Bethany L Niell1, Sara C Gavenonis2, Tina Motazedi3, Jessica Cott Chubiz4, Elkan P Halpern4, Elizabeth A Rafferty5, Janie M Lee4. 1. Avon Comprehensive Breast Evaluation Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: bniell@partners.org. 2. Department of Radiology, Christiana Care Health System, Newark, Delaware. 3. University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio School of Medicine, San Antonio, Texas. 4. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Institute for Technology Assessment, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Avon Comprehensive Breast Evaluation Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Breast MRI is increasingly used for both screening and diagnostic purposes. Although performance benchmarks for screening and diagnostic mammography have been published, performance benchmarks for breast MRI have yet to be established. The purpose of this study was to comprehensively evaluate breast MRI performance measures, stratified by screening and diagnostic indications, from a single academic institution. METHODS: Institutional review board approval was acquired for this HIPAA-compliant study. Informed consent was not required. Retrospective review of the institutional database identified all breast MRI examinations performed from April 1, 2007, to March 31, 2008. After application of exclusion criteria, the following performance measures for screening and diagnostic indications were calculated: cancer detection rate, positive predictive value (PPV), and abnormal interpretation rates. RESULTS: The study included 2,444 examinations, 1,313 for screening and 1,131 for diagnostic indications. The cancer detection rates were 14 per 1,000 screening breast MRI examinations and 47 per 1,000 diagnostic examinations (P < .00001). The abnormal interpretation rate was 12% (152 of 1,313) for screening and 17% (194 of 1,131) for diagnostic indications (P = .00008). The PPVs of MRI were lower for screening [PPV1 (abnormal findings) = 12%, PPV2 (biopsy recommended) = 24%, PPV3 (biopsy performed) = 27%] compared with diagnostic indications (PPV1 (abnormal findings) = 28%, PPV2 (biopsy recommended) = 36%, PPV3 (biopsy performed) = 38%]. CONCLUSIONS: Breast MRI performance measures differ significantly between screening and diagnostic MRI indications. Medical audits for breast MRI should calculate performance measures for screening and diagnostic breast MRI separately, as recommended for mammography.
PURPOSE: Breast MRI is increasingly used for both screening and diagnostic purposes. Although performance benchmarks for screening and diagnostic mammography have been published, performance benchmarks for breast MRI have yet to be established. The purpose of this study was to comprehensively evaluate breast MRI performance measures, stratified by screening and diagnostic indications, from a single academic institution. METHODS: Institutional review board approval was acquired for this HIPAA-compliant study. Informed consent was not required. Retrospective review of the institutional database identified all breast MRI examinations performed from April 1, 2007, to March 31, 2008. After application of exclusion criteria, the following performance measures for screening and diagnostic indications were calculated: cancer detection rate, positive predictive value (PPV), and abnormal interpretation rates. RESULTS: The study included 2,444 examinations, 1,313 for screening and 1,131 for diagnostic indications. The cancer detection rates were 14 per 1,000 screening breast MRI examinations and 47 per 1,000 diagnostic examinations (P < .00001). The abnormal interpretation rate was 12% (152 of 1,313) for screening and 17% (194 of 1,131) for diagnostic indications (P = .00008). The PPVs of MRI were lower for screening [PPV1 (abnormal findings) = 12%, PPV2 (biopsy recommended) = 24%, PPV3 (biopsy performed) = 27%] compared with diagnostic indications (PPV1 (abnormal findings) = 28%, PPV2 (biopsy recommended) = 36%, PPV3 (biopsy performed) = 38%]. CONCLUSIONS: Breast MRI performance measures differ significantly between screening and diagnostic MRI indications. Medical audits for breast MRI should calculate performance measures for screening and diagnostic breast MRI separately, as recommended for mammography.
Authors: P Viehweg; T Bernerth; M Kiechle; J Buchmann; A Heinig; H Koelbl; M Laniado; S H Heywang-Köbrunner Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2005-12-20 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: C K Kuhl; R K Schmutzler; C C Leutner; A Kempe; E Wardelmann; A Hocke; M Maringa; U Pfeifer; D Krebs; H H Schild Journal: Radiology Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Edward A Sickles; Diana L Miglioretti; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Berta M Geller; Jessica W T Leung; Robert D Rosenberg; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Bonnie C Yankaskas Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Roberta M Strigel; Jennifer Rollenhagen; Elizabeth S Burnside; Mai Elezaby; Amy M Fowler; Frederick Kelcz; Lonie Salkowski; Wendy B DeMartini Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2016-12-13 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Diana L Lam; Jacob Smith; Savannah C Partridge; Adrienne Kim; Sara H Javid; Daniel S Hippe; Constance D Lehman; Janie M Lee; Habib Rahbar Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2019-07-05 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Roberta M Strigel; Elizabeth S Burnside; Mai Elezaby; Amy M Fowler; Frederick Kelcz; Lonie R Salkowski; Wendy B DeMartini Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Habib Rahbar; Zheng Zhang; Thomas L Chenevert; Justin Romanoff; Averi E Kitsch; Lucy G Hanna; Sara M Harvey; Linda Moy; Wendy B DeMartini; Basak Dogan; Wei T Yang; Lilian C Wang; Bonnie N Joe; Karen Y Oh; Colleen H Neal; Elizabeth S McDonald; Mitchell D Schnall; Constance D Lehman; Christopher E Comstock; Savannah C Partridge Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2019-01-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Roberta M Strigel; Erin Bravo; Amye J Tevaarwerk; Bethany M Anderson; Amy L Stella; Heather B Neuman Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2020-10-17 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: João Ricardo Maltez de Almeida; André Boechat Gomes; Thomas Pitangueiras Barros; Paulo Eduardo Fahel; Mário de Seixas Rocha Journal: Radiol Bras Date: 2016 May-Jun
Authors: Jing Luo; Daniel S Hippe; Habib Rahbar; Sana Parsian; Mara H Rendi; Savannah C Partridge Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2019-09-04 Impact factor: 6.466