1
|
Cozzi A, Di Leo G, Houssami N, Gilbert FJ, Helbich TH, Álvarez Benito M, Balleyguier C, Bazzocchi M, Bult P, Calabrese M, Camps Herrero J, Cartia F, Cassano E, Clauser P, de Lima Docema MF, Depretto C, Dominelli V, Forrai G, Girometti R, Harms SE, Hilborne S, Ienzi R, Lobbes MBI, Losio C, Mann RM, Montemezzi S, Obdeijn IM, Ozcan UA, Pediconi F, Pinker K, Preibsch H, Raya Povedano JL, Rossi Saccarelli C, Sacchetto D, Scaperrotta GP, Schlooz M, Szabó BK, Taylor DB, Ulus ÖS, Van Goethem M, Veltman J, Weigel S, Wenkel E, Zuiani C, Sardanelli F. Screening and diagnostic breast MRI: how do they impact surgical treatment? Insights from the MIPA study. Eur Radiol 2023; 33:6213-6225. [PMID: 37138190 PMCID: PMC10415233 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-023-09600-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/24/2022] [Revised: 01/19/2023] [Accepted: 02/22/2023] [Indexed: 05/05/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To report mastectomy and reoperation rates in women who had breast MRI for screening (S-MRI subgroup) or diagnostic (D-MRI subgroup) purposes, using multivariable analysis for investigating the role of MRI referral/nonreferral and other covariates in driving surgical outcomes. METHODS The MIPA observational study enrolled women aged 18-80 years with newly diagnosed breast cancer destined to have surgery as the primary treatment, in 27 centres worldwide. Mastectomy and reoperation rates were compared using non-parametric tests and multivariable analysis. RESULTS A total of 5828 patients entered analysis, 2763 (47.4%) did not undergo MRI (noMRI subgroup) and 3065 underwent MRI (52.6%); of the latter, 2441/3065 (79.7%) underwent MRI with preoperative intent (P-MRI subgroup), 510/3065 (16.6%) D-MRI, and 114/3065 S-MRI (3.7%). The reoperation rate was 10.5% for S-MRI, 8.2% for D-MRI, and 8.5% for P-MRI, while it was 11.7% for noMRI (p ≤ 0.023 for comparisons with D-MRI and P-MRI). The overall mastectomy rate (first-line mastectomy plus conversions from conserving surgery to mastectomy) was 39.5% for S-MRI, 36.2% for P-MRI, 24.1% for D-MRI, and 18.0% for noMRI. At multivariable analysis, using noMRI as reference, the odds ratios for overall mastectomy were 2.4 (p < 0.001) for S-MRI, 1.0 (p = 0.957) for D-MRI, and 1.9 (p < 0.001) for P-MRI. CONCLUSIONS Patients from the D-MRI subgroup had the lowest overall mastectomy rate (24.1%) among MRI subgroups and the lowest reoperation rate (8.2%) together with P-MRI (8.5%). This analysis offers an insight into how the initial indication for MRI affects the subsequent surgical treatment of breast cancer. KEY POINTS • Of 3065 breast MRI examinations, 79.7% were performed with preoperative intent (P-MRI), 16.6% were diagnostic (D-MRI), and 3.7% were screening (S-MRI) examinations. • The D-MRI subgroup had the lowest mastectomy rate (24.1%) among MRI subgroups and the lowest reoperation rate (8.2%) together with P-MRI (8.5%). • The S-MRI subgroup had the highest mastectomy rate (39.5%) which aligns with higher-than-average risk in this subgroup, with a reoperation rate (10.5%) not significantly different to that of all other subgroups.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea Cozzi
- Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Via Rodolfo Morandi 30, 20097, San Donato Milanese, Italy
| | - Giovanni Di Leo
- Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Via Rodolfo Morandi 30, 20097, San Donato Milanese, Italy
| | - Nehmat Houssami
- The Daffodil Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney (Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW), Sydney, Australia
| | - Fiona J Gilbert
- Department of Radiology, School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Thomas H Helbich
- Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Molecular and Structural Preclinical Imaging, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | | | - Corinne Balleyguier
- Department of Radiology, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France
- BioMaps (UMR1281), INSERM, CEA, CNRS, Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France
| | - Massimo Bazzocchi
