Comparison of Costs and Benefits of Breast Cancer Screening with Mammography, Ultrasonography, and MRI

Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America

Volumn 38, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 179-196

  Feig, Stephen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Mammography; MRI; Ultrasound

Indexed keywords

BRCA1 PROTEIN; BRCA2 PROTEIN;

ARTICLE; ATYPICAL DUCTAL HYPERPLASIA; ATYPICAL LOBULAR HYPERPLASIA; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; CANCER INVASION; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER SCREENING; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; ECHOGRAPHY; GENETIC RISK; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; LOBULAR CARCINOMA IN SITU; MAMMOGRAPHY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; RECALL; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK REDUCTION; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; TREATMENT INDICATION;

EID: 79952663827     PISSN: 08898545     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ogc.2011.02.009     Document Type: Review

References (118)

1. Tabar L., Vitak B., Chen H.-H., et al. The Swedish Two County Trial twenty years later. Radiol Clin North Am 2000, 38:625-652.
2. Tabar L., Yen M.-F., Vitak B., et al. Mammography service screening and mortality in breast cancer patients: 20-year follow-up before and after introduction of screening. Lancet 2003, 361:1405-1410.
3. Ekwueme D.U., Gardner J.G., Subramanian S., et al. Cost analysis of the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, selected states, 2003-2004. Cancer 2008, 112:626-635.
4. Feig S.A. Increased benefit from shorter screening mammography intervals for women ages 40-49 years. Cancer 1997, 80:2035-2039.
5. Feig S.A. Estimation of currently attainable benefit from mammographic screening of women aged 40-49 years. Cancer 1995, 75:2412-2419.
6. Pisano E.D., Gatsonis C., Hendrick E., et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005, 353:1773-1783.
7. Tosteson A.N., Stout N.K., Fryback D.G., et al. Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography in breast cancer screening. Ann Intern Med 2008, 148:1-10.
8. Rosenquist C.J., Lindfors K.K. Screening mammography in women aged 40-49 years: analysis of cost-effectiveness. Radiology 1994, 191:647-650.
9. Moskowitz M., Fox S.H. Cost analysis of aggressive breast cancer screening. Radiology 1979, 130:253-256.
10. Moskowitz M. Costs of screening for breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 1987, 25:1031-1037.
11. Eddy D.M. Screening for breast cancer. Ann Intern Med 1989, 111:389-399.
12. Feig S.A. Mammographic screening of women aged 40-49 years: benefit, risk, and cost considerations. Cancer 1995, 76:2097-2106.
13. Salzmann P., Kerlikowske K., Phillips K. Cost-effectiveness of screening mammography of women aged 40-49 years of age. Ann Intern Med 1997, 127:955-965.
14. Coldman A., Phillips N., Warren L., et al. Breast cancer mortality after screening mammography in British Columbia women. Int J Cancer 2006, 120:1076-1080.
15. Gold M., Siegel J., Russell L., et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine 1996, Oxford University Press, New York.
16. Rosenquist C.J., Lindfors K.K. Screening mammography beginning at age 40 years: a reappraisal of cost-effectiveness. Cancer 1998, 82:2235-2240.
17. Tengs T.O., Adams M., Pliskin J., et al. Five hundred life-saving interventions and their cost-effectiveness. Risk Anal 1995, 15:369-390.
18. Brown M.L. Sensitivity analysis in the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening. Cancer 1992, 69:1963-1967.
19. Van der Maas P.J., de Koning H.J., Van Inveld M., et al. The cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening. Int J Cancer 1989, 43:1055-1060.
20. Lindfors K.K., McGahan M.C., Rosenquist C.J., et al. Computer aided detection: a cost-effective study. Radiol 2006, 238:710-717.
21. Cyrlak D. Induced costs of low-cost screening mammography. Radiology 1988, 168:661-663.
