Cost-effectiveness evaluation of risk-based breast cancer screening in Urban Hebei Province.

To evaluate the implementations of Cancer Screening Program in Urban Hebei and to model the cost-effectiveness of a risk-based breast Cancer Screening Program. Women aged 40-74 years were invited to participate the Cancer Screening Program in Urban Hebei form 2016 to 2020 by completing questionnaires to collect information about breast cancer exposure. Clinical screening including ultrasound and mammography examination were performed. We developed a Markov model to estimate the lifetime costs and benefits, in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALY), of a high-risk breast Cancer Screening Program. Nine screening strategies and no screening were included in the study. The age-specific incidence, transition probability data and lifetime treatment costs were derived and adopted from other researches. Average cost-effectiveness ratios (ACERs) were estimated as the ratios of the additional costs of the screening strategies to the QLYG compared to no screening. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated based on the comparison of a lower cost strategies to the next more expensive and effective strategies after excluding dominated strategies and extendedly dominated strategies. ICERs were used to compare with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Sensitivity analysis was explored the influence factors. A total of 84,029 women completed a risk assessment questionnaire, from which 20,655 high-risk breast cancer females were evaluated, with a high-risk rate of 24.58%. There were 13,392 high-risk females completed the screening program, with participation rate was 64.84%. Undergoing ultrasound, mammography and combined screening, the suspicious positive detection rates were 15.00%, 9.20% and 19.30%, and the positive detection rates were 2.11%, 2.76% and 3.83%, respectively. According to the results by Markov model, at the end of 45 cycle, the early diagnosis rates were 55.53%, 60.68% and 62.47% underwent the annual screening by ultrasound, mammography and combined, the proportion of advanced cancer were 17.20%, 15.85% and 15.36%, respectively. Different screening method and interval yield varied. In the exploration of various scenarios, annual ultrasound screening is the most cost-effective strategy with the ICER of ¥116,176.15/QALY. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the results are robust. Although it was not cost effective, combined ultrasound and mammography screening was an effective strategy for higher positive detection rate of breast cancer. High-risk population-based breast cancer screening by ultrasound annually was the most cost-effective strategy in Urban Hebei Province.

The Ability to Look: Management of Breast Disease in the Democratic Republic of the Congo Using Smart Ultrasound Technology.

BACKGROUND: The vast majority of women with breast cancer in sub-Saharan Africa present with advanced stage disease, due primarily to the lack of opportunities for early detection and treatment. As part of a larger effort to increase access to diagnostic and therapeutic services for women's cancers in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), we implemented a curriculum to train the local workforce and a program to build the supportive infrastructure for the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer at a private sector health facility (Biamba Marie Mutombo Hospital) in Kinshasa. STUDY DESIGN: After onsite trainings in the DRC by a US breast surgeon (RT), Congolese surgeons, general physicians, physician assistants, and nurses used the Phillips Lumify smart-phone ultrasound device to perform and interpret the results of whole breast ultrasound on symptomatic women. Surgeons were trained to perform ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy on those who met the criteria for tissue diagnosis, after which they trained nurses to do the same. RESULTS: Over 3 years, 5,211 patients were identified as having a breast abnormality on clinical breast examination. Ultrasound abnormalities were noted in 1,493 (27%) patients, of which 632 (42%) met the criteria for ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy or fine needle aspiration. Pathology reports were available on 368 (58%) patients who underwent biopsy, of which 164 were malignant and 204 benign. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated how the "ability to look" using smart technology can be successfully used to augment clinical breast exam and triage patients for biopsy in a resource-constrained African setting.

Breast ultrasound in breast cancer surveillance; incremental cancers found at what cost?