- Institute of Radiology, Department of Medicine, Ospedale Universitario S. Maria della Misericordia, Università degli Studi di Udine, Udine, Italy
| | - Peter Bult
- Department of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Massimo Calabrese
- Unit of Oncological and Breast Radiology, IRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy
| | | | - Francesco Cartia
- Unit of Breast Imaging, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - Enrico Cassano
- Breast Imaging Division, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Paola Clauser
- Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Molecular and Structural Preclinical Imaging, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | | | - Catherine Depretto
- Unit of Breast Imaging, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - Valeria Dominelli
- Breast Imaging Division, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - Gábor Forrai
- Department of Radiology, MHEK Teaching Hospital, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary
| | - Rossano Girometti
- Institute of Radiology, Department of Medicine, Ospedale Universitario S. Maria della Misericordia, Università degli Studi di Udine, Udine, Italy
| | - Steven E Harms
- Breast Center of Northwest Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA
| | - Sarah Hilborne
- Department of Radiology, School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Raffaele Ienzi
- Department of Radiology, Di.Bi.MED, Policlinico Universitario Paolo Giaccone, Università degli Studi di Palermo, Palermo, Italy
| | - Marc B I Lobbes
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Claudio Losio
- Department of Breast Radiology, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy
| | - Ritse M Mann
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
- Department of Radiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Stefania Montemezzi
- Department of Radiology, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona, Verona, Italy
| | - Inge-Marie Obdeijn
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Umit A Ozcan
- Unit of Radiology, Acıbadem Mehmet Ali Aydınlar University School of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Federica Pediconi
- Department of Radiological, Oncological and Pathological Sciences, Università degli Studi di Roma "La Sapienza", Rome, Italy
| | - Katja Pinker
- Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Molecular and Structural Preclinical Imaging, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Heike Preibsch
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | | | | | - Daniela Sacchetto
- Kiwifarm S.r.l, La Morra, Italy
- Disaster Medicine Service 118, ASL CN1, Saluzzo, Italy
- CRIMEDIM, Research Center in Emergency and Disaster Medicine, Università degli Studi del Piemonte Orientale "Amedeo Avogadro", Novara, Italy
| | | | - Margrethe Schlooz
- Department of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Botond K Szabó
- Department of Radiology, Barking Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Donna B Taylor
- Medical School, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
- Department of Radiology, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Australia
| | - Özden S Ulus
- Unit of Radiology, Acıbadem Mehmet Ali Aydınlar University School of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Mireille Van Goethem
- Gynecological Oncology Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Radiology, Multidisciplinary Breast Clinic, Antwerp University Hospital, University of Antwerp, Antwerpen, Belgium
| | - Jeroen Veltman
- Maatschap Radiologie Oost-Nederland, Oldenzaal, The Netherlands
| | - Stefanie Weigel
- Institute of Clinical Radiology and Reference Center for Mammography, University of Münster, Münster, Germany
| | - Evelyn Wenkel
- Department of Radiology, University Hospital of Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany
| | - Chiara Zuiani
- Institute of Radiology, Department of Medicine, Ospedale Universitario S. Maria della Misericordia, Università degli Studi di Udine, Udine, Italy
| | - Francesco Sardanelli
- Unit of Radiology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Via Rodolfo Morandi 30, 20097, San Donato Milanese, Italy.
- Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Pan IW, Yen TWF, Bedrosian I, Shih YCT. Current Trends in the Utilization of Preoperative Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging Among Women With Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer. JCO Oncol Pract 2023:OP2200578. [PMID: 37071025 DOI: 10.1200/op.22.00578] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/19/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE The clinical benefit of preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for early-stage breast cancer (BC) remains controversial. We examined trends and the associated factors of preoperative breast MRI use. METHODS This study cohort, constructed from Optum Clinformatics database, included women with early-stage BC who had a cancer surgery between March 1, 2008, and December 31, 2020. Preoperative breast MRI was performed between the date of BC diagnosis and index surgery. Multivariable logistic regressions, one for elderly (65 years and older) and the other for non-elderly patients (younger than 65 years), were performed to examine factors associated with the use of preoperative MRI. RESULTS Among 92,077 women with early-stage BC, the crude rate of preoperative breast MRI increased from 48% in 2008 to 60% in 2020 for nonelderly and from 27% to 34% for elderly women. For both age groups, non-Hispanic Blacks were less likely (odds ratio [OR]; 95% CI, younger than 65 years: 0.75, 0.70 to 0.81; 65 years and older: 0.77, 0.72 to 0.83) to receive preoperative MRI than non-Hispanic White patients. Across Census divisions, the highest adjusted rate was observed in Mountain division (OR compared with New England; 95% CI, younger than 65 years: 1.45, 1.27 to 1.65; 65 years and older: 2.42, 2.16 to 2.72). Other factors included younger age, fewer comorbidities, family history of BC, axillary node involvement, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy for both age groups. CONCLUSION The use of preoperative breast MRI has steadily increased. Aside from clinical factors, age, race/ethnicity, and geographic location were associated with preoperative MRI use. This information is important for future implementation or deimplementation strategies of preoperative MRI.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- I-Wen Pan
- Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Tina W F Yen
- Department of Surgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI
| | - Isabelle Bedrosian
- Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Ya-Chen Tina Shih
- Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Xu X, Soulos PR, Herrin J, Wang SY, Pollack CE, Killelea BK, Forman HP, Gross CP. Perioperative magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer care: Distinct adoption trajectories among physician patient-sharing networks. PLoS One 2022; 17:e0265188. [PMID: 35290417 PMCID: PMC8923453 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265188] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/28/2021] [Accepted: 02/24/2022] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Despite no proven benefit in clinical outcomes, perioperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was rapidly adopted into breast cancer care in the 2000's, offering a prime opportunity for assessing factors influencing overutilization of unproven technology. OBJECTIVES To examine variation among physician patient-sharing networks in their trajectory of adopting perioperative MRI for breast cancer surgery and compare the characteristics of patients, providers, and mastectomy use in physician networks that had different adoption trajectories. METHODS AND FINDINGS Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database in 2004-2009, we identified 147 physician patient-sharing networks (caring for 26,886 patients with stage I-III breast cancer). After adjusting for patient clinical risk factors, we calculated risk-adjusted rate of perioperative MRI use for each physician network in 2004-2005, 2006-2007, and 2008-2009, respectively. Based on the risk-adjusted rate, we identified three distinct trajectories of adopting perioperative MRI among physician networks: 1) low adoption (risk-adjusted rate of perioperative MRI increased from 2.8% in 2004-2005 to 14.8% in 2008-2009), 2) medium adoption (8.8% to 45.1%), and 3) high adoption (33.0% to 71.7%). Physician networks in the higher adoption trajectory tended to have a larger proportion of cancer specialists, more patients with high income, and fewer patients who were Black. After adjusting for patients' clinical risk factors, the proportion of patients undergoing mastectomy decreased from 41.1% in 2004-2005 to 38.5% in 2008-2009 among those in physician networks with low MRI adoption, but increased from 27.0% to 31.4% among those in physician networks with high MRI adoption (p = 0.03 for the interaction term between trajectory group and time). CONCLUSIONS Physician patient-sharing networks varied in their trajectory of adopting perioperative MRI. These distinct trajectories were associated with the composition of patients and providers in the networks, and had important implications for patterns of mastectomy use.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xiao Xu
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America
- Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy and Effectiveness Research Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America
| | - Pamela R. Soulos
- Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy and Effectiveness Research Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America
- Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America
| | - Jeph Herrin
- Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy and Effectiveness Research Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America
- Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America
| | - Shi-Yi Wang
- Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy and Effectiveness Research Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America
- Department of Chronic Disease Epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America
| | - Craig Evan Pollack
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America
- Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America
- Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America
| | - Brigid K. Killelea
- Hartford HealthCare Medical Group, Bridgeport, Connecticut, United States of America
| | - Howard P. Forman
- Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America
| | - Cary P. Gross
- Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy and Effectiveness Research Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America
- Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|