Dataset Information

Patterns of Breast Imaging Use Among Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:National patterns of breast imaging in women with a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC) are unknown making evaluation of annual surveillance recommendations a challenge. OBJECTIVE:To describe variation in use of mammography and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations beginning 6 months after diagnosis among women with PHBC in US community practice. We report on the breast imaging indication, imaging intervals, and time since breast cancer diagnosis by examination type. DESIGN:Longitudinal study using cross-sectional data. SETTING:Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium breast imaging facilities. PARTICIPANTS:19,955 women diagnosed between 2005 and 2012 with AJCC stage 0-III incident breast cancer who had 69,386 mammograms and 3,553 breast MRI examinations from January 2005 to September 2013; median follow-up of 37.6 months (interquartile range, 22.1-60.7). MAIN MEASURES:Breast imaging indication, imaging intervals, and time since breast cancer diagnosis by examination type. KEY RESULTS:Among women with a PHBC who received breast imaging, 89.4% underwent mammography alone, 0.8% MRI alone, and 10.3% had both mammography and MRI. About half of mammograms and MRIs were indicated for surveillance vs. diagnostic, with an increase in the proportion of surveillance exams as time from diagnosis increased (mammograms, 45.7% at 1 year to 72.2% after 5 years; MRIs, 54.8% at 1 year to 78.6% after 5 years). In the first post-diagnosis period, 32.8% of women had >?2 breast imaging examinations and of these, 65.8% were less than 6 months apart. During the first 5-year post-diagnosis, the frequency of examinations per year decreased and the interval between examinations shifted towards annual examinations. CONCLUSION:In women with a PHBC who received post-diagnosis imaging, a third underwent multiple breast imaging examinations per year during the first 2-year post-diagnosis despite recommendations for annual exams. As time since diagnosis increases, imaging indication shifts from diagnostic to surveillance.

SUBMITTER: Henderson LM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6816668 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patterns of Breast Imaging Use Among Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer.

Henderson Louise M LM Ichikawa Laura L Buist Diana S M DSM Lee Janie M JM Bush Mary M Johnson Dianne D Onega Tracy T Nekhlyudov Larissa L Kerlikowske Karla K Miglioretti Diana L DL Sprague Brian L BL Wernli Karen J KJ

Journal of general internal medicine 20190813 10

<h4>Background</h4>National patterns of breast imaging in women with a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC) are unknown making evaluation of annual surveillance recommendations a challenge.<h4>Objective</h4>To describe variation in use of mammography and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations beginning 6 months after diagnosis among women with PHBC in US community practice. We report on the breast imaging indication, imaging intervals, and time since breast cancer diagnosis by ...[more]

PMID: 31410813

Similar Datasets

Project description:PURPOSE:To investigate the feasibility of abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging (AB-MRI) in women with a personal history (PH) of breast cancer as a screening tool. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed 1880 screening AB-MRIs in 763 women with a PH of breast cancer (median age, 55 years; range, 23-89 years) between October 2015 and October 2016. The total acquisition times of AB-MRI were 8.3 min and 2.8 min with and without T2-weighted imaging, respectively. The tissue diagnosis or one-year follow-up status was used as the reference standard. The characteristics of tumor recurrences detected on AB-MRI screenings were analyzed. The cancer detection rates (CDRs) and additional CDRs for the 1st round and overall rounds of AB-MRI screening were calculated. The recall rate, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values for recall (PPV1) and biopsy (PPV3) for the 1st round of AB-MRI screening were calculated. The diagnostic performance of the combination of mammography and ultrasonography was compared with that of AB-MRI by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. RESULTS:Fifteen of a total of 21 recurrences were detected on the 1st round of AB-MRI screening: 93.3% were node-negative T1 tumors (median tumor size, 1.02 cm; range, 0.1-2 cm) or Tis; 66.7% were high-grade tumors; 8 of these 15 were mammographically and ultrasonographically occult. The CDR and additional CDR for the 1st round of AB-MRI screening were 0.019 and 0.010 per woman, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, recall rate, PPV1 and PPV3 for the 1st round of AB-MRI screening were 100%, 96.0%, 14.3%, 13.8% and 58.3%, respectively. For detecting secondary cancer, AB-MRI showed a higher sensitivity and PPV than the combination of mammography and ultrasonography (95.2%, 57.1% vs 47.6%, 38.5%). The area under the ROC curve was higher for AB-MRI (0.966; 95% CI: 0.951-0.978) than the combination of mammography and ultrasonography (0.727; 95% CI: 0.694-0.759) (P<0.0001). CONCLUSION:AB-MRI improved cancer detection with a high specificity, sensitivity and PPV in women with a PH of breast cancer. AB-MRI could be a useful screening tool for detecting secondary cancer considering its high diagnostic performance and short examination time.