PURPOSE: To determine the diagnostic parameters of breast ultrasound (US) in the setting of routine radiological surveillance after a diagnosis of breast cancer and evaluate costs of the inclusion of breast US as well as any survival benefit of US detected cases of recurrence in surveillance. METHODS: 622 patients underwent breast cancer surgery and follow up at Austin Health from July 2009 to December 2015. Retrospective data analysis was performed to determine; diagnostic parameters, financial costs of US and survival outcomes of US detected cases of recurrence. RESULTS: Patients underwent 1-9 years of breast cancer surveillance, with a median of 4.24 years. 390 (62.7%) patients underwent additional breast US surveillance to mammography. 232 (38.3%) fit criteria for use of additional breast US. 199 abnormal imaging episodes occurred, leading to 16 screen detected-cases of locoregional recurrence. US alone generated 107 abnormal images and found 9 cancers. US had a sensitivity of 44.1%, specificity of 95.2% and positive predictive value of 11.7% in comparison to mammography; 20.6%, 97.4% and 9.9% respectively. US had a biopsy rate of 4.0% and lead to an incremental cancer detection rate of 0.38%. The cost of incremental cancer found was $31,463.72 AUD. Survival outcomes based on method of detection of recurrence were insignificant (p value = 0.71). CONCLUSIONS: Breast US has a sensitivity of 44.1% and detected seven recurrences that were mammographically occult. Breast US has a similar PPV to mammography in surveillance. Breast US generated considerable biopsy rates and costs. Survival analysis was not able to detect any benefit of US detected cases of recurrence.

Network Meta-analysis for the Diagnostic Approach to Pathologic Nipple Discharge.

Pathologic nipple discharge (PND) is one of the most common breast-related complaints for referral because of its supposed association with breast cancer. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the diagnostic efficacy of ultrasound, mammogram, cytology, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and ductoscopy in patients with PND, as well as to determine the best diagnostic strategy to assess the risk of malignancy as cause for PND. Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase were searched to collect relevant literature from the inception of each of the diagnostic methods until January 27, 2020. The search yielded 1472 original citations, of which 36 studies with 3764 patients were finally included for analysis. Direct and indirect comparisons were performed using an NMA approach to evaluate the combined odd ratios and to determine the surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) of the diagnostic value of different imaging methods for the detection of breast cancer in patients with PND. Additionally, a subgroup meta-analysis comparing ductoscopy to MRI when conventional imaging was negative was also performed. According to this NMA, sensitivity for detection of malignancy in patients with PND was highest for MRI (83%), followed by ductoscopy (58%), ultrasound (50%), cytology (38%), and mammogram (22%). Specificity was highest for mammogram (93%) followed by ductoscopy (92%), cytology (90%), MRI (76%), and ultrasound (69%). Diagnostic accuracy was the highest for ductoscopy (88%), followed by cytology (82%), MRI (77%), mammogram (76%), and ultrasound (65%). Subgroup meta-analysis (comparing ductoscopy to MRI when ultrasound and mammogram were negative) showed no significant difference in sensitivity, but ductoscopy was statistically significantly better with regard to specificity and diagnostic accuracy. The results from this NMA indicate that although ultrasound and mammogram may remain low-cost useful first choices for the detection of malignancy in patients with PND, ductoscopy outperforms most imaging techniques (especially MRI) and cytology.

Intraoperative Ultrasound Guidance With an Ultrasound-Visible Clip: A Practical and Cost-effective Option for Breast Cancer Localization.

OBJECTIVES: In partial mastectomy (PM) or lumpectomy, ultrasound (US) localization avoids discomfort and additional procedures associated with wire localization. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between ultrasound-visible clip (UVC) use at the time of biopsy and US use during resection, hypothesizing that UVCs facilitate US localization and reduce costs compared with traditional radiopaque clips or no clip placement. METHODS: The study population consisted of adult female patients with breast cancer undergoing PM or lumpectomy at our institution between 2014 and 2016. The core biopsy clip type and localization method during PM were characterized as wire localization versus US localization, and associations were estimated with multivariable regression models. For the cost evaluation, breast biopsy data were obtained from the Department of Radiology. RESULTS: Among 674 patients, 490 had data on localization and the clip type. Ultrasound-visible clip placement at biopsy increased US use during resection by 13% (95% confidence interval, 6%-21%). There was no difference in the total specimen weight with US versus wire localization. The cost savings for using UVCs for the 2209 patients who underwent breast biopsy from 2014 to 2016 was $36,000. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that US localization for PM is feasible at a single institution and cost-effective when facilitated by UVCs. Placement of a UVC at the time of biopsy is recommended, as it is cost-effective and avoids the discomfort and inconvenience of wire localization.

