Downstream Mammary and Extramammary Cascade Services and Spending Following Screening Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging vs Mammography Among Commercially Insured Women

Comparison of Clinical Breast Exam to Breast MRI Surveillance in Patients Following Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy

BACKGROUND

Nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM) is increasingly being performed for patients with breast cancer. However, optimal postoperative surveillance has not been defined.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database identified patients with in-situ and invasive cancer who underwent NSM between 2007-2021. Clinical data on postoperative breast surveillance and interventions were collected. Patients who had MRI surveillance versus clinical breast exam (CBE) alone were compared with respect to tumor characteristics, recurrence, and survival.

RESULTS

A total of 483 NSMs were performed on 399 patients. 255 (63.9%) patients had invasive ductal carcinoma, 31 (7.8%) invasive lobular carcinoma, 92 (23.1%) DCIS, 6 (1.5%) mixed ductal and lobular carcinoma, 9 (2.3%) others, and 6 (1.5%) unknown. Postoperatively, 265 (66.4%) patients were followed with CBE alone and 134 (33.6%) had surveillance MRIs. At a median follow-up of 33 months, 20 patients (5.0%) developed in-breast recurrence, 6 patients had (1.5%) an axillary recurrence, and 28 with (7.0%) distant recurrence. 14 (53.8%) LRR were detected in the CBE group and 12 (46.2%) were detected in the MRI group (P = .16). Overall survival (OS) was 99%, with no difference in OS between patients who had CBE alone versus MRI (P = .46). MRI was associated with higher biopsy rates compared to CBE alone (15.8% vs. 7.8%, P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to CBE alone, the use of screening MRI following NSM results in higher rate of biopsy and no difference in overall survival.

Screening for Breast Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

Importance

Among all US women, breast cancer is the second most common cancer and the second most common cause of cancer death. In 2023, an estimated 43 170 women died of breast cancer. Non-Hispanic White women have the highest incidence of breast cancer and non-Hispanic Black women have the highest mortality rate.

Objective

The USPSTF commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of different mammography-based breast cancer screening strategies by age to start and stop screening, screening interval, modality, use of supplemental imaging, or personalization of screening for breast cancer on the incidence of and progression to advanced breast cancer, breast cancer morbidity, and breast cancer-specific or all-cause mortality, and collaborative modeling studies to complement the evidence from the review.

Population

Cisgender women and all other persons assigned female at birth aged 40 years or older at average risk of breast cancer.

Evidence Assessment

The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that biennial screening mammography in women aged 40 to 74 years has a moderate net benefit. The USPSTF concludes that the evidence is insufficient to determine the balance of benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older and the balance of benefits and harms of supplemental screening for breast cancer with breast ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), regardless of breast density.

Recommendation

The USPSTF recommends biennial screening mammography for women aged 40 to 74 years. (B recommendation) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of supplemental screening for breast cancer using breast ultrasonography or MRI in women identified to have dense breasts on an otherwise negative screening mammogram. (I statement).

Screening for Breast Cancer: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

Importance

Breast cancer is a leading cause of cancer mortality for US women. Trials have established that screening mammography can reduce mortality risk, but optimal screening ages, intervals, and modalities for population screening guidelines remain unclear.

Objective

To review studies comparing different breast cancer screening strategies for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Data Sources

MEDLINE, Cochrane Library through August 22, 2022; literature surveillance through March 2024.

Study Selection

English-language publications; randomized clinical trials and nonrandomized studies comparing screening strategies; expanded criteria for screening harms.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility and quality; data extracted from fair- and good-quality studies.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Mortality, morbidity, progression to advanced cancer, interval cancers, screening harms.