22. Bassett L.W., Hendrick R.G., Bassford T.L., et al. Clinical practice guidelines number 13: quality determinants of mammography 1999, US Department of Health and Human Services, Rockwell (MD), p. 83.
23. D'Orsi C.J., Bassett L.W., Berg W.A., et al. Breast imaging reporting and data system: ACR BI-RADS 2003, American College of Radiology, Reston (VA), p. 229-51. 4th edition.
24. Rosenberg R.D., Yankaskas B.C., Abraham L.A., et al. Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. Radiology 2006, 241:55-66.
25. Carney P.A., Sickles E.A., Monsees B., et al. Identifying minimally acceptable interpretive performance criteria for screening mammography. Radiology 2010, 255:354-361.
26. Leung J.W.T., Sickles E.A. The probably benign assessment. Radiol Clin North Am 2007, 45:773-790.
27. March D.E., Raslavicus A., Coughlin B.F., et al. Use of core biopsy in the United States. Am J Roentgenol 1997, 169:697-701.
28. Zannis V.J., Aliano K.M. The evolving practice pattern of the breast surgeon with disappearance of open biopsy for nonpalpable lesions. Am J Surg 1998, 176:525-528.
29. Crowe J.P., Rim A., Patrick R., et al. A prospective review of the decline of excisional breast biopsy. Am J Surg 2002, 184:353-355.
30. Yim J.H., Barton P., Weber B., et al. Mammographically detected breast cancer: benefits of stereotactic core versus wire localization biopsy. Ann Surg 1996, 223:688-700.
31. Pitre B., Baron P.L., Baron L.F., et al. Efficacy of stereotactic needle biopsy in the evaluation of mammographic abnormalities. Surg Forum 1995, 46:625-627.
32. Schmidt R.A. Stereotactic breast biopsy. CA Cancer J Clin 1994, 44:172-191.
33. Howisey R.L., Acheson M.B.G., Rowbotham R.K., et al. A comparison of Medicare reimbursement and results for various imaging-guided breast biopsy techniques. Am J Surg 1997, 173:395-398.
34. Lind D.S., Minter R., Steinbach B., et al. Stereotactic core biopsy reduces the reexcision rate and the cost of mammographically detected cancer. J Surg Res 1998, 78:23-26.
35. Rubin E., Mennemeyer S.T., Desmond R.A., et al. Reducing the cost of diagnosis of breast cancer. Cancer 2001, 91:324-332.
36. Cross M.J., Evans W.P., Peters G.N., et al. Stereotactic breast biopsy as an alternative to open excisional biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol 1995, 2:195-200.
37. Hillner B.E., Bear H.D., Fajardo L.L. Estimating the cost-effectiveness of stereotactic biopsy for nonpalpable breast abnormalities: a decision analysis model. Acad Radiol 1996, 3:351-360.
38. Lindfors K.K., Rosenquist C.J. Needle core biopsy guided with mammography: a study of cost-effectiveness. Radiology 1994, 190:217-222.
39. Poplack S.P., Carney P.A., Weiss J.E., et al. Screening mammography: costs and use of screening-related services. Radiology 2005, 234:79-85.
40. Lidbrink E., Elfving J., Frisell J., et al. Neglected aspects of false positive findings of mammography in breast cancer screening: analysis of false positive cases from the Stockholm trial. BMJ 1996, 312:273-276.
41. Elmore J.G., Barton M.B., Moceri V.M., et al. Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. N Engl J Med 1998, 338:1089-1096.
42. Nields M.W. Cost-effectiveness of image-guided core needle biopsy versus surgery in diagnosing breast cancer. Acad Radiol 1996, 3(Suppl 1):S138-S140.
43. Smith R.A., Saslow D., Sawyer K.A., et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 2003, 53:141-169.
44. Feig S.A., D'Orsi C.J., Hendrick R.E., et al. American College of Radiology Guidelines for breast cancer screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998, 171:29-33.
45. American Cancer Society Cancer prevention and early detection facts and figures 2009 2009, American Cancer Society, Atlanta (GA).
46. US Preventive Services Task Force Screening for breast cancer: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2009, 151:716-726.
47. Nelson H.D., Tyne K., Naik A., et al. Screening for breast cancer: an update for the US preventive services task force. Ann Intern Med 2009, 151:727-737.
