OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine additional diagnostic workup and costs generated by addition of a single molecular breast imaging (MBI) examination to screening mammography for women with dense breasts. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Women with mammographically dense breasts presenting for screening mammography underwent adjunct MBI performed with 300 MBq (99m)Tc-sestamibi and a direct-conversion cadmium-zinc-telluride dual-head gamma camera. All subsequent imaging tests and biopsies were tracked for a minimum of 1 year. The positive predictive value of biopsies performed (PPV3), benign biopsy rate, cost per patient screened, and cost per cancer detected were determined. RESULTS: A total of 1651 women enrolled in the study. Among the 1585 participants with complete reference standard, screening mammography alone prompted diagnostic workup of 175 (11.0%) patients and biopsy of 20 (1.3%) and yielded five malignancies (PPV3, 25%). Results of combined screening mammography plus MBI prompted diagnostic workup of 279 patients (17.6%) and biopsy of 67 (4.2%) and yielded 19 malignancies (PPV3, 28.4%). The benign biopsy rates were 0.9% (15 of 1585) for screening mammography alone and 3.0% (48 of 1585) for the combination (p < 0.001). The addition of MBI increased the cost per patient screened from $176 for mammography alone to $571 for the combination. However, cost per cancer detected was lower for the combination ($47,597) than for mammography alone ($55,851). CONCLUSION: The addition of MBI to screening mammography of women with dense breasts increased the overall costs and benign biopsy rate but also increased the cancer detection rate, which resulted in a lower cost per cancer detected than with screening mammography alone.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine additional diagnostic workup and costs generated by addition of a single molecular breast imaging (MBI) examination to screening mammography for women with dense breasts. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Women with mammographically dense breasts presenting for screening mammography underwent adjunct MBI performed with 300 MBq (99m)Tc-sestamibi and a direct-conversion cadmium-zinc-telluride dual-head gamma camera. All subsequent imaging tests and biopsies were tracked for a minimum of 1 year. The positive predictive value of biopsies performed (PPV3), benign biopsy rate, cost per patient screened, and cost per cancer detected were determined. RESULTS: A total of 1651 women enrolled in the study. Among the 1585 participants with complete reference standard, screening mammography alone prompted diagnostic workup of 175 (11.0%) patients and biopsy of 20 (1.3%) and yielded five malignancies (PPV3, 25%). Results of combined screening mammography plus MBI prompted diagnostic workup of 279 patients (17.6%) and biopsy of 67 (4.2%) and yielded 19 malignancies (PPV3, 28.4%). The benign biopsy rates were 0.9% (15 of 1585) for screening mammography alone and 3.0% (48 of 1585) for the combination (p < 0.001). The addition of MBI increased the cost per patient screened from $176 for mammography alone to $571 for the combination. However, cost per cancer detected was lower for the combination ($47,597) than for mammography alone ($55,851). CONCLUSION: The addition of MBI to screening mammography of women with dense breasts increased the overall costs and benign biopsy rate but also increased the cancer detection rate, which resulted in a lower cost per cancer detected than with screening mammography alone.
Entities:
Keywords:
benign biopsy rate; breast density; costs; molecular breast imaging; supplemental screening
Authors: Wendie A Berg; Kathleen S Madsen; Kathy Schilling; Marie Tartar; Etta D Pisano; Linda Hovanessian Larsen; Deepa Narayanan; Al Ozonoff; Joel P Miller; Judith E Kalinyak Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-11-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Elissa R Price; Jonathan Hargreaves; Jafi A Lipson; Edward A Sickles; R James Brenner; Karen K Lindfors; Bonnie N Joe; Jessica W T Leung; Stephen A Feig; Lawrence W Bassett; Haydee Ojeda-Fournier; Bruce L Daniel; Allison W Kurian; Elyse Love; Lauren Ryan; Donna D Walgenbach; Debra M Ikeda Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-10-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Amy Lynn Conners; Carrie B Hruska; Cindy L Tortorelli; Robert W Maxwell; Deborah J Rhodes; Judy C Boughey; Wendie A Berg Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Deborah J Rhodes; Carrie B Hruska; Stephen W Phillips; Dana H Whaley; Michael K O'Connor Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-11-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Wendie A Berg; Irving N Weinberg; Deepa Narayanan; Mary E Lobrano; Eric Ross; Laura Amodei; Lorraine Tafra; Lee P Adler; Joseph Uddo; William Stein; Edward A Levine Journal: Breast J Date: 2006 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Ellen Warner; Donald B Plewes; Kimberley A Hill; Petrina A Causer; Judit T Zubovits; Roberta A Jong; Margaret R Cutrara; Gerrit DeBoer; Martin J Yaffe; Sandra J Messner; Wendy S Meschino; Cameron A Piron; Steven A Narod Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-09-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ximena Varas; José H Leborgne; Francisco Leborgne; Julieta Mezzera; Sylvia Jaumandreu; Felix Leborgne Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Amy Lynn Conners; Robert W Maxwell; Cindy L Tortorelli; Carrie B Hruska; Deborah J Rhodes; Judy C Boughey; Wendie A Berg Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Matthew F Covington; Ephraim E Parent; Elizabeth H Dibble; Gaiane M Rauch; Amy M Fowler Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-12-09 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Carrie B Hruska; Christopher G Scott; Amy Lynn Conners; Dana H Whaley; Deborah J Rhodes; Rickey E Carter; Michael K O'Connor; Katie N Hunt; Kathleen R Brandt; Celine M Vachon Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2016-04-26 Impact factor: 6.466