deciding on SAS design

Keywords

References

  1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2012). BreastScreen Australia monitoring report 2009-2010. Cancer series no. 72. Cat. no. CAN 68. Canberra, AIHW.
  2. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2010). Breastscreen Australia monitoring report 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. Cancer series no. 55. Cat no. CAN 51. Canberra, AIHW.
  3. Autier P, Boniol M, Gavin A, et al (2011). Breast cancer mortality in neighbouring European countries with different levels of screening but similar access to treatment: trend analysis of WHO mortality database. BMJ [Epub ahead of print].
  4. BreastScreen Australia (2004). BreastScreen Australia decision tool. To assist with accreditation decision-making against the National Accreditation Standards. Endorsed by the National Advisory Committee to BreastScreen Australia. Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia.
  5. BreastScreen Australia (2005). National accreditation handbook. Endorsed by the Australian Screening Advisory Committee. Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia.
  6. BreastScreen Australia Evaluation report (2009). BreastScreen Australia evaluation - Evaluation final report. Screening Monograph No. 1/2009. Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia.
  7. Broeders M, Moss S, Nystrom L, et al (2012). The impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality in Europe: a review of observational studies. J Med Screening, 19, 14-25.
  8. Broeders M, Nystrom L, Njor S, et al (2012). The impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality in Europe: a review of observational studies. J Med Screen, 19, 14-25.
  9. Burton RC, Bell RJ, Thiagarajah G, et al (2012). Adjuvant therapy, not mammographic screening, accounts for most of the observed breast cancer specific mortality reductions in Australian women since the national screening program began in 1991. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 131, 949-55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1794-6
  10. Department of Health and Ageing (2009). BreastScreen Australia Evaluation. Screening Monograph No.4/2009. Mortality (ecological) study. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, Canberra.
  11. Gabe R, Duffy SW (2005). Evaluation of service screening mammography in practice: the impact on breast cancer mortality. Ann Oncology ESMO, 16, 153-62.
  12. Gahlinger PM, Abramson JH (1995). Computer programs for epidemiologic analysis. Stone Mountain, Georgia, USD Inc.
  13. Glasziou P, Houssami N (2011). The evidence base for breast cancer screening. Prev Med, 53, 100-2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.05.011
  14. Kalager M, Zelen M, Langmark F, et al (2010). Effect of screening mammography on breast-cancer mortality in Norway. N Engl J Med, 363, 1203-10. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1000727
  15. Kang MH, Park EC, Choi KS, et al (2013). The national cancer screening program for breast cancer in the republic of Korea: is it cost-effective? Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 2059-65. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.3.2059
  16. Marmot MG, Altman D, Cameron D, et al (2013). The benefits andhanns of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Brit J Cancer [Epub ahead of print].
  17. McKeon S (2012). Strategic Review of Health and Medical Research in Australia. Consultation paper summary. Issues and proposed recommendations. Canberra, Australian Government Department of Health.
  18. Morrell S, Barratt A, Irwig L, et al (2010). Estimates of overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer associated with screening mammography. Cancer Causes Control, 21, 275-82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-009-9459-z
  19. Morrell S, Taylor R, Roder D, et al (2012). Mammography screening and breast cancer mortality in Australia: an aggregate cohort study. J Med Screen, 19, 26-34.
  20. Moss SM, Nystrom L, Jonsson H, et al (2012). The impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality in Europe: a review of trend studies. J Med Screen, 19, 26-32.
  21. National Quality Management Committee (2004). BreastScreen Data Dictionary Standards. Canberra, National Quality Management Committee.
  22. Nickson C, Mason KE, English DR, et al (2012). Mammographic screening and breast cancer mortality: a case-control study and meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 21, 1479-88. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-0468
  23. Njor S, Nystrom L, Moss S, et al (2012). Breast cancer mortality in mammographic screening in Europe: a review of incidence-based mortality studies. J Med Screen, 19, 33-41. https://doi.org/10.1258/jms.2012.012080
  24. Olsen O, Gotzsche PC (2001). Screening for breast cancer with mammography. The Cochrane Library, 4, 1877.
  25. Otto SJ, Fracheboud J, Verbeek AL, et al (2012). Mammography screening and risk of breast cancer death: a population- based case-control study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 21, 66-73.
  26. Paap E, Holland R, den Heeten GJ, et al (2010). A remarkable reduction of breast cancer deaths in screened versus unscreened women: a case-referent study. Cancer Causes and Control, 21, 1569-73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-010-9585-7
  27. Paci E (2012). Summary of the evidence of breast cancer service outcome in Europe and first estimate of the benefit and harm balance sheet. J Med Screen, 19, 5-13. https://doi.org/10.1258/jms.2012.012077
  28. Roder D, Houssami N, Farshid G, et al (2008). Population screening and intensity of screening are associated with reduced breast cancer mortality: evidence of efficacy of mammography screening in Australia. Breast Cancer Res and Treat, 108, 409-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-007-9609-5
  29. Roder D, Webster F, Zorbas H, et al (2012). Breast screening and breast cancer survival in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women of Australia. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 12, 147-55. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2012.13.1.147
  30. StataCorp (2013). STATA Statistical Software. Release 12. College Station, Texas, StataCorp LP
  31. Taylor R, Morrell S, Estoesta J, et al (2004). Mammography screening and breast cancer mortality in New South Wales, Australia. Cancer Causes and Control, 15, 543-50. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CACO.0000036153.95908.f2
  32. World Health Organization, (IARC) International agency for research on cancer (2002). IARC handbooks of cancer prevention Vol. 7: Breast Cancer Screening. Lyon, IARC Press.
  33. Yoo KB, Kwon JA, Cho E, et al (2013). Is mammography for breast cancer screening cost-effective in both Western and Asian countries?: results of a systematic review. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 14, 4141-9. https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.7.4141

Cited by

  1. Performance Indices of Needle Biopsy Procedures for the Assessment of Screen Detected Abnormalities in Services Accredited by BreastScreen Australia vol.15, pp.24, 2015, https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.24.10665