Results

Seven randomized clinical trials and 13 nonrandomized studies were included; 2 nonrandomized studies reported mortality outcomes. A nonrandomized trial emulation study estimated no mortality difference for screening beyond age 74 years (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.83 to 1.19]). Advanced cancer detection did not differ following annual or biennial screening intervals in a nonrandomized study. Three trials compared digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) mammography screening with digital mammography alone. With DBT, more invasive cancers were detected at the first screening round than with digital mammography, but there were no statistically significant differences in interval cancers (pooled relative risk, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.64-1.17]; 3 studies [n = 130 196]; I2 = 0%). Risk of advanced cancer (stage II or higher) at the subsequent screening round was not statistically significant for DBT vs digital mammography in the individual trials. Limited evidence from trials and nonrandomized studies suggested lower recall rates with DBT. An RCT randomizing individuals with dense breasts to invitations for supplemental screening with magnetic resonance imaging reported reduced interval cancer risk (relative risk, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.29-0.77]) and additional false-positive recalls and biopsy results with the intervention; no longer-term advanced breast cancer incidence or morbidity and mortality outcomes were available. One RCT and 1 nonrandomized study of supplemental ultrasound screening reported additional false-positives and no differences in interval cancers.

Conclusions and Relevance

Evidence comparing the effectiveness of different breast cancer screening strategies is inconclusive because key studies have not yet been completed and few studies have reported the stage shift or mortality outcomes necessary to assess relative benefits.

Supplemental magnetic resonance imaging plus mammography compared with magnetic resonance imaging or mammography by extent of breast density

BACKGROUND

Examining screening outcomes by breast density for breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with or without mammography could inform discussions about supplemental MRI in women with dense breasts.

METHODS

We evaluated 52 237 women aged 40-79 years who underwent 2611 screening MRIs alone and 6518 supplemental MRI plus mammography pairs propensity score-matched to 65 810 screening mammograms. Rates per 1000 examinations of interval, advanced, and screen-detected early stage invasive cancers and false-positive recall and biopsy recommendation were estimated by breast density (nondense = almost entirely fatty or scattered fibroglandular densities; dense = heterogeneously/extremely dense) adjusting for registry, examination year, age, race and ethnicity, family history of breast cancer, and prior breast biopsy.

RESULTS

Screen-detected early stage cancer rates were statistically higher for MRI plus mammography vs mammography for nondense (9.3 vs 2.9; difference = 6.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.5 to 10.3) and dense (7.5 vs 3.5; difference = 4.0, 95% CI = 1.4 to 6.7) breasts and for MRI vs MRI plus mammography for dense breasts (19.2 vs 7.5; difference = 11.7, 95% CI = 4.6 to 18.8). Interval rates were not statistically different for MRI plus mammography vs mammography for nondense (0.8 vs 0.5; difference = 0.4, 95% CI = -0.8 to 1.6) or dense breasts (1.5 vs 1.4; difference = 0.0, 95% CI = -1.2 to 1.3), nor were advanced cancer rates. Interval rates were not statistically different for MRI vs MRI plus mammography for nondense (2.6 vs 0.8; difference = 1.8 (95% CI = -2.0 to 5.5) or dense breasts (0.6 vs 1.5; difference = -0.9, 95% CI = -2.5 to 0.7), nor were advanced cancer rates. False-positive recall and biopsy recommendation rates were statistically higher for MRI groups than mammography alone.

CONCLUSION

MRI screening with or without mammography increased rates of screen-detected early stage cancer and false-positives for women with dense breasts without a concomitant decrease in advanced or interval cancers.

Incorporating Value-Based Decisions in Breast Cancer Treatment Algorithms

Given the excellent prognosis and availability of evidence-based treatment, patients with early-stage breast cancer are at risk of overtreatment. In this review, we summarize key opportunities to incorporate value-based decisions to optimize the delivery of high-value treatment across the breast cancer care continuum.

Patient Cost-Sharing and Utilization of Breast Cancer Diagnostic Imaging by Patients Undergoing Subsequent Testing After a Screening Mammogram

Importance

Out-of-pocket costs (OOPCs) have been largely eliminated for screening mammography. However, patients still face OOPCs when undergoing subsequent diagnostic tests after the initial screening, which represents a potential barrier to those who require follow-up testing after initial testing.

Objective

To examine the association between the degree of patient cost-sharing and the use of diagnostic breast cancer imaging after undergoing a screening mammogram.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study used medical claims from Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database, a commercial claims database derived from a database of administrative health claims for members of large commercial and Medicare Advantage health plans. The large commercially insured cohort included female patients aged 40 years or older with no prior history of breast cancer undergoing a screening mammogram examination. Data were collected from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2017, and analysis was conducted from January 2021 to September 2022.

