Randy Miles1, Fei Wan2, Tracy L Onega3, Amanda Lenderink-Carpenter4, Ellen S O'Meara2, Weiwei Zhu2, Louise M Henderson5, Jennifer S Haas6, Deirdre A Hill7, Anna N A Tosteson3, Karen J Wernli2, Jennifer Alford-Teaster3, Janie M Lee8, Constance D Lehman9, Christoph I Lee10. 1. 1 Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School , Boston, Massachusetts. 2. 2 Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute , Seattle, Washington. 3. 3 Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice , Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine, Lebanon , New Hampshire. 4. 4 Fort Collins Radiologic Associates , PC, Fort Collins, Colorado. 5. 5 Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina , Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 6. 6 Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School , Boston, Massachusetts. 7. 7 Department of Internal Medicine, University of New Mexico , Albuquerque, New Mexico . 8. 8 Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine , Seattle, Washington. 9. 9 Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School , Boston, Massachusetts. 10. 10 Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine ; Department of Health Services, University of Washington School of Public Health ; Hutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research, Seattle, Washington.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Women at high lifetime breast cancer risk may benefit from supplemental breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening, in addition to routine mammography screening for earlier cancer detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of 422,406 women undergoing routine mammography screening across 86 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) facilities during calendar year 2012. We determined availability and use of on-site screening breast MRI services based on woman-level characteristics, including >20% lifetime absolute risk using the National Cancer Institute risk assessment tool. Multivariate analyses were performed to determine sociodemographic characteristics associated with on-site screening MRI use. RESULTS: Overall, 43.9% (2403/5468) of women at high lifetime risk attended a facility with on-site breast MRI screening availability. However, only 6.6% (158/2403) of high-risk women obtained breast MRI screening within a 2-year window of their screening mammogram. Patient factors associated with on-site MRI screening use included younger (<40 years) age (odds ratio [OR] = 2.39, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34-4.21), family history (OR = 1.72, 95% CI: 1.13-2.63), prior breast biopsy (OR = 2.09, 95% CI: 1.22-3.58), and postsecondary education (OR = 2.22, 95% CI: 1.04-4.74). CONCLUSIONS: While nearly half of women at high lifetime breast cancer risk undergo routine screening mammography at a facility with on-site breast MRI availability, supplemental breast MRI remains widely underutilized among those who may benefit from earlier cancer detection. Future studies should evaluate whether other enabling factors such as formal risk assessment and patient awareness of high lifetime breast cancer risk can mitigate the underutilization of supplemental screening breast MRI.
BACKGROUND:Women at high lifetime breast cancer risk may benefit from supplemental breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening, in addition to routine mammography screening for earlier cancer detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of 422,406 women undergoing routine mammography screening across 86 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) facilities during calendar year 2012. We determined availability and use of on-site screening breast MRI services based on woman-level characteristics, including >20% lifetime absolute risk using the National Cancer Institute risk assessment tool. Multivariate analyses were performed to determine sociodemographic characteristics associated with on-site screening MRI use. RESULTS: Overall, 43.9% (2403/5468) of women at high lifetime risk attended a facility with on-site breast MRI screening availability. However, only 6.6% (158/2403) of high-risk women obtained breast MRI screening within a 2-year window of their screening mammogram. Patient factors associated with on-site MRI screening use included younger (<40 years) age (odds ratio [OR] = 2.39, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34-4.21), family history (OR = 1.72, 95% CI: 1.13-2.63), prior breast biopsy (OR = 2.09, 95% CI: 1.22-3.58), and postsecondary education (OR = 2.22, 95% CI: 1.04-4.74). CONCLUSIONS: While nearly half of women at high lifetime breast cancer risk undergo routine screening mammography at a facility with on-site breast MRI availability, supplemental breast MRI remains widely underutilized among those who may benefit from earlier cancer detection. Future studies should evaluate whether other enabling factors such as formal risk assessment and patient awareness of high lifetime breast cancer risk can mitigate the underutilization of supplemental screening breast MRI.
Entities:
Keywords:
access; breast cancer; disparities; high-risk screening; supplemental breast MRI
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: Pål Møller; Ake Borg; D Gareth Evans; Neva Haites; Marta M Reis; Hans Vasen; Elaine Anderson; C Michael Steel; Jaran Apold; David Goudie; Anthony Howell; Fiona Lalloo; Lovise Maehle; Helen Gregory; Ketil Heimdal Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2002-10-20 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Anna M Chiarelli; Maegan V Prummel; Derek Muradali; Vicky Majpruz; Meaghan Horgan; June C Carroll; Andrea Eisen; Wendy S Meschino; Rene S Shumak; Ellen Warner; Linda Rabeneck Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-06-16 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jacqueline W Miller; Susan A Sabatino; Trevor D Thompson; Nancy Breen; Mary C White; A Blythe Ryerson; Stephen Taplin; Rachel Ballard-Barbash Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2012-11-15 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Tracy Onega; Eric J Duell; Xun Shi; Eugene Demidenko; Daniel Gottlieb; David C Goodman Journal: Med Care Res Rev Date: 2009-05-19 Impact factor: 3.929
Authors: Madeleine Tilanus-Linthorst; Leon Verhoog; Inge-Marie Obdeijn; Karina Bartels; Marian Menke-Pluymers; Alexander Eggermont; Jan Klijn; Hanne Meijers-Heijboer; Theo van der Kwast; Cecile Brekelmans Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2002-11-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Tracy Onega; Rebecca Hubbard; Deirdre Hill; Christoph I Lee; Jennifer S Haas; Heather A Carlos; Jennifer Alford-Teaster; Andy Bogart; Wendy B DeMartini; Karla Kerlikowske; Beth A Virnig; Diana S M Buist; Louise Henderson; Anna N A Tosteson Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2014-06-02 Impact factor: 5.532
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: Jennifer Alford-Teaster; Jane M Lange; Rebecca A Hubbard; Christoph I Lee; Jennifer S Haas; Xun Shi; Heather A Carlos; Louise Henderson; Deirdre Hill; Anna N A Tosteson; Tracy Onega Journal: Int J Health Geogr Date: 2016-02-18 Impact factor: 3.918
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: Anne Blaes; Rachel I Vogel; Rebekah H Nagler; Alicia Allen; Susan Mason; Deanna Teoh; Kristine Talley; Nancy C Raymond; Jean F Wyman Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2019-08-21 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Claire C Conley; Bethany L Niell; Bianca M Augusto; McKenzie McIntyre; Richard Roetzheim; Kimberly Funaro; Susan T Vadaparampil Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2020-03-27 Impact factor: 5.532
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: Bethany L Niell; Bianca Augusto; McKenzie McIntyre; Claire C Conley; Travis Gerke; Richard Roetzheim; Jennifer Garcia; Susan T Vadaparampil Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2021-05-12 Impact factor: 3.959
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