Abstract P3-02-07: Rates of Cancer Detection and Abnormal Results among Clients Recruited for Mammography through Outreach and Education Supported by the Avon Breast Health Outreach Program
Authors: Rose J , Opdyke KM , Gates-Ferris K , Hurlbert M 
Published: August 2014

Abstract
Background: The Avon Breast Health Outreach Program (BHOP) supports community-based organizations and safety-net providers in conducting outreach and education to recruit underserved, low-income and uninsured women for breast cancer screening mammography. Funded organizations report mammography outcomes as part of routine program monitoring. NCI Breast Cancer Consortium data for 2009 reported a cancer detection rate of 3.92 per 1,000 for screening mammograms and 33.21 per 1,000 for diagnostic mammograms. In CY2009, CDC's National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) reported 14 percent of mammograms had abnormal results requiring further investigation, with an overall cancer detection rate of 10.2 per 1,000 mammograms.
Objective: To describe reported breast cancer detection rates and rates of abnormal mammography findings among Avon BHOP-funded programs.
Methods: We reviewed routinely reported program outcomes data for 98 organizations funded continuously through the Avon BHOP for a three-year period from 2009 to 2011. Data for 17,839 mammograms were available in aggregate by year by grantee agency including the number of mammograms reported, number with a preliminary abnormal finding, and number of confirmed cancer diagnoses.
Results: Agencies reported an average of 981 mammogram outcomes per year over 3 years (range 108 to 5,946 by agency). The average agency-specific rate of abnormal findings across 3 years was 13.2% (median 11.2%; range 0.49% to 51.0%). The average agency-specific cancer detection rate was 8.1 per 1,000 (median 6.4 per 1,000; range zero to 31.7 per 1,000). 28 organizations had 3-year average cancer detection rates in excess of 10 per 1,000, and 6 had rates exceeding 20 per 1,000. Large fluctuations in the proportion of mammogram outcomes reported as abnormal by a given agency year-over-year were common.
Conclusion: Avon BHOP agencies reported overall abnormal and cancer detection rates similar to those of the NBCCEDP, but higher than the general population. Fluctuations in year-over-year rates were common, and may indicate changes in the way program data were reported over time, changes in screening practices (e.g. new clinical providers or new equipment), and/or differences in breast cancer risk among clients recruited for screening over time. High rates of abnormal screening results could indicate delays in obtaining results from follow-up diagnostic testing, problems with the calibration of equipment, or other quality issues.
Discussion: Grantees with unusually high or low rates of abnormal or cancer outcomes or significant year-over-year rate fluctuations would benefit from technical assistance to identify and explain the underlying causes of these trends. Ensuring that all clients recruited for breast cancer screening receive high quality mammography services – including accurate imaging and reliable interpretation by experienced radiologists – is critical to minimize client anxiety and to ensure that screening results in improved health outcomes.
Citation Information: Cancer Res 2012;72(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-02-07.