Surveillance Mammography After Breast Conservation Therapy: Is Tomosynthesis Worth It?

INTRODUCTION: We investigated the downstream workup and costs associated with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) compared with 2-dimensional full field digital mammogram (FFDM) when employed as initial follow-up imaging in breast conservation therapy. METHODS: Between the years 2015 and 2017, 450 consecutive breast conservation therapy patients, ages 32 to 89, with a follow-up DBT (n=162) or FFDM (n=288) were retrospectively reviewed. The primary endpoints were further workup after follow-up mammogram and associated health care costs at 1 year. A single DBT costs an estimated $149 compared with $111 for FFDM, based on Centers for Medicare claims data from the Oncology Care Model. RESULTS: The first posttreatment mammogram was received within 3 (20%), 3 to 6 (32%), or after 6 months (48%) following radiation. Younger patients and those undergoing hypofractionated radiation were more likely to get DBT. There were no differences in stage, receptor status, or mammogram timing between those in the FFDM and DBT groups.The following downstream workup ensued for DBT compared with FFDM imaging: 18% versus 29% short-interval (6-mo) mammogram (odds ratio=1.83, P=0.01), 6% versus 11% breast magnetic resonance imaging (odds ratio=1.90, P=0.08), 4% ultrasound for each, and 3% biopsy for each (1 positive in the FFDM group). Including downstream workup, the estimated cost per patient in the DBT group was $216.14 compared with $237.83 in the FFDM group. Independent predictors for reduced downstream workup per multivariable analysis were the use of DBT and first follow-up mammogram at least 6 months after radiation (P<0.05). DISCUSSION: Excess workup was reduced with DBT compared with FFDM in the posttreatment setting, which translated to an improvement in cost efficiency in this study.

Palpable Breast Lump Triage by Minimally Trained Operators in Mexico Using Computer-Assisted Diagnosis and Low-Cost Ultrasound.

Purpose In low- to middle-income countries (LMICs), most breast cancers present as palpable lumps; however, most palpable lumps are benign. We have developed artificial intelligence-based computer-assisted diagnosis (CADx) for an existing low-cost portable ultrasound system to triage which lumps need further evaluation and which are clearly benign. This pilot study was conducted to demonstrate that this approach can be successfully used by minimally trained health care workers in an LMIC country. Patients and Methods We recruited and trained three nonradiologist health care workers to participate in an institutional review board-approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant pilot study in Jalisco, Mexico, to determine whether they could use portable ultrasound (GE Vscan Dual Probe) to acquire images of palpable breast lumps of adequate quality for accurate computer analysis. Images from 32 women with 32 breast masses were then analyzed with a triage-CADx system, generating an output of benign or suspicious (biopsy recommended). Triage-CADx outputs were compared with radiologist readings. Results The nonradiologists were able to acquire adequate images. Triage by the CADx software was as accurate as assessment by specialist radiologists, with two (100%) of two cancers considered suspicious and 30 (100%) of 30 benign lesions classified as benign. Conclusion A portable ultrasound system with CADx software can be successfully used by first-level health care workers to triage palpable breast lumps. These results open up the possibility of implementing practical, cost-effective triage of palpable breast lumps, ensuring that scarce resources can be dedicated to suspicious lesions requiring further workup.

Cutting Healthcare Costs with Hematoma-Directed Ultrasound-Guided Breast Lumpectomy.