48. Mandelblatt J.S., Cronin K.A., Bailey S., et al. Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: model estimates of potential benefits and harms. Ann Intern Med 2009, 151:738-747.
49. Hendrick R.E., Smith R.A., Rutledge J.H., et al. Benefit of screening mammography in women ages 40-49:a new meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997, 22:87-92.
50. Jonsson H., Bordas P., Wallin H., et al. Service screening with mammography in Northern Sweden: effects on breast cancer mortality annual updates. J Med Screen 2007, 1:87-93.
51. Kopans D.B., Feig S.A. The Canadian National Breast Screening Study: a critical review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1993, 161:755-760.
52. Michaelson J.S., Halpern E., Kopans D.B. Breast cancer: computer simulation method for estimating optimal intervals for screening. Radiology 1999, 212:551-560.
53. Taplin S.H., Barlow W., Urban N., et al. Stage, age, comorbidity, and direct costs of colon, prostate, and breast cancer care. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995, 87:417-426.
54. Legorreta A.P., Brooks R.J., Liebowitz A.N., et al. Costs of breast cancer treatment: a 4-year longitudinal study. Arch Intern Med 1996, 156:2197-2201.
55. Norum J. Breast cancer screening by mammography in Norway. Is it cost effective?. Ann Oncol 1999, 10:197-203.
56. Otto S.J., Fracheboud J., Looman C.W., et al. Initiation of population-based mammography screening in Dutch municipalities and effect on breast cancer mortality: a systematic review. Lancet 2003, 361:1411-1417.
57. de Koning H.J., van Ineveld B.M., van Oortmarssen G.J., et al. Breast cancer screening and cost-effectiveness; policy alternatives, quality of life considerations and the possible impact of uncertain factors. Int J Cancer 1991, 49:531-537.
58. de Koning H.J., van Ineveld B.M., de Haes J.C., et al. Advanced breast cancer and its prevention by screening. Br J Cancer 1992, 65:950-955.
59. de Koning H.J., Coebergh J.W., van Dongen J.A. Is mass screening for breast cancer cost-effective?. Eur J Cancer 1996, 32A(11):1835-1839.
60. Zavertnik J.J., McCoy C.B., Robinson D.S., et al. Cost-effective management of breast cancer. Cancer 1992, 69:1979-1984.
61. Glenn M.E. Can treatment dollars saved through earlier breast cancer diagnosis offset increased costs of mammography screening? The BAMC experience. Radiology 1997, 205(P):142-143.
62. Moskowitz M. Cost-benefit determinations in screening mammography. Cancer 1987, 60:1680-1683.
63. Kriege M., Brekelmans C.T., Boetes C., et al. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med 2004, 351:427-437.
64. Kuhl C.K., Schrading S., Leutner C.C., et al. Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005, 23:8469-8476.
65. Leach M.O., Boggis C.R., Dixon A.K., et al. Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS). Lancet 2005, 365:1769-1778.
66. Lehman C.D., Blume J.D., Weatherall P., et al. Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer 2005, 103:1898-1905.
67. Sardanelli F., Podo F., D'Agnollo G., et al. Multicenter comparative multimodality surveillance of women at genetic-familial high risk for breast cancer (HIBCRIT study); interim results. Radiology 2007, 242:698-715.
68. Warner E., Plewes D.B., Hill K.A., et al. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA 2004, 292:1317-1325.
69. Lehman C.D., Issacs C., Schnall M.D., et al. Cancer yield of mammography, MRI and US in high-risk women: prospective multi-institution breast cancer screening study. Radiology 2007, 244:381-388.
70. Hagen A.I., Kvistad K.A., Maehle L., et al. Sensitivity of MRI versus conventional screening in the diagnosis of BRCA-associated breast cancer in a national prospective series. Breast 2007, 16:367-374.
71. Hartman A.R., Daniel B.L., Kurian A.W., et al. Breast magnetic resonance image screening and ductal lavage in women at high genetic risk for breast carcinoma. Cancer 2004, 100:479-489.
72. Warner E., Messersmith H., Causer P., et al. Systematic review: using magnetic resonance imaging to screen for breast cancer. Ann Intern Med 2008, 148:671-679.
73. Saslow D., Boetes C., Burke W., et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as and adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin 2007, 57:75-89.
74. Bevers T.B., Anderson B.O., Bonaccio E., et al. Breast cancer screening and diagnosis. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2009, 7:1060-1096.
75. Lee C.H., Dershaw D.D., Kopans D., et al. Breast cancer screening with imaging: recommendations from the Society of Breast Imaging and the ACR on the use of mammography, breast MRI, breast ultrasound, and other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer. J Am Coll Radiol 2010, 7:18-27.
76. Plevritis S.K., Kurian A.W., Sigal B.M., et al. Cost-effectiveness of screening BRCA 1/2 mutation carriers with breast magnetic resonance imaging. JAMA 2006, 295:2374-2384.
77. Lee J.M., McMahon P.M., Kong C.Y., et al. Cost-effectiveness of breast MRI imaging and screen-film mammography for screening BRCA 1 gene mutation carriers. Radiology 2010, 254:793-800.
78. Griebsch I., Brown J., Boggis C., et al. Cost-effectiveness of screening with contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging versus x-ray mammography of women at high familial risk of breast cancer. Br J Cancer 2006, 95:801-810.
79. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care Familial breast cancer - the classification and care of women at risk of familial breast cancer in primary, secondary, and tertiary care Available at:, Accessed January 5, 2010. http://www.nice.org.uk.
80. Taneja C., Edelsberg J., Weycker D., et al. Cost effectiveness of breast cancer screening with contrast- enhanced MRI in high-risk women. J Am Coll Radiol 2009, 6:171-179.
81. Easton D.F., Ford D., Bishop D.T. Breast and ovarian cancer incidence in BRCA1-mutation carriers. Breast cancer linkage consortium. Am J Hum Genet 1995, 56:265-271.
82. Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer Familial breast cancer: collaborative reanalysis of individual data from 52 epidemiological studies including 58,209 women with breast cancer and 101,986 women without the disease. Lancet 2001, 358:1389-1399.
83. Petrucelli N., Daly MB., Culver J.O.B., et al. BRCA1 and BRCA2 hereditary breast/ovarian cancer. Gene reviews Available at:, Accessed January 5, 2010. http://www.genetests.org/querydz=brcal.
84. Amir E., Evans D.G., Shenton A., et al. Evaluation of breast cancer risk assessment packages in the family history evaluation and screening programme. J Med Genet 2003, 40:807-814.
85. Fisher B., Anderson S., Redmond C.K., et al. Reanalysis and results after 12 years of follow-up in a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy with lumpectomy with or without irradiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1995, 333:1456-1461.
86. Fisher B., Anderson S., Bryant J., et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002, 347:1233-1241.
87. Easton D.F. Familial risks of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2002, 4:179-181.
88. Frykberg E.R. Lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast. Breast J 1999, 5:296-303.
89. Dupont W.D., Parl F.F., Hartmann W.H., et al. Breast cancer risk associated with proliferative breast disease and atypical hyperplasia. Cancer 1993, 71:1258-1265.
90. Page D.L., Schuyler P.A., Dupont W.D., et al. Atypical lobular hyperplasia as a unilateral predictor of breast cancer risk: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 2003, 361:125-129.
91. Boyd N.E., Guo H., Martin L.J., et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007, 356:227-236.
92. Berg W.A. Tailored supplementary screening for breast cancer: what now and what next?. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009, 192:390-399.
93. Hendrick R.E. Breast MRI: fundamental and technical aspects 2008, Springer Verlag, New York.
94. La Trenta L.R., Menell J.H., Morris E.A., et al. Breast lesions detected with MR imaging: utility and histopathologic importance of identification with US. Radiology 2003, 227:856-861.
95. Feig S.A., Shaber G.S., Patchefsky A., et al. Analysis of clinically and mammographically occult breast tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1977, 128:403-408.
