Diana S M Buist1, Linn Abraham1, Christoph I Lee2, Janie M Lee2, Constance Lehman3, Ellen S O'Meara1, Natasha K Stout4, Louise M Henderson5, Deirdre Hill6, Karen J Wernli1, Jennifer S Haas7, Anna N A Tosteson8, Karla Kerlikowske9, Tracy Onega10. 1. Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle. 3. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. 4. Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 6. Department of Internal Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. 7. Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 8. Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Department of Medicine, and Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire. 9. Departments of Medicine and Epidemiology and Biostatistics, General Internal Medicine Section, Department of Veterans Affairs, University of California, San Francisco. 10. Department of Biomedical Data Science, Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
Abstract
Importance: There is little evidence on population-based harms and benefits of screening breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in women with and without a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC). Objective: To evaluate biopsy rates and yield in the 90 days following screening (mammography vs magnetic resonance imaging with or without mammography) among women with and without a PHBC. Design, Setting, and Participants: Observational cohort study of 6 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) registries. Population-based sample of 812 164 women undergoing screening, 2003 through 2013. Exposures: A total of 2 048 994 digital mammography and/or breast MRI screening episodes (mammogram alone vs MRI with or without screening mammogram within 30 days). Main Outcomes and Measures: Biopsy intensity (surgical greater than core greater than fine-needle aspiration) and yield (invasive cancer greater than ductal carcinoma in situ greater than high-risk benign greater than benign) within 90 days of a screening episode. We computed age-adjusted rates of biopsy intensity (per 1000 screening episodes) and biopsy yield (per 1000 screening episodes with biopsies). Outcomes were stratified by PHBC and by BCSC 5-year breast cancer risk among women without PHBC. Results: We included 101 103 and 1 939 455 mammogram screening episodes in women with and without PHBC, respectively; MRI screening episodes included 3763 with PHBC and 4673 without PHBC. Age-adjusted core and surgical biopsy rates (per 1000 episodes) doubled (57.1; 95% CI, 50.3-65.1) following MRI compared with mammography (23.6; 95% CI, 22.4-24.8) in women with PHBC. Differences (per 1000 episodes) were even larger in women without PHBC: 84.7 (95% CI, 75.9-94.9) following MRI and 14.9 (95% CI, 14.7-15.0) following mammography episodes. Ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive biopsy yield (per 1000 episodes) was significantly higher following mammography compared with MRI episodes in women with PHBC (mammography, 404.6; 95% CI, 381.2-428.8; MRI, 267.6; 95% CI, 208.0-337.8) and nonsignificantly higher, but in the same direction, in women without PHBC (mammography, 279.3; 95% CI, 274.2-284.4; MRI, 214.6; 95% CI, 158.7-280.8). High-risk benign lesions were more commonly identified following MRI regardless of PHBC. Higher biopsy rates and lower cancer yield following MRI were not explained by increasing age or higher 5-year breast cancer risk. Conclusions and Relevance: Women with and without PHBC who undergo screening MRI experience higher biopsy rates coupled with significantly lower cancer yield findings following biopsy compared with screening mammography alone. Further work is needed to identify women who will benefit from screening MRI to ensure an acceptable benefit-to-harm ratio.