Exposures

A k-means clustering machine learning algorithm was used to classify patient insurance plans by dominant cost-sharing mechanism. Plan types were then ranked by OOPCs.

Main Outcomes and Measures

A multivariable 2-part hurdle regression model was used to examine the association between patient OOPCs and the number and type of diagnostic breast services undergone by patients observed to undergo subsequent testing.

Results

In our sample, 230 845 women (220 023 [95.3%] aged 40 to 64 years; 16 810 [7.3%] Black, 16 398 [7.1%] Hispanic, and 164 702 [71.3%] White) underwent a screening mammogram in 2016. These patients were covered by 22 828 distinct insurance plans associated with 6 025 741 enrollees and 44 911 473 distinct medical claims. Plans dominated by coinsurance were found to have the lowest mean (SD) OOPCs ($945 [$1456]), followed by balanced plans ($1017 [$1386]), plans dominated by copays ($1020 [$1408]), and plans dominated by deductibles ($1186 [$1522]). Women underwent significantly fewer subsequent breast imaging procedures in dominantly copay (24 [95% CI, 11-37] procedures per 1000 women) and dominantly deductible (16 [95% CI, 5-28] procedures per 1000 women) plans compared with coinsurance plans. Patients from all plan types underwent fewer breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans than patients in the lowest OOPC plan (balanced, 5 [95% CI, 2-12] MRIs per 1000 women; copay, 6 [95% CI, 3-6] MRI per 100 women; deductible, 6 [95% CI, 3-9] MRIs per 1000 women.

Conclusions and Relevance

Despite policies designed to remove financial barriers to access for breast cancer screening, significant financial barriers remain for women at risk of breast cancer.

Challenges and Changes of the Breast Cancer Screening Paradigm

Since four decades mammography is used for early breast cancer detection in asymptomatic women and still remains the gold standard imaging modality. However, population screening programs can be personalized and women can be divided into different groups based on risk factors and personal preferences. The availability of new and evolving imaging modalities, for example, digital breast tomosynthesis, dynamic-contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), abbreviated MRI protocols, diffusion-weighted MRI, and contrast-enhanced mammography leads to new challenges and perspectives regarding the feasibility and potential harms of breast cancer screening. The aim of this review is to discuss the current guidelines for different risk groups, to analyze the recent published studies about the diagnostic performance of the imaging modalities and to discuss new developments and future perspectives. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 6.

Evaluation of a High-Sensitivity Organ-Targeted PET Camera

The aim of this study is to evaluate the performance of the Radialis organ-targeted positron emission tomography (PET) Camera with standardized tests and through assessment of clinical-imaging results. Sensitivity, count-rate performance, and spatial resolution were evaluated according to the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) NU-4 standards, with necessary modifications to accommodate the planar detector design. The detectability of small objects was shown with micro hotspot phantom images. The clinical performance of the camera was also demonstrated through breast cancer images acquired with varying injected doses of 2-[fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (¹⁸F-FDG) and qualitatively compared with sample digital full-field mammography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and whole-body (WB) PET images. Micro hotspot phantom sources were visualized down to 1.35 mm-diameter rods. Spatial resolution was calculated to be 2.3 ± 0.1 mm for the in-plane resolution and 6.8 ± 0.1 mm for the cross-plane resolution using maximum likelihood expectation maximization (MLEM) reconstruction. The system peak noise equivalent count rate was 17.8 kcps at a ¹⁸F-FDG concentration of 10.5 kBq/mL. System scatter fraction was 24%. The overall efficiency at the peak noise equivalent count rate was 5400 cps/MBq. The maximum axial sensitivity achieved was 3.5%, with an average system sensitivity of 2.4%. Selected results from clinical trials demonstrate capability of imaging lesions at the chest wall and identifying false-negative X-ray findings and false-positive MRI findings, even at up to a 10-fold dose reduction in comparison with standard ¹⁸F-FDG doses (i.e., at 37 MBq or 1 mCi). The evaluation of the organ-targeted Radialis PET Camera indicates that it is a promising technology for high-image-quality, low-dose PET imaging. High-efficiency radiotracer detection also opens an opportunity to reduce administered doses of radiopharmaceuticals and, therefore, patient exposure to radiation.