Project description:Background There is lack of consensus regarding the use of breast MRI for routine surveillance for second breast cancer events in women with a personal history of breast cancer. Purpose To compare performance of surveillance mammography with breast MRI. Materials and Methods This observational cohort study used prospectively collected data and included 13 266 women age 18 years and older (mean age, 60 years ± 13) with stage 0-III breast cancer who underwent 33 938 mammographic examinations and 2506 breast MRI examinations from 2005 to 2012 in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Women were categorized into two groups: mammography alone (n = 11 745) or breast MRI (n = 1521). Performance measures were calculated by using end-of-day assessment and occurrence of second breast cancer events within 1 year of imaging. Logistic regression was used to compare performance for breast MRI versus mammography alone, adjusting for women, examination, and primary breast cancer characteristics. Analysis was conducted on a per-examination basis. Results Breast MRI was associated with younger age at diagnosis, chemotherapy, and higher education and income. Raw performance measures for breast MRI versus mammography were as follows, respectively: cancer detection rates, 10.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.7, 14.8) versus 8.2 (95% CI: 7.3, 9.2) per 1000 examinations; sensitivity, 61.4% (27 of 44; 95% CI: 46.5%, 76.2%) versus 70.3% (279 of 397; 95% CI: 65.8%, 74.8%); and biopsy rate, 10.1% (253 of 2506; 95% CI: 8.9%, 11.3%) versus 4.0% (1343 of 33 938; 95% CI: 3.7%, 4.2%). In multivariable models, breast MRI was associated with higher biopsy rate (odds ratio [OR], 2.2; 95% CI: 1.9, 2.7; P < .001) and cancer detection rate (OR, 1.7; 95% CI: 1.1, 2.7; P = .03) than mammography alone. However, there were no differences in sensitivity (OR, 1.1; 95% CI: 0.4, 2.9; P = .84) or interval cancer rate (OR, 1.1; 95% CI: 0.6, 2.2; P = .70). Conclusion Comparison of the performance of surveillance breast MRI with mammography must account for patient characteristics. Whereas breast MRI leads to higher biopsy and cancer detection rates, there were no significant differences in sensitivity or interval cancers compared with mammography. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Newell in this issue.

Project description: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.

