BACKGROUND: Guidelines for breast cancer staging exist, but adherence remains unknown. This study evaluates patterns of imaging in early stage breast cancer usually reserved for advanced disease. METHODS: Surveillance Epidemiology, and End Results data linked to Medicare claims from 1992-2005 were reviewed for stage I/II breast cancer patients. Claims were searched for preoperative performance of computed tomography (CT), positron emission tomography (PET), bone scans, and brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) ("advanced imaging"). RESULTS: There were 67,874 stage I/II breast cancer patients; 18.8% (n=12,740) had preoperative advanced imaging. The proportion of patients having CT scans, PET scans, and brain MRI increased from 5.7% to 12.4% (P<0.0001), 0.8% to 3.4% (P<0.0001) and 0.2% to 1.1% (P=0.008), respectively, from 1992 to 2005. Bone scans declined from 20.1% to 10.7% (P<0.0001). "Breast cancer" (174.x) was the only diagnosis code associated with 62.1% of PET scans, 37.7% of bone scans, 24.2% of CT, and 5.1% of brain MRI. One or more symptoms or metastatic site was suggested for 19.6% of bone scans, 13.0% of CT, 13.0% of PET, and 6.2% of brain MRI. Factors associated (P<0.05) with use of all modalities were urban setting, breast MRI and ultrasound. Breast MRI was the strongest predictor (P<0.0001) of bone scan (odds ratio [OR] 1.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.44-1.86), Brain MRI (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.15-2.63), CT (OR 2.42, 95% CI 2.12-2.76), and PET (OR 5.71, 95% CI 4.52-7.22). CONCLUSIONS: Aside from bone scans, performance of advanced imaging is increasing in early stage Medicare breast cancer patients, with limited rationale provided by coded diagnoses. In light of existing guidelines and increasing scrutiny about health care costs, greater reinforcement of current indications is warranted.
BACKGROUND: Guidelines for breast cancer staging exist, but adherence remains unknown. This study evaluates patterns of imaging in early stage breast cancer usually reserved for advanced disease. METHODS: Surveillance Epidemiology, and End Results data linked to Medicare claims from 1992-2005 were reviewed for stage I/II breast cancerpatients. Claims were searched for preoperative performance of computed tomography (CT), positron emission tomography (PET), bone scans, and brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) ("advanced imaging"). RESULTS: There were 67,874 stage I/II breast cancerpatients; 18.8% (n=12,740) had preoperative advanced imaging. The proportion of patients having CT scans, PET scans, and brain MRI increased from 5.7% to 12.4% (P<0.0001), 0.8% to 3.4% (P<0.0001) and 0.2% to 1.1% (P=0.008), respectively, from 1992 to 2005. Bone scans declined from 20.1% to 10.7% (P<0.0001). "Breast cancer" (174.x) was the only diagnosis code associated with 62.1% of PET scans, 37.7% of bone scans, 24.2% of CT, and 5.1% of brain MRI. One or more symptoms or metastatic site was suggested for 19.6% of bone scans, 13.0% of CT, 13.0% of PET, and 6.2% of brain MRI. Factors associated (P<0.05) with use of all modalities were urban setting, breast MRI and ultrasound. Breast MRI was the strongest predictor (P<0.0001) of bone scan (odds ratio [OR] 1.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.44-1.86), Brain MRI (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.15-2.63), CT (OR 2.42, 95% CI 2.12-2.76), and PET (OR 5.71, 95% CI 4.52-7.22). CONCLUSIONS: Aside from bone scans, performance of advanced imaging is increasing in early stage Medicare breast cancerpatients, with limited rationale provided by coded diagnoses. In light of existing guidelines and increasing scrutiny about health care costs, greater reinforcement of current indications is warranted.
Authors: S Zylstra; C J D'Orsi; B A Ricci; E E Halloran; L J Resseguie; L Greenwald; M C Mondor Journal: Breast J Date: 2001 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Lawrence W Bassett; Sonia G Dhaliwal; Jilbert Eradat; Omer Khan; Dionne F Farria; R James Brenner; James W Sayre Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: S G Hilsenbeck; P M Ravdin; C A de Moor; G C Chamness; C K Osborne; G M Clark Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 1998 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Bernd Gerber; Eva Seitz; Heiner Müller; Annette Krause; Toralf Reimer; Günther Kundt; Klaus Friese Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: John F Dick; Thomas H Gallagher; R James Brenner; Joyce P Yi; Lisa M Reisch; Linn Abraham; Diana L Miglioretti; Patricia A Carney; Gary R Cutter; Joann G Elmore Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Erin E Hahn; Tania Tang; Janet S Lee; Corrine Munoz-Plaza; Joyce O Adesina; Ernest Shen; Braden Rowley; Jared L Maeda; David M Mosen; John C Ruckdeschel; Michael K Gould Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2015-04-21 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Shrujal S Baxi; Minal Kale; Salomeh Keyhani; Benjamin R Roman; Annie Yang; Antonio P Derosa; Deborah Korenstein Journal: Med Care Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Demetrios Simos; Christina Catley; Carl van Walraven; Angel Arnaout; Christopher M Booth; Matthew McInnes; Dean Fergusson; Susan Dent; Mark Clemons Journal: CMAJ Date: 2015-06-22 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Brittany L Bychkovsky; Hao Guo; Jazmine Sutton; Laura Spring; Jennifer Faig; Ibiayi Dagogo-Jack; Chiara Battelli; Mary Jane Houlihan; Tsai-Chu Yeh; Steven E Come; Nancy U Lin Journal: Oncologist Date: 2016-08-22
Authors: Benjamin L Franc; Robert Thombley; Yanting Luo; W John Boscardin; Hope S Rugo; David Seidenwurm; R Adams Dudley Journal: Breast J Date: 2019-11-18 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Leah M Backhus; Farhood Farjah; Thomas K Varghese; Aaron M Cheng; Xiao-Hua Zhou; Douglas E Wood; Larry Kessler; Steven B Zeliadt Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-09-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Tracy Onega; Julia E Weiss; Diana S M Buist; Anna N A Tosteson; Louise M Henderson; Karla Kerlikowske; Martha E Goodrich; Cristina O'Donoghue; Karen J Wernli; Wendy B DeMartini; Beth A Virnig; Caroline S Bennette; Rebecca A Hubbard Journal: Med Care Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 2.983