Jennifer S Haas1, Deirdre A Hill2, Robert D Wellman3, Rebecca A Hubbard4, Christoph I Lee5,6, Karen J Wernli3, Natasha K Stout7, Anna N A Tosteson8, Louise M Henderson9, Jennifer A Alford-Teaster8, Tracy L Onega10. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Department of Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Department of Internal Medicine and Cancer Research Center and School of Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico. 3. Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington. 4. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 5. Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington. 6. Department of Health Services, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Washington. 7. Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. 8. Department of Medicine, Department of Community and Family Medicine, The Dartmouth Institute, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire. 9. Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 10. Department of Biomedical Science, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Uptake of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) coupled with breast cancer risk assessment offers the opportunity to tailor the benefits and harms of screening strategies for women with differing cancer risks. Despite the potential benefits, there is also concern for worsening population-based health disparities. METHODS: Among 316,172 women aged 35 to 69 years from 5 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries (2007-2012), the authors examined 617,723 negative screening mammograms and 1047 screening MRIs. They examined the relative risks (RRs) of MRI use by women with a <20% lifetime breast cancer risk and RR in the absence of MRI use by women with a ≥20% lifetime risk. RESULTS: Among women with a <20% lifetime risk of breast cancer, non-Hispanic white women were found to be 62% more likely than nonwhite women to undergo an MRI (95% confidence interval, 1.32-1.98). Of these women, those with an educational level of some college or technical school were 43% more likely and those who had at least a college degree were 132% more likely to receive an MRI compared with those with a high school education or less. Among women with a ≥20% lifetime risk, there was no statistically significant difference noted with regard to the use of screening MRI by race or ethnicity, but high-risk women with a high school education or less were less likely to undergo screening MRI than women who had graduated from college (RR, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.63). CONCLUSIONS: Uptake of screening MRI of the breast into clinical practice has the potential to worsen population-based health disparities. Policies beyond health insurance coverage should ensure that the use of this screening modality reflects evidence-based guidelines.
BACKGROUND: Uptake of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) coupled with breast cancer risk assessment offers the opportunity to tailor the benefits and harms of screening strategies for women with differing cancer risks. Despite the potential benefits, there is also concern for worsening population-based health disparities. METHODS: Among 316,172 women aged 35 to 69 years from 5 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries (2007-2012), the authors examined 617,723 negative screening mammograms and 1047 screening MRIs. They examined the relative risks (RRs) of MRI use by women with a <20% lifetime breast cancer risk and RR in the absence of MRI use by women with a ≥20% lifetime risk. RESULTS: Among women with a <20% lifetime risk of breast cancer, non-Hispanic white women were found to be 62% more likely than nonwhite women to undergo an MRI (95% confidence interval, 1.32-1.98). Of these women, those with an educational level of some college or technical school were 43% more likely and those who had at least a college degree were 132% more likely to receive an MRI compared with those with a high school education or less. Among women with a ≥20% lifetime risk, there was no statistically significant difference noted with regard to the use of screening MRI by race or ethnicity, but high-risk women with a high school education or less were less likely to undergo screening MRI than women who had graduated from college (RR, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.63). CONCLUSIONS: Uptake of screening MRI of the breast into clinical practice has the potential to worsen population-based health disparities. Policies beyond health insurance coverage should ensure that the use of this screening modality reflects evidence-based guidelines.
Authors: Bonnie C Yankaskas; Stephen H Taplin; Laura Ichikawa; Berta M Geller; Robert D Rosenberg; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Gary R Cutter; William E Barlow Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Celia Patricia Kaplan; Jennifer S Haas; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable; Steven E Gregorich; Carol Somkin; Genevieve Des Jarlais; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 4.254
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: Kathleen A Cronin; Binbing Yu; Martin Krapcho; Diana L Miglioretti; Michael P Fay; Grant Izmirlian; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Berta M Geller; Eric J Feuer Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: M H Gail; L A Brinton; D P Byar; D K Corle; S B Green; C Schairer; J J Mulvihill Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1989-12-20 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Diana L Miglioretti; Nicole Lurie; Linn Abraham; Rachel Ballard Barbash; Jodi Strzelczyk; Mark Dignan; William E Barlow; Cherry M Beasley; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2006-04-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Mieke Kriege; Cecile T M Brekelmans; Carla Boetes; Peter E Besnard; Harmine M Zonderland; Inge Marie Obdeijn; Radu A Manoliu; Theo Kok; Hans Peterse; Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst; Sara H Muller; Sybren Meijer; Jan C Oosterwijk; Louk V A M Beex; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Harry J de Koning; Emiel J T Rutgers; Jan G M Klijn Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-07-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Diana L Miglioretti; Carolyn M Rutter; Berta M Geller; Gary Cutter; William E Barlow; Robert Rosenberg; Donald L Weaver; Stephen H Taplin; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Patricia A Carney; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-01-28 Impact factor: 56.272
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: Janie M Lee; Laura Ichikawa; Elizabeth Valencia; Diana L Miglioretti; Karen Wernli; Diana S M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Louise M Henderson; Brian L Sprague; Tracy Onega; Garth H Rauscher; Constance D Lehman Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-06-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Annie Tang; Caitlin M Cohan; Keith S Hansen; Genna Beattie; Heather I Greenwood; Rita A Mukhtar Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-03-27 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Randy Miles; Fei Wan; Tracy L Onega; Amanda Lenderink-Carpenter; Ellen S O'Meara; Weiwei Zhu; Louise M Henderson; Jennifer S Haas; Deirdre A Hill; Anna N A Tosteson; Karen J Wernli; Jennifer Alford-Teaster; Janie M Lee; Constance D Lehman; Christoph I Lee Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2018-01-17 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Claire C Conley; Monica L Kasting; Bianca M Augusto; Jennifer D Garcia; Deborah Cragun; Brian D Gonzalez; Jongphil Kim; Kimlin Tam Ashing; Cheryl L Knott; Chanita Hughes-Halbert; Tuya Pal; Susan T Vadaparampil Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Sukh Makhnoon; Grace Tran; Brooke Levin; Kristin D Mattie; Brian Dreyer; Robert J Volk; Generosa Grana; Banu K Arun; Susan K Peterson Journal: Cancer Date: 2021-06-22 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Sean A Woolen; Jonathan P Troost; Shokoufeh Khalatbari; Akshat C Pujara; Jennifer S McDonald; Robert J McDonald; Prasad Shankar; Alana A Lewin; Amy N Melsaether; Steven M Westphal; Katherine H Patterson; Ashley Nettles; John P Welby; Parth Pradip Patel; Neud Kiros; Lisa Piccoli; Matthew S Davenport Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-05-28 Impact factor: 5.315