Deirdre A Hill1,2, Jennifer S Haas3, Robert Wellman4, Rebecca A Hubbard5, Christoph I Lee6,7, Jennifer Alford-Teaster8,9, Karen J Wernli4, Louise M Henderson10, Natasha K Stout11, Anna N A Tosteson12, Karla Kerlikowske13, Tracy Onega8,9,12. 1. Department of Internal Medicine and Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque, NM, USA. dahill@salud.unm.edu. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, 1 University of New Mexico, MSC 10-5550, 87131-0001, Albuquerque, NM, USA. dahill@salud.unm.edu. 3. Division of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA. 5. Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology & Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA. 6. Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA. 7. Department of Health Services, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, WA, USA. 8. Departments of Biomedical Data Science and Epidemiology, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH, USA. 9. Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH, USA. 10. Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 11. Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA, USA. 12. Department of Medicine, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Management and Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH, USA. 13. Departments of Medicine and Epidemiology/Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breast cancer screening with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may be a useful adjunct to screening mammography in high-risk women, but MRI uptake may be increasing rapidly among low- and average-risk women for whom benefits are unestablished. Comparatively little is known about use of screening MRI in community practice. OBJECTIVE: To assess relative utilization of MRI among women who do and do not meet professional society guidelines for supplemental screening, and describe utilization according to breast cancer risk indications. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study conducted between 2007 and 2014. PARTICIPANTS: In five regional imaging registries participating in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC), 348,955 women received a screening mammogram, of whom 1499 underwent screening MRI. MAIN MEASURES: Lifetime breast cancer risk (< 20% or ≥ 20%) estimated by family history of two or more first-degree relatives, and Gail model risk estimates. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System breast density and benign breast diseases also were assessed. Relative risks (RR) for undergoing screening MRI were estimated using Poisson regression. KEY RESULTS: Among women with < 20% lifetime risk, which does not meet professional guidelines for supplementary MRI screening, and no first-degree breast cancer family history, screening MRI utilization was elevated among those with extremely dense breasts [RR 2.2; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.7-2.8] relative to those with scattered fibroglandular densities and among women with atypia (RR 7.4; 95% CI 3.9-14.3.) or lobular carcinoma in situ (RR 33.1; 95% CI 18.0-60.9) relative to women with non-proliferative disease. Approximately 82.9% (95% CI 80.8%-84.7%) of screening MRIs occurred among women who did not meet professional guidelines and 35.5% (95% CI 33.1-37.9%) among women considered at low-to-average breast cancer risk. CONCLUSION: Utilization of screening MRI in community settings is not consistent with current professional guidelines and the goal of delivery of high-value care.
BACKGROUND:Breast cancer screening with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may be a useful adjunct to screening mammography in high-risk women, but MRI uptake may be increasing rapidly among low- and average-risk women for whom benefits are unestablished. Comparatively little is known about use of screening MRI in community practice. OBJECTIVE: To assess relative utilization of MRI among women who do and do not meet professional society guidelines for supplemental screening, and describe utilization according to breast cancer risk indications. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study conducted between 2007 and 2014. PARTICIPANTS: In five regional imaging registries participating in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC), 348,955 women received a screening mammogram, of whom 1499 underwent screening MRI. MAIN MEASURES: Lifetime breast cancer risk (< 20% or ≥ 20%) estimated by family history of two or more first-degree relatives, and Gail model risk estimates. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System breast density and benign breast diseases also were assessed. Relative risks (RR) for undergoing screening MRI were estimated using Poisson regression. KEY RESULTS: Among women with < 20% lifetime risk, which does not meet professional guidelines for supplementary MRI screening, and no first-degree breast cancer family history, screening MRI utilization was elevated among those with extremely dense breasts [RR 2.2; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.7-2.8] relative to those with scattered fibroglandular densities and among women with atypia (RR 7.4; 95% CI 3.9-14.3.) or lobular carcinoma in situ (RR 33.1; 95% CI 18.0-60.9) relative to women with non-proliferative disease. Approximately 82.9% (95% CI 80.8%-84.7%) of screening MRIs occurred among women who did not meet professional guidelines and 35.5% (95% CI 33.1-37.9%) among women considered at low-to-average breast cancer risk. CONCLUSION: Utilization of screening MRI in community settings is not consistent with current professional guidelines and the goal of delivery of high-value care.
Entities:
Keywords:
breast neoplasms; early detection of cancer; guideline adherence; magnetic resonance imaging; risk factors
Authors: Rebecca A Hubbard; Karla Kerlikowske; Chris I Flowers; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Weiwei Zhu; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Elisa Rush Port; Anna Park; Patrick I Borgen; Elizabeth Morris; Leslie L Montgomery Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2007-01-07 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Ellen Warner; Kimberley Hill; Petrina Causer; Donald Plewes; Roberta Jong; Martin Yaffe; William D Foulkes; Parviz Ghadirian; Henry Lynch; Fergus Couch; John Wong; Frances Wright; Ping Sun; Steven A Narod Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-03-28 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: William R Hendee; Gary J Becker; James P Borgstede; Jennifer Bosma; William J Casarella; Beth A Erickson; C Douglas Maynard; James H Thrall; Paul E Wallner Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-08-24 Impact factor: 11.105
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: Hajar Kadivar; Barbara A Goff; William R Phillips; C Holly A Andrilla; Alfred O Berg; Laura-Mae Baldwin Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-08-14 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Karen J Wernli; Wendy B DeMartini; Laura Ichikawa; Constance D Lehman; Tracy Onega; Karla Kerlikowske; Louise M Henderson; Berta M Geller; Mike Hofmann; Bonnie C Yankaskas Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Melissa Pilewskie; Emily C Zabor; Elizabeth Gilbert; Michelle Stempel; Oriana Petruolo; Debra Mangino; Mark Robson; Maxine S Jochelson Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-01-23 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Karen J Wernli; Rebecca E Smith; Louise M Henderson; Wenyan Zhao; Danielle D Durham; Karen Schifferdecker; Celia Kaplan; Diana S M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti; Tracy Onega; Nila H Alsheik; Brian L Sprague; Gloria Jackson-Nefertiti; Jill Budesky; Dianne Johnson; Anna N A Tosteson Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2022-06-20 Impact factor: 4.624
Authors: Ronilda Lacson; Laila Cochon; Patrick R Ching; Eseosa Odigie; Neena Kapoor; Staci Gagne; Mark M Hammer; Ramin Khorasani Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-01-15 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Vignesh A Arasu; Diana L Miglioretti; Brian L Sprague; Nila H Alsheik; Diana S M Buist; Louise M Henderson; Sally D Herschorn; Janie M Lee; Tracy Onega; Garth H Rauscher; Karen J Wernli; Constance D Lehman; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-01-09 Impact factor: 50.717
Authors: Karen J Wernli; Sarah Knerr; Tengfei Li; Kathleen Leppig; Kelly Ehrlich; David Farrell; Hongyuan Gao; Erin J A Bowles; Amanda L Graham; George Luta; Jinani Jayasekera; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Marc D Schwartz; Suzanne C O'Neill Journal: JNCI Cancer Spectr Date: 2021-01-14
Authors: Karen J Wernli; Katherine A Callaway; Louise M Henderson; Karla Kerlikowske; Janie M Lee; Dennis Ross-Degnan; Jamie K Wallace; J Frank Wharam; Fang Zhang; Natasha K Stout Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-09-28 Impact factor: 6.860