Literature DB >> 26001247

Diagnostic workup and costs of a single supplemental molecular breast imaging screen of mammographically dense breasts.

Carrie B Hruska1, Amy Lynn Conners, Katie N Jones, Michael K O'Connor, James P Moriarty, Judy C Boughey, Deborah J Rhodes.   

Abstract

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

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26001247      PMCID: PMC5036572          DOI: 10.2214/AJR.14.13306

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  30 in total

1.  Breast cancer: comparative effectiveness of positron emission mammography and MR imaging in presurgical planning for the ipsilateral breast.

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

2.  The California breast density information group: a collaborative response to the issues of breast density, breast cancer risk, and breast density notification legislation.

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

3.  Lexicon for standardized interpretation of gamma camera molecular breast imaging: observer agreement and diagnostic accuracy.

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

4.  Dedicated dual-head gamma imaging for breast cancer screening in women with mammographically dense breasts.

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

Review 5.  Technologist-performed handheld screening breast US imaging: how is it performed and what are the outcomes to date?

Authors:  Wendie A Berg; Ellen B Mendelson
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  High-resolution fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with compression ("positron emission mammography") is highly accurate in depicting primary breast cancer.

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

7.  Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination.

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

8.  Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions.

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

9.  Breast screening with ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: evidence on incremental cancer detection and false positives, and associated cost.

Authors:  Vittorio Corsetti; Nehmat Houssami; Aurora Ferrari; Marco Ghirardi; Sergio Bellarosa; Osvaldo Angelini; Claudio Bani; Pasquale Sardo; Giuseppe Remida; Enzo Galligioni; Stefano Ciatto
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2008-02-11       Impact factor: 9.162

10.  Gamma camera breast imaging lexicon.

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

View more
  7 in total

1.  Let's Get Real about Molecular Breast Imaging and Radiation Risk.

Authors:  Carrie B Hruska
Journal:  Radiol Imaging Cancer       Date:  2019-09-27

2.  Usefulness of feature analysis of breast-specific gamma imaging for predicting malignancy.

Authors:  Eun Kyoung Choi; Jooyeon Jamie Im; Chang Suk Park; Yong-An Chung; Kijun Kim; Jin Kyoung Oh
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-06-12       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Curies, and Grays, and Sieverts, Oh My: A Guide for Discussing Radiation Dose and Risk of Molecular Breast Imaging.

Authors:  Carrie B Hruska; Michael K O'Connor
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 5.532

4.  Advances and Future Directions in Molecular Breast Imaging.

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

5.  Updates in Molecular Breast Imaging.

Authors:  Carrie B Hruska
Journal:  Semin Roentgenol       Date:  2021-12-31       Impact factor: 0.709

6.  Is radiomic MRI a feasible alternative to OncotypeDX® recurrence score testing? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  M G Davey; M S Davey; É J Ryan; M R Boland; P F McAnena; A J Lowery; M J Kerin
Journal:  BJS Open       Date:  2021-09-06

7.  Background parenchymal uptake on molecular breast imaging as a breast cancer risk factor: a case-control study.

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

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.