BACKGROUND: Localization of nonpalpable breast lesions for breast-conserving surgery (BCS) remains highly variable and includes needle/wire localization (NL), radioactive seed localization, radar localization, and hematoma-directed ultrasound-guided (HUG) lumpectomy. The superiority of HUG lumpectomy over NL has been demonstrated repeatedly in terms of safety, accuracy, low positive margin rates, cosmesis, and patient satisfaction. In this study, we evaluate the cost effectiveness of HUG lumpectomy over NL for nonpalpable breast lesions. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 569 patients who underwent lumpectomy at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences from May 2014 through December 2017. Lumpectomies were stratified by localization technique, i.e. NL versus HUG. A cost-savings estimate was determined for the HUG localization technique, and a total amount of dollars saved over the study period was calculated. RESULTS: Overall, 569 lumpectomies were performed: 501 (88.0%) via HUG and 68 (12.0%) via NL. Intraoperative ultrasound was used in 566 operations (99.5%). Of the lumpectomies performed by HUG, 190 lesions (33.4%) were visible only on mammogram or breast magnetic resonance imaging prior to diagnostic core needle biopsy (CNB). Cost estimates comparing HUG with NL demonstrated a cost savings of $497.00 per procedure, the cost of preoperative needle localization by a radiologist, and a total of $94,430.00 for the study period. CONCLUSION: In utilizing HUG lumpectomy, the initial CNB serves as the diagnostic and localization procedure, thus saving time and a painful second procedure on the day of operation. HUG lumpectomy is safe, accurate, reduces healthcare costs, and results in a better patient experience for the surgical removal of nonpalpable breast lesions.

Overutilization of Health Care Resources for Breast Pain.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to analyze the incidence of women with breast pain who present to an imaging center and assess the imaging findings, outcomes, and workup costs at breast imaging centers affiliated with one institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Demographic characteristics of and imaging findings for female patients presenting with breast pain at three community breast imaging centers between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2014, were reviewed. Patients who were pregnant, were lactating, had a history of breast cancer, or presented with palpable nipple or skin findings were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 799 patients met the study criteria. Pain was diffuse in 30%, was focal in 30%, and was not localized in 40%. Of the 799 patients with breast pain, 790 (99%) presented for a diagnostic evaluation; 759 (95%) of these evaluated patients had negative findings. A benign sonographic correlate was detected in the area of pain in 5% of patients (39/799). One patient had a single cancer detected in the contralateral asymptomatic breast. When correlations between breast pain and the presence of cancer in the study patients were compared with the concurrent cancer detection rate in the screening population (5.5 cases per 1000 examinations performed), breast pain was not found to be a sign of breast cancer (p = 0.027). Patients younger than 40 years (316/799) underwent a total of 454 workup studies for breast pain; all findings were benign, and the cost of these studies was $87,322. Patients 40 years or older (483/799) underwent 745 workup studies, for a cost of $152,732. CONCLUSION: Breast pain represents an area of overutilization of health care resources. For female patients who present with pure breast pain, breast imaging centers should consider the following imaging protocols and education for referring physicians: an annual screening mammogram should be recommended for women 40 years or older, and reassurance without imaging should be offered to patients younger than 40 years.

Analysis of factors predicting surgical intervention and associated costs in pediatric breast masses: a single center study.

PURPOSE: Finding a breast mass in a child provokes apprehension in parents, especially in those with a family history of breast cancer. Clinicians must decide between serial imaging or biopsy of the mass. Herein, we identify management differences in those with and without a positive family history, as well as identify cost differences. METHODS: An institutional retrospective review was performed of patients (2-18 years of age) with a diagnosis of breast mass. Patient demographics, presentation, medical and surgical history, physical exam, imaging, and pathologic diagnosis were collected. Cost data were acquired from the pediatric health information system (PHIS). Costs were compared between patients managed by biopsy versus serial ultrasounds. Bivariate analyses including Pearson's Chi-square, student's t tests, and logistic regression were performed. RESULTS: The probability of biopsy increases with age (p = 0.0001) and female gender (p = 0.006). Biopsy rate is higher for larger masses (p < 0.0001), growing size (p < 0.0001), and in patients with a positive family history of breast cancer (p < 0.0001). The average cost of care for management with initial excisional biopsy was $4491 versus those with serial ultrasounds ($986) (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with small lesions, even with a family history of breast cancer, non-operative monitoring is a safe and cost-effective alternative to invasive biopsy.

