Type of publication:
*Williams S.; *Deane L.; *Burley S.; *Cielecki L.; *Aksoy U.; *Metelko M.
Breast Cancer Research 2021, 23(Suppl 1):P63
Introduction: To improve cancer detection rates, personal performance and as part of our routine service improvement programme, an audit was undertaken of discordant cases returned directly to routine recall between 1/4/15 and 31/3/17 inclusive. These were reviewed against the results of the subsequent screening round to determine if the correct judgement had been made at the previous screening round or if there were any opportunities to learn from misinterpretation.
Method(s): All cases arbitrated and directly returned to routine screening between 2015/16 and 2016/17 were identified and crossreferenced with the results for the subsequent screening episode. All screen detected cancers previously arbitrated on the same side were reviewed by the same routine method and criteria as all interval cancers within our unit and each was given an 'interval' category. All of the screen detected cancers previously arbitrated on the same side were included in the annual interval cancer review session to discuss learn opportunities and improved outcomes.
Result(s): There were 829 cases arbitrated and returned to routine screening at the original screening episode 2015/16 or 2016/17. 11 cases were diagnosed with a same side screen detected cancer at the subsequent screening round and 2 cases presented as a same side interval cancer. Neither interval cancers detected at the case review. 1 of the 11 same side screen detected cancers classified as minimal signs.
Conclusion(s): In our unit arbitration cases returned to routine recall is the correct decision in the vast majority.
Link to full-text [open access - no password required]