Tracy Onega1, Julia E Weiss, Diana S M Buist, Anna N A Tosteson, Louise M Henderson, Karla Kerlikowske, Martha E Goodrich, Cristina O'Donoghue, Karen J Wernli, Wendy B DeMartini, Beth A Virnig, Caroline S Bennette, Rebecca A Hubbard. 1. *Department of Biomedical Data Science †Norris Cotton Cancer Center ‡The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH §Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA ∥Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC Departments of ¶Medicine and Epidemiology and Biostatistics #Veterans Affairs, General Internal Medicine Section, University of California, San Francisco, CA **Comprehensive Breast Program, Department of Women's Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL ††Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI ‡‡School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN §§Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We compared the frequency and sequence of breast imaging and biopsy use for the diagnostic and preoperative workup of breast cancer according to breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) use among older women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using SEER-Medicare data from 2004 to 2010, we identified women with and without breast MRI as part of their diagnostic and preoperative breast cancer workup and measured the number and sequence of breast imaging and biopsy events per woman. RESULTS: A total of 10,766 (20%) women had an MRI in the diagnostic/preoperative period, 32,178 (60%) had mammogram and ultrasound, and 10,669 (20%) had mammography alone. MRI use increased across study years, tripling from 2005 to 2009 (9%-29%). Women with MRI had higher rates of breast imaging and biopsy compared with those with mammogram and ultrasound or those with mammography alone (5.8 vs. 4.1 vs. 2.8, respectively). There were 4254 unique sequences of breast events; the dominant patterns for women with MRI were an MRI occurring at the end of the care pathway. Among women receiving an MRI postdiagnosis, 26% had a subsequent biopsy compared with 51% receiving a subsequent biopsy in the subgroup without MRI. CONCLUSIONS: Older women who receive breast MRI undergo additional breast imaging and biopsy events. There is much variability in the diagnostic/preoperative work-up in older women, demonstrating the opportunity to increase standardization to optimize care for all women.
PURPOSE: We compared the frequency and sequence of breast imaging and biopsy use for the diagnostic and preoperative workup of breast cancer according to breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) use among older women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using SEER-Medicare data from 2004 to 2010, we identified women with and without breast MRI as part of their diagnostic and preoperative breast cancer workup and measured the number and sequence of breast imaging and biopsy events per woman. RESULTS: A total of 10,766 (20%) women had an MRI in the diagnostic/preoperative period, 32,178 (60%) had mammogram and ultrasound, and 10,669 (20%) had mammography alone. MRI use increased across study years, tripling from 2005 to 2009 (9%-29%). Women with MRI had higher rates of breast imaging and biopsy compared with those with mammogram and ultrasound or those with mammography alone (5.8 vs. 4.1 vs. 2.8, respectively). There were 4254 unique sequences of breast events; the dominant patterns for women with MRI were an MRI occurring at the end of the care pathway. Among women receiving an MRI postdiagnosis, 26% had a subsequent biopsy compared with 51% receiving a subsequent biopsy in the subgroup without MRI. CONCLUSIONS: Older women who receive breast MRI undergo additional breast imaging and biopsy events. There is much variability in the diagnostic/preoperative work-up in older women, demonstrating the opportunity to increase standardization to optimize care for all women.
Authors: Nehmat Houssami; Robin Turner; Petra Macaskill; Lindsay W Turnbull; David R McCready; Todd M Tuttle; Neha Vapiwala; Lawrence J Solin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-01-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Massimo Bazzocchi; Chiara Zuiani; Pietro Panizza; Chiara Del Frate; Franca Soldano; Miriam Isola; Francesco Sardanelli; Gian Marco Giuseppetti; Giovanni Simonetti; Vincenzo Lattanzio; Alessandro Del Maschio Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: E S Hungness; M Safa; E A Shaughnessy; B S Aron; P A Gazder; H H Hawkins; E E Lower; C Seeskin; R S Yassin; P O Hasselgren Journal: Surgery Date: 2000-10 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Richard J Bleicher; Robin M Ciocca; Brian L Egleston; Linda Sesa; Kathryn Evers; Elin R Sigurdson; Monica Morrow Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2009-06-18 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Constance D Lehman; Constantine Gatsonis; Christiane K Kuhl; R Edward Hendrick; Etta D Pisano; Lucy Hanna; Sue Peacock; Stanley F Smazal; Daniel D Maki; Thomas B Julian; Elizabeth R DePeri; David A Bluemke; Mitchell D Schnall Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-03-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Sarah McLaughlin; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Richard J Bleicher; David R McCready; Tari A King Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2013-10-22 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Meagan Elizabeth Brennan; Nehmat Houssami; Sarah Lord; Petra Macaskill; Les Irwig; J Michael Dixon; Ruth M L Warren; Stefano Ciatto Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-10-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Craig E Pollack; Pamela R Soulos; Jeph Herrin; Xiao Xu; Nicholas A Christakis; Howard P Forman; James B Yu; Brigid K Killelea; Shi-Yi Wang; Cary P Gross Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Ellen L Nutter; Julia E Weiss; Jonathan D Marotti; Richard J Barth; M Scottie Eliassen; Martha E Goodrich; Curtis L Petersen; Tracy Onega Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-12-20 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Xiao Xu; Pamela R Soulos; Jeph Herrin; Shi-Yi Wang; Craig Evan Pollack; Brigid K Killelea; Howard P Forman; Cary P Gross Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-03-15 Impact factor: 3.240