Natasha K Stout1, Larissa Nekhlyudov2, Lingling Li1, Elisabeth S Malin3, Dennis Ross-Degnan1, Diana S M Buist4, Marjorie A Rosenberg5, Marina Alfisher6, Suzanne W Fletcher1. 1. Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts2Department of Medicine, Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. 4. Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington. 5. Department of Actuarial Science, Risk Management and Insurance, University of Wisconsin, Madison6Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin, Madison. 6. Department of Radiology, Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is highly sensitive for detecting breast cancer. Low specificity, cost, and little evidence regarding mortality benefits, however, limit recommendations for its use to high-risk women. How breast MRI is actually used in community settings is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To describe breast MRI trends and indications in a community setting. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study at a not-for-profit health plan and multispecialty group medical practice in New England of 10,518 women aged 20 years and older enrolled in the health plan for at least 1 year who had at least 1 breast MRI between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2011. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Breast MRI counts were obtained from claims data. Clinical indication (screening, diagnostic evaluation, staging or treatment, or surveillance) was determined using a prediction model developed from electronic medical records on a subset of participants. Breast cancer risk status was assessed using claims data and, for the subset, also through electronic medical record review. RESULTS; Breast MRI use increased more than 20-fold from 6.5 per 10,000 women in 2000 to 130.7 per 10,000 in 2009. Use then declined and stabilized to 104.8 per 10,000 by 2011. Screening and surveillance, rare indications in 2000, together accounted for 57.6% of MRI use by 2011; 30.1% had a claims-documented personal history and 51.7% a family history of breast cancer, whereas 3.5% of women had a documented genetic mutation. In the subset of women with electronic medical records who received screening or surveillance MRIs, only 21.0% had evidence of meeting American Cancer Society (ACS) criteria for breast MRI. Conversely, only 48.4% of women with documented deleterious genetic mutations received breast MRI screening. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Breast MRI use increased steeply over 10 years and then stabilized, especially for screening and surveillance among women with family or personal history of breast cancer; most women receiving screening and surveillance breast MRIs lacked documented evidence of meeting ACS criteria, and many women with mutations were not screened. Efforts are needed to ensure that breast MRI use and documentation are focused on those women who will benefit most.
IMPORTANCE: Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is highly sensitive for detecting breast cancer. Low specificity, cost, and little evidence regarding mortality benefits, however, limit recommendations for its use to high-risk women. How breast MRI is actually used in community settings is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To describe breast MRI trends and indications in a community setting. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study at a not-for-profit health plan and multispecialty group medical practice in New England of 10,518 women aged 20 years and older enrolled in the health plan for at least 1 year who had at least 1 breast MRI between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2011. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Breast MRI counts were obtained from claims data. Clinical indication (screening, diagnostic evaluation, staging or treatment, or surveillance) was determined using a prediction model developed from electronic medical records on a subset of participants. Breast cancer risk status was assessed using claims data and, for the subset, also through electronic medical record review. RESULTS; Breast MRI use increased more than 20-fold from 6.5 per 10,000 women in 2000 to 130.7 per 10,000 in 2009. Use then declined and stabilized to 104.8 per 10,000 by 2011. Screening and surveillance, rare indications in 2000, together accounted for 57.6% of MRI use by 2011; 30.1% had a claims-documented personal history and 51.7% a family history of breast cancer, whereas 3.5% of women had a documented genetic mutation. In the subset of women with electronic medical records who received screening or surveillance MRIs, only 21.0% had evidence of meeting American Cancer Society (ACS) criteria for breast MRI. Conversely, only 48.4% of women with documented deleterious genetic mutations received breast MRI screening. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Breast MRI use increased steeply over 10 years and then stabilized, especially for screening and surveillance among women with family or personal history of breast cancer; most women receiving screening and surveillance breast MRIs lacked documented evidence of meeting ACS criteria, and many women with mutations were not screened. Efforts are needed to ensure that breast MRI use and documentation are focused on those women who will benefit most.
Authors: R Edward Hendrick; Gary R Cutter; Eric A Berns; Connie Nakano; Joseph Egger; Patricia A Carney; Linn Abraham; Stephen H Taplin; Carl J D'Orsi; William Barlow; Joann G Elmore Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Elisa Rush Port; Anna Park; Patrick I Borgen; Elizabeth Morris; Leslie L Montgomery Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2007-01-07 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Sylvia K Plevritis; Allison W Kurian; Bronislava M Sigal; Bruce L Daniel; Debra M Ikeda; Frank E Stockdale; Alan M Garber Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-05-24 Impact factor: 56.272
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: James L Khatcheressian; Antonio C Wolff; Thomas J Smith; Eva Grunfeld; Hyman B Muss; Victor G Vogel; Francine Halberg; Mark R Somerfield; Nancy E Davidson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-10-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: I Griebsch; J Brown; C Boggis; A Dixon; M Dixon; D Easton; R Eeles; D G Evans; F J Gilbert; J Hawnaur; P Kessar; S R Lakhani; S M Moss; A Nerurkar; A R Padhani; L J Pointon; J Potterton; D Thompson; L W Turnbull; L G Walker; R Warren; M O Leach Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2006-10-09 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: S Tan; J David; L Lalonde; M El Khoury; M Labelle; R Younan; E Patocskai; J Richard; I Trop Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2017-06-27 Impact factor: 3.677
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: Sima Ehsani; Roberta M Strigel; Erica Pettke; Lee Wilke; Amye J Tevaarwerk; Wendy B DeMartini; Kari B Wisinski Journal: Breast J Date: 2015-03-17 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Christoph I Lee; Andy Bogart; Rebecca A Hubbard; Eniola T Obadina; Deirdre A Hill; Jennifer S Haas; Anna N A Tosteson; Jennifer A Alford-Teaster; Brian L Sprague; Wendy B DeMartini; Constance D Lehman; Tracy L Onega Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2015-04-04 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Diana S M Buist; Linn Abraham; Christoph I Lee; Janie M Lee; Constance Lehman; Ellen S O'Meara; Natasha K Stout; Louise M Henderson; Deirdre Hill; Karen J Wernli; Jennifer S Haas; Anna N A Tosteson; Karla Kerlikowske; Tracy Onega Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Rodrigo Santa Cruz Guindalini; Yonglan Zheng; Hiroyuki Abe; Kristen Whitaker; Toshio F Yoshimatsu; Tom Walsh; David Schacht; Kirti Kulkarni; Deepa Sheth; Marion S Verp; Angela R Bradbury; Jane Churpek; Elias Obeid; Jeffrey Mueller; Galina Khramtsova; Fang Liu; Akila Raoul; Hongyuan Cao; Iris L Romero; Susan Hong; Robert Livingston; Nora Jaskowiak; Xiaoming Wang; Marcio Debiasi; Colin C Pritchard; Mary-Claire King; Gregory Karczmar; Gillian M Newstead; Dezheng Huo; Olufunmilayo I Olopade Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2018-08-28 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Deirdre A Hill; Jennifer S Haas; Robert Wellman; Rebecca A Hubbard; Christoph I Lee; Jennifer Alford-Teaster; Karen J Wernli; Louise M Henderson; Natasha K Stout; Anna N A Tosteson; Karla Kerlikowske; Tracy Onega Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2017-12-06 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Limin Zhang; Shudong Jiang; Yan Zhao; Jinchao Feng; Brian W Pogue; Keith D Paulsen Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Sneha Phadke; Alexandra Thomas; Limin Yang; Catherine Moore; Chang Xia; Mary C Schroeder Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2015-08-28 Impact factor: 3.225