Project description:Women with a personal history of breast cancer (PHBC) are at risk of developing another breast cancer and are recommended for screening mammography. Few high-quality data exist on screening performance in PHBC women.To examine the accuracy and outcomes of mammography screening in PHBC women relative to screening of similar women without PHBC.Cohort of PHBC women, mammogram matched to non-PHBC women, screened through facilities (1996-2007) affiliated with the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.There were 58,870 screening mammograms in 19,078 women with a history of early-stage (in situ or stage I-II invasive) breast cancer and 58,870 matched (breast density, age group, mammography year, and registry) screening mammograms in 55,315 non-PHBC women.Mammography accuracy based on final assessment, cancer detection rate, interval cancer rate, and stage at diagnosis.Within 1 year after screening, 655 cancers were observed in PHBC women (499 invasive, 156 in situ) and 342 cancers (285 invasive, 57 in situ) in non-PHBC women. Screening accuracy and outcomes in PHBC relative to non-PHBC women were cancer rates of 10.5 per 1000 screens (95% CI, 9.7-11.3) vs 5.8 per 1000 screens (95% CI, 5.2-6.4), cancer detection rate of 6.8 per 1000 screens (95% CI, 6.2-7.5) vs 4.4 per 1000 screens (95% CI, 3.9-5.0), interval cancer rate of 3.6 per 1000 screens (95% CI, 3.2-4.1) vs 1.4 per 1000 screens (95% CI, 1.1-1.7), sensitivity 65.4% (95% CI, 61.5%-69.0%) vs 76.5% (95% CI, 71.7%-80.7%), specificity 98.3% (95% CI, 98.2%-98.4%) vs 99.0% (95% CI, 98.9%-99.1%), abnormal mammogram results in 2.3% (95% CI, 2.2%-2.5%) vs 1.4% (95% CI, 1.3%-1.5%) (all comparisons P < .001). Screening sensitivity in PHBC women was higher for detection of in situ cancer (78.7%; 95% CI, 71.4%-84.5%) than invasive cancer (61.1%; 95% CI, 56.6%-65.4%), P < .001; lower in the initial 5 years (60.2%; 95% CI, 54.7%-65.5%) than after 5 years from first cancer (70.8%; 95% CI, 65.4%-75.6%), P = .006; and was similar for detection of ipsilateral cancer (66.3%; 95% CI, 60.3%-71.8%) and contralateral cancer (66.1%; 95% CI, 60.9%-70.9%), P = .96. Screen-detected and interval cancers in women with and without PHBC were predominantly early stage.Mammography screening in PHBC women detects early-stage second breast cancers but has lower sensitivity and higher interval cancer rate, despite more evaluation and higher underlying cancer rate, relative to that in non-PHBC women.

Project description:BackgroundAbbreviated breast MRI (A-MRI) substantially reduces the image acquisition and reading times and has been reported to have similar diagnostic accuracy as a full diagnostic protocol but has not been evaluated prospectively with respect to impact on psychological distress in women with a prior history of breast cancer (PHBC). This study aimed to determine if surveillance mammography (MG) plus A-MRI reduced psychological distress and if A-MRI improved cancer detection rates (CDR) as compared to MG alone.MethodsThis prospective controlled trial of parallel design was performed at a tertiary cancer center on asymptomatic women with PHBC who were randomized into two groups: routine surveillance with MG or intervention of MG plus A-MRI in a 1:1 ratio. Primary outcome was anxiety measured by four validated questionnaires at three different time-points during the study. Other parameters including CDR and positive predictive value for biopsy (PPV3) were compared between imaging modalities of MG and A-MRI. Tissue diagnoses or 1 year of follow-up were used to establish the reference standard. Linear mixed models were used to analyze anxiety measures and Fisher's exact test to compare imaging outcomes.ResultsOne hundred ninety-eight patients were allocated to either MG alone (94) or MG plus A-MRI (104). No significant group difference emerged for improvement in trait anxiety, worry and perceived health status (all Time-by-surveillance group interaction ps > .05). There was some advantage of A-MRI in reducing state anxiety at Time 2 (p < .05). Anxiety scores in all questionnaires were similarly elevated in both groups (50.99 ± 4.6 with MG alone vs 51.73 ± 2.56 with MG plus A-MRI, p > 0.05) and did not change over time. A-MRI detected 5 invasive cancers and 1 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), and MG detected 1 DCIS. A-MRI had higher incremental CDR (48/1000(5/104) vs MG 5/1000(1/198, p = 0.01)) and higher biopsy rates (19.2% (20/104) vs MG 2.1% (2/94), p < 0.00001) with no difference in PPV3 (A-MRI 28.6% (6/21) vs MG 16.7% (1/6, p > .05).ConclusionThere was no significant impact of A-MRI to patient anxiety or perceived health status. Compared to MG alone, A-MRI had significantly higher incremental cancer detection in PHBC. Despite a higher rate of biopsies, A-MRI had no demonstrable impact on anxiety, worry, and perceived health status.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02244593 ). Prospectively registered on Sept. 14, 2014.

Dataset Information

Patterns of Breast Imaging Use Among Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer.

Publications

Patterns of Breast Imaging Use Among Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets