Time From Screening to Treatment at Accredited Breast Centers in the United States

JCO Oncol Pract. 2024 Dec 2:OP2400516. doi: 10.1200/OP-24-00516. Online ahead of print.

Abstract

Purpose: The National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers (NAPBC) launched the Patient-Reported Observations for Medical Procedure Timeliness quality collaborative to assess time intervals between screening and treatment for patients with breast cancer.

Methods: Sites submitted monthly timeliness data in calendar days from 2019 to 2021 along with their perceptions of timeliness at their centers and facility characteristics. All patients were included in the interval from screening to diagnosis, whereas only patients with cancer were included in the biopsy to treatment intervals. Institutions were compared and assessed for differences and associations with center characteristics via the Kruskal-Wallis test.

Results: Three hundred seventy-three (64.5%) NAPBC-accredited breast centers enrolled, and 311 (83.3%) provided complete timeliness metrics. Two hundred nine (56%) sites did not have trainees, 154 (41.3%) sites were within 10 miles of a major city, and the median number of annual breast cancer cases was 280 (IQR, 189-366). From 2019 to 2021, the time between diagnosis and treatment was as follows: 11-12 days between screening mammogram (MGM) and diagnostic MGM, 8-9 days between diagnostic MGM and biopsy, 32-34 days between biopsy and neoadjuvant therapy, and 39-42 days between biopsy and surgery. The enrolled centers believe that these intervals should be 7, 7, 21, and 28 days, respectively. Higher annual case volume and a larger number of surgeons exclusively devoted to breast disease were significantly associated with longer time intervals.

Conclusion: Time from biopsy to first treatment is longer than that centers expected compared with time from screening to diagnosis. There is significant variability across NAPBC in time from screening mammogram to treatment, and some institutions will face more challenges with timely quality measures than others. Further investigation into whether these differences confer outcome differences should be pursued.