Importance: There is little evidence on population-based harms and benefits of screening breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in women with and without a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC). Objective: To evaluate biopsy rates and yield in the 90 days following screening (mammography vs magnetic resonance imaging with or without mammography) among women with and without a PHBC. Design, Setting, and Participants: Observational cohort study of 6 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) registries. Population-based sample of 812 164 women undergoing screening, 2003 through 2013. Exposures: A total of 2 048 994 digital mammography and/or breast MRI screening episodes (mammogram alone vs MRI with or without screening mammogram within 30 days). Main Outcomes and Measures: Biopsy intensity (surgical greater than core greater than fine-needle aspiration) and yield (invasive cancer greater than ductal carcinoma in situ greater than high-risk benign greater than benign) within 90 days of a screening episode. We computed age-adjusted rates of biopsy intensity (per 1000 screening episodes) and biopsy yield (per 1000 screening episodes with biopsies). Outcomes were stratified by PHBC and by BCSC 5-year breast cancer risk among women without PHBC. Results: We included 101 103 and 1 939 455 mammogram screening episodes in women with and without PHBC, respectively; MRI screening episodes included 3763 with PHBC and 4673 without PHBC. Age-adjusted core and surgical biopsy rates (per 1000 episodes) doubled (57.1; 95% CI, 50.3-65.1) following MRI compared with mammography (23.6; 95% CI, 22.4-24.8) in women with PHBC. Differences (per 1000 episodes) were even larger in women without PHBC: 84.7 (95% CI, 75.9-94.9) following MRI and 14.9 (95% CI, 14.7-15.0) following mammography episodes. Ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive biopsy yield (per 1000 episodes) was significantly higher following mammography compared with MRI episodes in women with PHBC (mammography, 404.6; 95% CI, 381.2-428.8; MRI, 267.6; 95% CI, 208.0-337.8) and nonsignificantly higher, but in the same direction, in women without PHBC (mammography, 279.3; 95% CI, 274.2-284.4; MRI, 214.6; 95% CI, 158.7-280.8). High-risk benign lesions were more commonly identified following MRI regardless of PHBC. Higher biopsy rates and lower cancer yield following MRI were not explained by increasing age or higher 5-year breast cancer risk. Conclusions and Relevance: Women with and without PHBC who undergo screening MRI experience higher biopsy rates coupled with significantly lower cancer yield findings following biopsy compared with screening mammography alone. Further work is needed to identify women who will benefit from screening MRI to ensure an acceptable benefit-to-harm ratio.
Authors: Nehmat Houssami; Linn A Abraham; Diana L Miglioretti; Edward A Sickles; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Berta M Geller; Hyman B Muss; Les Irwig Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-02-23 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jeffrey A Tice; Ellen S O'Meara; Donald L Weaver; Celine Vachon; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2013-06-06 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Diana S M Buist; Linn A Abraham; William E Barlow; Arun Krishnaraj; Regan C Holdridge; Edward A Sickles; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Berta M Geller Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2010-08-11 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Fiona J Gilbert; Lorraine Tucker; Maureen Gc Gillan; Paula Willsher; Julie Cooke; Karen A Duncan; Michael J Michell; Hilary M Dobson; Yit Yoong Lim; Hema Purushothaman; Celia Strudley; Susan M Astley; Oliver Morrish; Kenneth C Young; Stephen W Duffy Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Margarita L Zuley; Ben Guo; Victor J Catullo; Denise M Chough; Amy E Kelly; Amy H Lu; Grace Y Rathfon; Marion Lee Spangler; Jules H Sumkin; Luisa P Wallace; Andriy I Bandos Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-01-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Evan R Myers; Patricia Moorman; Jennifer M Gierisch; Laura J Havrilesky; Lars J Grimm; Sujata Ghate; Brittany Davidson; Ranee Chatterjee Mongtomery; Matthew J Crowley; Douglas C McCrory; Amy Kendrick; Gillian D Sanders Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-10-20 Impact factor: 56.272
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: James A Dickinson; Roland Grad; Brenda J Wilson; Neil R Bell; Harminder Singh; Olga Szafran; Guylène Thériault Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: James A Dickinson; Roland Grad; Brenda J Wilson; Neil R Bell; Harminder Singh; Olga Szafran; Guylène Thériault Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Cameron B Haas; Larissa Nekhlyudov; Janie M Lee; Sara H Javid; Mary Bush; Dianne Johnson; Timothy Gleason; Cary Kaufman; Jennifer Specht; Sean Stitham; Karen J Wernli Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-04-17 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Amy J Lilly; Meredith Johnson; Cherie M Kuzmiak; David W Ollila; Siobhan M O'Connor; Johann D Hertel; Benjamin C Calhoun Journal: Ann Diagn Pathol Date: 2020-07-03 Impact factor: 2.090
Authors: Kathryn P Lowry; Michael C S Bissell; Diana L Miglioretti; Karla Kerlikowske; Nila Alsheik; Tere Macarol; Erin J A Bowles; Diana S M Buist; Anna N A Tosteson; Louise Henderson; Sally D Herschorn; Karen J Wernli; Donald L Weaver; Natasha K Stout; Brian L Sprague Journal: Radiology Date: 2021-10-19 Impact factor: 29.146
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