Improved Performance of Adjunctive Ultrasonography After Mammography Screening for Breast Cancer Among Chinese Females.

INTRODUCTION: Until now, no studies have investigated whether women other than those with dense breasts are suitable for adjunctive ultrasonography after negative mammography, and investigated whether all women with negative mammography are suitable for adjunctive ultrasonography. METHODS: Based on the Multi-modality Independent Screening Trial in China, a total of 31,918 women aged 45 to 65 years underwent both ultrasonography and mammography. Physicians performed ultrasonography and mammography separately and were blinded to each other's findings until their interpretations had been recorded. For both ultrasonography and mammography, suspicious results and those highly suggestive of a malignancy were confirmed by pathologic examination, whereas other results were confirmed by 1-year follow-up after initial screening. RESULTS: Based on Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) assessments, 84 (84.8%) of 99 cancers were identified on mammography (detection rate, 2.6/1000), and 61 (61.6%) of 99 cancers were identified on ultrasonography (detection rate, 1.9/1000). Integrated mammography with ultrasonography identified 94 (95.0%) of 99 cancers, with an increment of 11.9% in cancer detection rate (from 2.6/1000 to 2.9/1000) (P < .05). Moreover, among women with BIRADS 3, adjunctive ultrasonography detected no cancers. All 10 additional cancers detected by adjunctive ultrasonography were from women with BIRADS 0 to 2, at a cost of 207 women with false positives. Additionally, dense breasts and benign breast disease were significantly associated with positive ultrasonography after BIRADS 0 to 2 (all P values < .05). CONCLUSIONS: After negative mammography, adjunctive ultrasonography should only be recommended for BIRADS 0 to 2 but not BIRADS 3, especially for women with dense breasts or benign breast disease.

Downstream Breast Imaging Following Screening Mammography in Medicare Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Population-Based Study.

BACKGROUND: Screening tests are generally not recommended in patients with advanced cancer and limited life expectancy. Nonetheless, screening mammography still occurs and may lead to follow-up testing. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the frequency of downstream breast imaging following screening mammography in patients with advanced colorectal or lung cancer. DESIGN: Population-based study. PARTICIPANTS: The study included continuously enrolled female fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries ≥65 years of age with advanced colorectal (stage IV) or lung (stage IIIB-IV) cancer reported to a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry between 2000 and 2011. MAIN MEASURES: We assessed the utilization of diagnostic mammography, breast ultrasound, and breast MRI following screening mammography. Logistic regression models were used to explore independent predictors of utilization of downstream tests while controlling for cancer type and patient sociodemographic and regional characteristics. KEY RESULTS: Among 34,127 women with advanced cancer (23% colorectal; 77% lung cancer; mean age at diagnosis 75 years), 9% (n = 3159) underwent a total of 5750 screening mammograms. Of these, 11% (n = 639) resulted in at least one subsequent diagnostic breast imaging examination within 9 months. Diagnostic mammography was most common (9%; n = 532), followed by ultrasound (6%; n = 334) and MRI (0.2%; n = 14). Diagnostic mammography rates were higher in whites than African Americans (OR, 1.6; p <0.05). Higher ultrasound utilization was associated with more favorable economic status (OR, 1.8; p <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Among women with advanced colorectal and lung cancer, 9% continued screening mammography, and 11% of these screening studies led to at least one additional downstream test, resulting in costs with little likelihood of meaningful benefit.

