Karen J Wernli1, Wendy B DeMartini2, Laura Ichikawa1, Constance D Lehman2, Tracy Onega3, Karla Kerlikowske4, Louise M Henderson5, Berta M Geller6, Mike Hofmann7, Bonnie C Yankaskas5. 1. Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle. 3. Department of Community and Family Medicine, Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, New Hampshire. 4. General Internal Medicine Section, Department of Veterans Affairs, San Francisco, California5Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco6Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco. 5. Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 6. Department of Family Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington9Department of Radiology, University of Vermont, Burlington. 7. Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly used for breast cancer screening, diagnostic evaluation, and surveillance. However, we lack data on national patterns of breast MRI use in community practice. OBJECTIVE: To describe patterns of breast MRI use in US community practice during the period 2005 through 2009. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational cohort study using data collected from 2005 through 2009 on breast MRI and mammography from 5 national Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries. Data included 8931 breast MRI examinations and 1,288,924 screening mammograms from women aged 18 to 79 years. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We calculated the rate of breast MRI examinations per 1000 women with breast imaging within the same year and described the clinical indications for the breast MRI examinations by year and age. We compared women screened with breast MRI to women screened with mammography alone for patient characteristics and lifetime breast cancer risk. RESULTS: The overall rate of breast MRI from 2005 through 2009 nearly tripled from 4.2 to 11.5 examinations per 1000 women, with the most rapid increase from 2005 to 2007 (P = .02). The most common clinical indication was diagnostic evaluation (40.3%), followed by screening (31.7%). Compared with women who received screening mammography alone, women who underwent screening breast MRI were more likely to be younger than 50 years, white non-Hispanic, and nulliparous and to have a personal history of breast cancer, a family history of breast cancer, and extremely dense breast tissue (all P < .001). The proportion of women screened using breast MRI at high lifetime risk for breast cancer (>20%) increased during the study period from 9% in 2005 to 29% in 2009. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Use of breast MRI for screening in high-risk women is increasing. However, our findings suggest that there is a need to improve appropriate use, including among women who may benefit from screening breast MRI.
IMPORTANCE: Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly used for breast cancer screening, diagnostic evaluation, and surveillance. However, we lack data on national patterns of breast MRI use in community practice. OBJECTIVE: To describe patterns of breast MRI use in US community practice during the period 2005 through 2009. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational cohort study using data collected from 2005 through 2009 on breast MRI and mammography from 5 national Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries. Data included 8931 breast MRI examinations and 1,288,924 screening mammograms from women aged 18 to 79 years. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We calculated the rate of breast MRI examinations per 1000 women with breast imaging within the same year and described the clinical indications for the breast MRI examinations by year and age. We compared women screened with breast MRI to women screened with mammography alone for patient characteristics and lifetime breast cancer risk. RESULTS: The overall rate of breast MRI from 2005 through 2009 nearly tripled from 4.2 to 11.5 examinations per 1000 women, with the most rapid increase from 2005 to 2007 (P = .02). The most common clinical indication was diagnostic evaluation (40.3%), followed by screening (31.7%). Compared with women who received screening mammography alone, women who underwent screening breast MRI were more likely to be younger than 50 years, white non-Hispanic, and nulliparous and to have a personal history of breast cancer, a family history of breast cancer, and extremely dense breast tissue (all P < .001). The proportion of women screened using breast MRI at high lifetime risk for breast cancer (>20%) increased during the study period from 9% in 2005 to 29% in 2009. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Use of breast MRI for screening in high-risk women is increasing. However, our findings suggest that there is a need to improve appropriate use, including among women who may benefit from screening breast MRI.
Authors: Mieke Kriege; Cecile T M Brekelmans; Inge Marie Obdeijn; Carla Boetes; Harmine M Zonderland; Sara H Muller; Theo Kok; Radu A Manoliu; A Peter E Besnard; Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst; Caroline Seynaeve; Carina C M Bartels; Reini Kaas; Siebren Meijer; Jan C Oosterwijk; Nicoline Hoogerbrugge; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Emiel J T Rutgers; Harry J de Koning; Jan G M Klijn Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2006-06-22 Impact factor: 4.872
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: R Ballard-Barbash; S H Taplin; B C Yankaskas; V L Ernster; R D Rosenberg; P A Carney; W E Barlow; B M Geller; K Kerlikowske; B K Edwards; C F Lynch; N Urban; C A Chrvala; C R Key; S P Poplack; J K Worden; L G Kessler Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1997-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: J P Costantino; M H Gail; D Pee; S Anderson; C K Redmond; J Benichou; H S Wieand Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1999-09-15 Impact factor: 13.506
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: Jennifer S Haas; Celia P Kaplan; Genevieve Des Jarlais; Virginia Gildengoin; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: M O Leach; C R M Boggis; A K Dixon; D F Easton; R A Eeles; D G R Evans; F J Gilbert; I Griebsch; R J C Hoff; P Kessar; S R Lakhani; S M Moss; A Nerurkar; A R Padhani; L J Pointon; D Thompson; R M L Warren Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 May 21-27 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Mitchell H Gail; Joseph P Costantino; David Pee; Melissa Bondy; Lisa Newman; Mano Selvan; Garnet L Anderson; Kathleen E Malone; Polly A Marchbanks; Worta McCaskill-Stevens; Sandra A Norman; Michael S Simon; Robert Spirtas; Giske Ursin; Leslie Bernstein Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2007-11-27 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: John T Brinton; Lora D Barke; Mary E Freivogel; Tiffany C Talley; Michelle D Lexin; Alicia L Drew; Rachel B Beam; Deborah H Glueck Journal: Health Commun Date: 2017-02-03
Authors: Kenyon C Bolton; John L Mace; Pamela M Vacek; Sally D Herschorn; Ted A James; Jeffrey A Tice; Karla Kerlikowske; Berta M Geller; Donald L Weaver; Brian L Sprague Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-06-23 Impact factor: 13.506
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: Phoebe E Freer; Priscilla J Slanetz; Jennifer S Haas; Nadine M Tung; Kevin S Hughes; Katrina Armstrong; A Alan Semine; Susan L Troyan; Robyn L Birdwell Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2015-08-20 Impact factor: 4.872
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: 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