Dataset Information

Breast magnetic resonance imaging as a problem solving tool in women recalled at biennial screening mammography: A population-based study in the Netherlands.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Problem solving magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is used to exclude malignancy in women with equivocal findings on conventional imaging. However, recommendations on its use for women recalled after screening are lacking. This study evaluates the impact of problem solving MRI on diagnostic workup among women recalled from the Dutch screening program, as well as time trends and inter-hospital variation in its use.

Methods

Women who were recalled at screening mammography in the South of the Netherlands (2008-2017) were included. Two-year follow-up data were collected. Diagnostic-workup and accuracy of problem solving MRI were evaluated and time trends and inter-hospital variation in its use were examined.

Results

In the study period 16,175 women were recalled, of whom 906 underwent problem solving MRI. Almost half of the women (45.4%) who underwent problem solving MRI were referred back to the screening program without further workup. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of problem solving MRI were 98.2%, 70.0%, 31.1%, and 99.6%, respectively. The percentage of recalled women receiving problem solving MRI fluctuated over time (4.7%-7.2%) and significantly varied among hospitals (2.2%-7.0%).

Conclusion

The use of problem solving MRI may exclude malignancy in recalled women. The use of problem solving MRI varied over time and among hospitals, which indicates the need for guidelines on problem solving MRI.

SUBMITTER: Gommers JJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8628012 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:In this paper we argue that a synthesis of findings across the various sub-areas of research in complex problem solving and consequently progress in theory building is hampered by an insufficient differentiation of complexity and difficulty. In the proposed framework of person, task, and situation (PTS), complexity is conceptualized as a quality that is determined by the cognitive demands that the characteristics of the task and the situation impose. Difficulty represents the quantifiable level of a person's success in dealing with such demands. We use the well-documented "semantic effect" as an exemplar for testing some of the conceptual assumptions derived from the PTS framework. We demonstrate how a differentiation between complexity and difficulty can help take beyond a potentially too narrowly defined psychometric perspective and subsequently gain a better understanding of the cognitive mechanisms behind this effect. In an empirical study a total of 240 university students were randomly allocated to one of four conditions. The four conditions resulted from contrasting the semanticity level of the variable labels used in the CPS system (high vs. low) and two instruction conditions for how to explore the CPS system's causal structure (starting with the assumption that all relationships between variables existed vs. starting with the assumption that none of the relationships existed). The variation in the instruction aimed at inducing knowledge acquisition processes of either (1) systematic elimination of presumptions, or (2) systematic compilation of a mental representation of the causal structure underpinning the system. Results indicate that (a) it is more complex to adopt a "blank slate" perspective under high semanticity as it requires processes of inhibiting prior assumptions, and (b) it seems more difficult to employ a systematic heuristic when testing against presumptions. In combination, situational characteristics, such as the semanticity of variable labels, have the potential to trigger qualitatively different tasks. Failing to differentiate between 'task' and 'situation' as independent sources of complexity and treating complexity and difficulty synonymously threaten the validity of performance scores obtained in CPS research.

Project description:BackgroundIn the Dutch breast cancer screening program, women recalled with a BI-RADS 0 score are referred for additional imaging, while those with BI-RADS 4/5 scores are also directed to an outpatient breast clinic. Approximately six out of ten women are recalled without being diagnosed with a malignancy. However, these recalls require additional imaging and doctor visits, which result in patient anxiety and increased health care costs. Conventional types of imaging used for additional imaging are full-field digital mammography and tomosynthesis. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography has proved to have higher sensitivity and specificity than conventional imaging in women recalled from screening. Therefore, the aim is to study if CESM instead of conventional imaging is a more accurate, patient-friendly, and cost-effective strategy in the work-up of women recalled from breast cancer screening.MethodsThis prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial will be conducted at four centers and will include 528 patients recalled for suspicious breast lesions from the Dutch breast cancer screening program. Participants are randomized in two groups: (1) standard care using conventional breast imaging techniques as initial imaging after recall versus (2) work-up primarily based on CESM. Written informed consent will be collected prior to study inclusion. The primary outcome is the diagnostic accuracy for detection of breast cancer. Secondary outcomes are numbers of additional diagnostic exams, days until final diagnosis, health care costs, and experienced patient anxiety.DiscussionBased on previously published retrospective studies, we expect to demonstrate in this prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial, that using CESM as a primary work-up tool in women recalled from breast cancer screening is a more accurate, cost-effective, and patient-friendly strategy.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register, NL6413/NTR6589. Registered on 6 July, 2017.

Project description:ImportanceIncreasing use of screening breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), including among women at low or average risk of breast cancer, raises concerns about resulting mammary and extramammary cascades (downstream services and new diagnoses) of uncertain value.ObjectiveTo estimate rates of cascade events (ie, laboratory tests, imaging tests, procedures, visits, hospitalizations, and new diagnoses) and associated spending following screening breast MRI vs mammography among commercially insured US women.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study used 2016 to 2018 data from the MarketScan research database (IBM Corporation), which includes claims and administrative data from large US employers and commercial payers. Participants included commercially insured women aged 40 to 64 years without prior breast cancer who received an index bilateral screening breast MRI or mammogram between January 1, 2017, and June 30, 2018. We used propensity scores based on sociodemographic, clinical, and utilization variables to match MRI recipients to mammogram recipients in each month of index service use. Data were analyzed from October 8, 2020, to October 28, 2021.ExposuresBreast MRI vs mammography.Main outcomes and measuresMammary and extramammary cascade event rates and associated total and patient out-of-pocket spending in the 6 months following the index test.ResultsIn this study, 9208 women receiving breast MRI were matched with 9208 women receiving mammography (mean [SD] age, 51.4 [6.7] years). Compared with mammogram recipients, breast MRI recipients had 39.0 additional mammary cascade events per 100 women (95% CI, 33.7-44.2), including 5.0 additional imaging tests (95% CI, 3.8-6.2), 17.3 additional procedures (95% CI, 15.5-19.0), 13.0 additional visits (95% CI, 9.4-17.2), 0.34 additional hospitalizations (95% CI, 0.18-0.50), and 3.0 additional new diagnoses (95% CI, 2.5-3.6). For extramammary cascades, breast MRI recipients had 19.6 additional events per 100 women (95% CI, 8.6-30.7) including 15.8 additional visits (95% CI, 10.2-21.4) and no statistically significant differences in other events. Breast MRI recipients had higher total spending for mammary events ($564 more per woman; 95% CI, $532-$596), extramammary events ($42 more per woman; 95% CI, $16-$69), and overall ($1404 more per woman; 95% CI, $1172-$1636). They also had higher overall out-of-pocket spending ($31 more per woman; 95% CI, $6-$55).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of commercially insured women, breast MRI was associated with more mammary and extramammary cascade events and spending relative to mammography. These findings can inform cost-benefit assessments and coverage policies to ensure breast MRI is reserved for patients for whom benefits outweigh harms.