Value of a short-term imaging follow-up after a benign result in a one-stop breast unit: Is it still useful?

INTRODUCTION: A short-term radiologic follow-up after a benign breast biopsy or fine needle aspiration (FNA) is recommended in many guidelines. However, the current trend is to reduce imaging investigations, radiation dose and costs. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the cancer detection rate at short-term follow-up and to estimate its cost. METHODS: We retrospectively assessed all consecutive patients referred to our 'one-stop' breast unit between 2004 and 2012, with a benign histological or cytological result and at least one short-term follow-up within 3-12 months after the initial diagnosis. We evaluated the number of cancers detected, as well as the mean cost to detect each cancer and per patient. RESULTS: About 1366 patients were eligible for this study. Ten patients were diagnosed with cancers (0.73%) at short-term follow-up; six of 10 were low-grade tumours or ductal carcinoma in situ. The cost for detecting one cancer was 19,043€, with mean cost per patient of 139€. CONCLUSION: The cancer detection rate at short-term follow-up after benign biopsy or FNA was low and was similar to that of most national screening programs. The cost of cancer detection appeared high, considering that most cancers were indolent. This suggests that radiologic follow-up could reasonably be carried out at a later point in time.

A cost-effective handheld breast scanner for use in low-resource environments: a validation study.

BACKGROUND: With the incidence of breast cancer rising worldwide, we are evaluating the iBreastExam (iBE) (UE LifeSciences Inc.), a handheld breast scanning device that can be utilized by community health workers to screen for breast abnormalities. The purpose of this study is to determine the sensitivity of the iBE in a population undergoing diagnostic breast imaging. METHODS: Adult patients presenting to a breast imaging center for a diagnostic workup were eligible. Patients underwent an iBE exam performed by a trained ultrasound technician followed by their indicated imaging. Demographic, imaging, and biopsy data were recorded. RESULTS: Seventy-eight iBE exams were completed, 77 females and one male with a mean age of 42 (21-79). All patients were evaluated by ultrasound, 52 had diagnostic mammography and 39 had biopsies. Imaging and/or biopsy confirmed a mass (fibroadenoma, cyst, papilloma, myofibroblastoma, fat necrosis, DCIS, or cancer) in 60 patients. Twelve patients had a cancer diagnosed. In total, 342 quadrants were scanned, 77 quadrants had lesions confirmed on imaging, and iBE correctly identified 66 lesions for a sensitivity of 86 % and specificity of 89 %. CONCLUSIONS: This validation study demonstrated excellent sensitivity of iBE for the identification of clinically significant lesions in patients presenting for diagnostic imaging. TRIAL REGISTRATION: A Cost-Effective Handheld Breast Scanner for Use in Low Resource Environments: A Validation Study: NCT02814292 .

Ultrasound as an Adjunct to Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening: A Health Technology Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Screening with mammography can detect breast cancer early, before clinical symptoms appear. Some cancers, however, are not captured with mammography screening alone. Ultrasound has been suggested as a safe adjunct screening tool that can detect breast cancers missed on mammography. We investigated the benefits, harms, cost-effectiveness, and cost burden of ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography compared with mammography alone for screening women at average risk and at high risk for breast cancer. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, EBM Reviews, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, from January 1998 to June 2015, for evidence of effectiveness, harms, diagnostic accuracy, and cost-effectiveness. Only studies evaluating the use of ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography in the specified populations were included. We also conducted a cost analysis to estimate the costs in Ontario over the next 5 years to fund ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography in breast cancer screening for high-risk women who are contraindicated for MRI, the current standard of care to supplement mammography. RESULTS: No studies in average-risk women met the inclusion criteria of the clinical review. We included 5 prospective, paired cohort studies in high-risk women, 4 of which were relevant to the Ontario context. Adjunct ultrasound identified between 2.3 and 5.9 additional breast cancers per 1,000 screens. The average pooled sensitivity of mammography and ultrasound was 53%, a statistically significant increase relative to mammography alone (absolute increase 13%; P < .05). The average pooled specificity of the combined test was 96%, an absolute increase in the false-positive rate of 2% relative to mammography screening alone. The GRADE for this body of evidence was low. Additional annual costs of using breast ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography for high-risk women in Ontario contraindicated for MRI would range from $15,500 to $30,250 in the next 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that evaluated the comparative effectiveness or diagnostic accuracy of screening breast ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography among average-risk women aged 50 years and over. In women at high risk of developing breast cancer, there is low-quality evidence that screening with mammography and adjunct ultrasound detects additional cases of disease, with improved sensitivity compared to mammography alone. Screening with adjunct ultrasound also increases the number of false-positive findings and subsequent biopsy recommendations. It is unclear if the use of screening breast ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography will reduce breast cancer-related mortality among high-risk women. The annual cost burden of using adjunct ultrasound to screen high-risk women who cannot receive MRI in Ontario would be small.

