Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jan;32(1):613-620.
doi: 10.1007/s00330-021-08117-z. Epub 2021 Jun 18.

Diagnostic interval for non-screening patients undergoing mammography during the COVID-19 pandemic

Affiliations

Diagnostic interval for non-screening patients undergoing mammography during the COVID-19 pandemic

Priscila Crivellaro et al. Eur Radiol. 2022 Jan.

Abstract

Objective: During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a temporary cessation of mammography screening. However, in some facilities, diagnostic breast imaging services continued for patients with a high clinical suspicion of breast cancer. The objective of this study was to evaluate changes in the diagnostic interval (DI) of non-screening patients presenting for diagnostic mammography during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods: Retrospective chart review was performed on patients presenting for non-screening diagnostic mammography from April 1 to June 30, 2020 (pandemic group) and April 1 to June 30, 2019 (pre-pandemic group). Age, reason for referral, number and type of imaging studies/biopsies necessary for a final diagnosis were recorded. Diagnostic interval (DI) was defined as the number of days from the date of the diagnostic mammogram to the date of the final diagnosis.

Results: Compared to the pre-pandemic group (n = 64), the pandemic group (n = 77) showed a reduction in DI of the entire cohort (pandemic: 1 day; pre-pandemic: 15 days, p < 0.0001) for patients not requiring tissue sampling (pandemic: 1 day; pre-pandemic: 11 days, .p < 0.0001) and those requiring tissue sampling with benign pathology (pandemic 9 days; pre-pandemic, 33 days, p = 0.0002). A higher percentage of patients in the pandemic group had their assessment completed during the initial visit (pandemic: 50.6%; pre-pandemic: 23.4%, p = 0.0009).

Conclusion: During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, the DI for patients with non-screening-related diagnostic mammography was significantly shorter, with a higher percentage of patients completing their assessments on the initial visit, compared to one year prior.

Key points: • Despite reductions in manpower and clinical services, during pandemic times, it is possible to maintain a diagnostic breast imaging service for women at high clinical suspicion for breast cancer. • During pandemic times, breast imaging departments should consider restructuring to a Rapid Diagnostic Unit model with a navigation team that follows patients through the assessment process to a final diagnosis. • Departmental restructuring and patient navigation during pandemic times could either maintain or shorten the diagnostic interval for patients presenting for diagnostic mammography.

Keywords: Breast; COVID-19; Diagnostic interval; Mammogram.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Fifty-four-year-old woman presented with palpable regions in both breasts. All imaging tests and biopsies were completed on a single visit. Left breast: a left breast mediolateral oblique projection from the initial mammogram shows architectural distortion in the upper aspect of that breast (arrows). b Spot tomosynthesis view of the upper-left breast shows persistence of the architectural distortion (arrows). c On left breast ultrasound, the architectural distortion corresponds to a 1.9-cm solid mass (arrows). Right breast: d right breast craniocaudal projection from the initial mammogram shows a spiculated mass (arrows) associated with pleomorphic calcifications (arrowheads) in the medial right breast. e On right breast ultrasound, this corresponds to a 2.9-cm solid mass (arrows). Bilateral ultrasound core biopsies showed bilateral invasive ductal carcinomas. The pathology report was available 4 days later at which time the patient was contacted by a breast surgeon to discuss a treatment plan. The surgery was performed 10 days after the pathology results were available
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Box plots showing the diagnostic interval (DI) in days during the 2020 pandemic and the 2019 pre-pandemic times. There is a statistically significant difference in the DI between 2020 and 2019 (p < 0.0001). A final diagnosis was made for most of the patients (percentile 90th; red line) in 21 days during the pandemic as compared to 63 days in the pre-pandemic times
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Box plots showing the diagnostic interval (DI) in days during the 2020 pandemic and the 2019 pre-pandemic times among patients who did and did not undergo breast biopsy. Statistically significant differences were found in DI in both groups (biopsy group p = 0.0028, no biopsy group p < 0.0001). In the pandemic group, a final diagnosis was made for most of the patients (90th percentile; red line) requiring biopsy in 28 days and not requiring biopsy in 8 days, as compared with 91 days and 55 days, respectively, in the pre-pandemic group
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Box plots showing the diagnostic interval (DI) in days during the 2020 pandemic and the 2019 pre-pandemic times among patients who had benign and malignant biopsy pathology results. A statistically significant difference was found in DI among patients with a benign diagnosis (p = 0.0001). No statistically significant difference was found in the group of patients with a malignant diagnosis (p = 0.9177). In the pandemic group, a final diagnosis was made for most of the patients (90th percentile; red line) with a benign result in 28 days and a malignant result in 37 days, as compared with 126 days and 37 days, respectively, in the pre-pandemic group

References

    1. Seely JM, Scaranelo AM, Yong-Hing C, et al. COVID-19: safe guidelines for breast imaging during the pandemic. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2020;71:459–469. doi: 10.1177/0846537120928864. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dinmohamed AG, Visser O, Verhoeven RHA, et al. Fewer cancer diagnoses during the COVID-19 epidemic in the Netherlands. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21:750–751. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30265-5. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gathani T, Clayton G, MacInnes E, Horgan K. The COVID-19 pandemic and impact on breast cancer diagnoses: what happened in England in the first half of 2020. Br J Cancer. 2021;124:710–712. doi: 10.1038/s41416-020-01182-z. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Feletto E, Grogan P, Nickson C et al (2020) How has COVID-19 impacted cancer screening? Adaptation of services and the future outlook in Australia. Public Health Res Pract 30(4):3042026. 10.17061/phrp3042026 - PubMed
    1. McKibbin, Warwick J. and Fernando, Roshen, The Global Macroeconomic Impacts of COVID-19: Seven Scenarios (March 2, 2020). CAMA Working Paper No. 19/2020, Available at 10.2139/ssrn.3547729