BACKGROUND: Recently, use of advanced imaging modalities, such as MRI, has increased dramatically. One novel but still evolving use for MRI is in the diagnosis and clinical staging of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. Compared with mammography, MRI is more sensitive, but less specific, and far more expensive. The purpose of this study is to examine the prevalence and predictors of MRI use for clinical staging in older women with newly diagnosed breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: SEER-Medicare data were used to identify incident breast cancer cases between 2003 and 2005. Outpatient Medicare claims data were queried for receipt of breast MRI. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to examine associations between receiving MRI and patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and SEER region. RESULTS: A total of 46,824 patients with breast cancer met inclusion criteria. MRI use increased from 3.9% of women diagnosed in 2003 to 10.1% of women diagnosed in 2005. In the bivariate analyses race, urban/rural location, SEER region, poverty level, education level, stage, surgery type, and tumor size were all significantly associated with receipt of MRI. In the multivariate analysis, those who were younger, white, living in more metropolitan areas, and living in wealthier areas were more likely to receive MRI. There was substantial variability in odds of MRI among different SEER regions. CONCLUSIONS: Breast MRI for patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer in the SEER-Medicare population is increasingly common. Ongoing examination of the dissemination of technology is critical to understanding current practice patterns and to the development and implementation of future guidelines.
BACKGROUND: Recently, use of advanced imaging modalities, such as MRI, has increased dramatically. One novel but still evolving use for MRI is in the diagnosis and clinical staging of newly diagnosed breast cancerpatients. Compared with mammography, MRI is more sensitive, but less specific, and far more expensive. The purpose of this study is to examine the prevalence and predictors of MRI use for clinical staging in older women with newly diagnosed breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: SEER-Medicare data were used to identify incident breast cancer cases between 2003 and 2005. Outpatient Medicare claims data were queried for receipt of breast MRI. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to examine associations between receiving MRI and patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and SEER region. RESULTS: A total of 46,824 patients with breast cancer met inclusion criteria. MRI use increased from 3.9% of women diagnosed in 2003 to 10.1% of women diagnosed in 2005. In the bivariate analyses race, urban/rural location, SEER region, poverty level, education level, stage, surgery type, and tumor size were all significantly associated with receipt of MRI. In the multivariate analysis, those who were younger, white, living in more metropolitan areas, and living in wealthier areas were more likely to receive MRI. There was substantial variability in odds of MRI among different SEER regions. CONCLUSIONS: Breast MRI for patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer in the SEER-Medicare population is increasingly common. Ongoing examination of the dissemination of technology is critical to understanding current practice patterns and to the development and implementation of future guidelines.
Authors: E S Fisher; J E Wennberg; T A Stukel; J S Skinner; S M Sharp; J L Freeman; A M Gittelsohn Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Debbie Saslow; Carla Boetes; Wylie Burke; Steven Harms; Martin O Leach; Constance D Lehman; Elizabeth Morris; Etta Pisano; Mitchell Schnall; Stephen Sener; Robert A Smith; Ellen Warner; Martin Yaffe; Kimberly S Andrews; Christy A Russell Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2007 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: David A Bluemke; Constantine A Gatsonis; Mei Hsiu Chen; Gia A DeAngelis; Nanette DeBruhl; Steven Harms; Sylvia H Heywang-Köbrunner; Nola Hylton; Christiane K Kuhl; Constance Lehman; Etta D Pisano; Petrina Causer; Stuart J Schnitt; Stanley F Smazal; Carol B Stelling; Paul T Weatherall; Mitchell D Schnall Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-12-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Nancy Krieger; Jarvis T Chen; Pamela D Waterman; David H Rehkopf; S V Subramanian Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Louise M Henderson; Julie Weiss; Rebecca A Hubbard; Cristina O'Donoghue; Wendy B DeMartini; Diana S M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Martha Goodrich; Beth Virnig; Anna N A Tosteson; Constance D Lehman; Tracy Onega Journal: Breast J Date: 2015-10-28 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Christoph I Lee; Laura Ichikawa; Michele C Rochelle; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti; Brian L Sprague; Wendy B DeMartini; Karen J Wernli; Bonnie N Joe; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Constance D Lehman Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2014-08-07 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Elizabeth T Loggers; Hongyuan Gao; Laura S Gold; Larry Kessler; Ruth Etzioni; Diana Sm Buist Journal: J Comp Eff Res Date: 2015-05-11 Impact factor: 1.744
Authors: Martha E Goodrich; Julie Weiss; Tracy Onega; Steve L Balch; Diana S M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Louise M Henderson; Rebecca A Hubbard Journal: Breast J Date: 2016-08-23 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Rebecca Nash; Michael Goodman; Chun Chieh Lin; Rachel A Freedman; Laura S Dominici; Kevin Ward; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Elissa M Ozanne; Julie E Weiss; Tracy Onega; Wendy DeMartini; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Louise Henderson; Rebecca A Hubbard; Martha Goodrich; Anna N A Tosteson; Beth A Virnig; Cristina O'Donoghue Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2016-06-12 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Sheenu Chandwani; Prethibha A George; Michelle Azu; Elisa V Bandera; Christine B Ambrosone; George G Rhoads; Kitaw Demissie Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-06-10 Impact factor: 5.344