Incremental cancer detection using breast ultrasonography versus breast magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the incremental cancer detection rate (ICDR) using bilateral whole-breast ultrasonography (BWBUS) vs dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in patients with primary breast cancer. METHODS: A retrospective database search in a single institution identified 259 patients with breast cancer diagnosed from January 2011 to August 2014 who underwent mammography, BWBUS and MRI before surgery. Patient characteristics, tumour characteristics and lesions seen on each imaging modality were recorded. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for each modality were calculated. ICDRs according to index tumour histology and receptor status were also evaluated. The effect of additional cancer detection on surgical planning was obtained from the medical records. RESULTS: A total of 266 additional lesions beyond 273 index malignancies were seen on at least 1 modality, of which 121 (45%) lesions were malignant and 145 (55%) lesions were benign. MRI was significantly more sensitive than BWBUS (p = 0.01), while BWBUS was significantly more accurate and specific than MRI (p < 0.0001). Compared with mammography, the ICDRs using BWBUS and MRI were significantly higher for oestrogen receptor-positive and triple-negative cancers, but not for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive cancers. 22 additional malignant lesions in 18 patients were seen on MRI only. Surgical planning remained unchanged in 8 (44%) of those 18 patients. CONCLUSION: MRI was more sensitive than BWBUS, while BWBUS was more accurate and specific than MRI. MRI-detected additional malignant lesions did not change surgical planning in almost half of these patients. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: BWBUS may be a cost-effective and practical tool in breast cancer staging.

A Cost Analysis of Preoperative Breast MRI Use for Patients with Invasive Lobular Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Whereas the impact of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast on the surgical management of breast cancer patients is well documented, less is known about its effect on health care costs. This study aimed to evaluate whether MRI use for women with invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) significantly changes the cost of care. METHODS: Patients with ILC were recruited to a prospective registry study of breast MRI. Women who met the same inclusion criteria but had not undergone breast MRI were retrospectively identified for comparison. A micro-costing analysis using institutional billing records was conducted. Nonparametric bootstrapping was used to compare the unadjusted cost differences between the patients receiving MRI and those receiving no MRI. RESULTS: Of the patients in this study, 51 had preoperative MRI, and 60 did not. Method of diagnostic biopsy, disease stage, oncologic procedure, and rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy were similar between the two groups. The patients in the MRI group were younger (median age 55 vs. 64 years; p = 0.01) and more likely to undergo reconstruction (45.1 vs. 25 %; p = 0.03). The median costs of care were significantly higher in the MRI group ($24,781 vs. $18,921; p < 0.01). After adjustment for clinical factors, MRI remained significantly associated with increased cost (p = 0.03). Other factors associated with increased cost included type of oncologic procedure (mastectomy vs. lumpectomy; p < 0.01), number of operations required to achieve negative margins (1 vs. >1; p < 0.01), and use of reconstruction (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Preoperative breast MRI increases the median total cost of care per patient. However, the contribution to the overall cost of care is modest compared with the cost of other interventions.