96. Kerlikowske K., Grady D., Barclay J., et al. Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA 1996, 276:33-38.
97. Rosenberg R.D., Hunt W.C., Williamson M.R., et al. Effects of age, breast density, ethnicity, and estrogen replacement therapy on screening mammographic sensitivity and cancer stage at diagnosis: review of 183, 134 screening mammograms in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Radiology 1998, 209:511-518.
98. van Gils C.H., Otten J.D., Verbeeck A.L., et al. Effect of mammographic breast density on breast cancer screening performance: a study in Nijmegen, the Netherlands. J Epidemiol Community Health 1998, 52:267-271.
99. Mandelson M.T., Oestreicher N., Porter P.L., et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000, 92:1081-1087.
100. Ma I., Fischell C., Wright B., et al. Case control study of factors associated with failure to detect breast cancer by mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000, 92:1081-1087.
101. Jackson V.P., Hendrick R.E., Feig S.A., et al. Imaging the radiographically dense breast. Radiology 1993, 188:297-301.
102. Stomper P.C., D'Souza D.J., DiNitto P.A., et al. Analysis of parenchymal density on mammograms of 1353 women 25-79 years old. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996, 167:1261-1265.
103. Gordon P.B., Goldenberg S.L. Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound: a retrospective review. Cancer 1995, 76:626-630.
104. Kolb T.M., Lichy J., Newhouse J.H. Occult cancer in women with dense breast: detection with screening US-diagnostic yield and tumor characteristics. Radiology 1998, 207:191-199.
105. Buchberger W., DeKoekkoek-Doll P., Springer P., et al. Incidental findings on sonography of the breast clinical significance and diagnostic workup. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999, 173:921-927.
106. Buchberger W., Niehoff A., Orbist A., et al. Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions; detection and classification with high-resolution sonography. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2000, 21:325-336.
107. Kaplan S.S. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology 2001, 221:641-649.
108. Kolb T.M., Lichy J., Newhouse J.H. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluation. Radiology 2002, 225:165-175.
109. Leconte I., Feger C., Galant C., et al. Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the importance of radiologic breast density. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003, 180:1675-1679.
110. Crystal P., Strano S., Shcharynski S., et al. Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003, 181:177-182.
111. Feig S.A. Current status of screening US. Breast imaging: RSNA categorical course in diagnostic radiology 2005, Radiological Society of North America Inc, Oak Brook (IL), p. 143-54.
112. Bassett L.W., Hendrick R.E., Bassford T.L., et al. Clinical practice guideline number 13: quality determinants of mammography 1994, AHCPR Publication 95-0632, US Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Public Health Service, Rockville (MD), p. 83.
113. Feig S.A. Auditing and benchmarks in screening and diagnostic mammography. Radiol Clin North Am 2007, 45:791-800.
114. Berg W.A., Blume J.D., Cormack J.B., et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography versus mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 2008, 299(18):2151-2163.
115. Corsetti V., Houssami N., Ferrari A., et al. Breast screening with ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: evidence on incremental cancer detection and false positives, and associated cost. Eur J Cancer 2008, 44:539-544.
116. Enzmann D.R., Anglada P.M., Haviley C., et al. Providing professional mammography services: financial analysis. Radiology 2001, 219:467-473.
117. Chou Y.H., Tiu C.-M., Chen J., et al. Automated full-field breast ultrasonography: the past and the present. J Med Ultrasound 2007, 15(1):31-44.
118. Kelly K.M., Dean J., Comulada W.S., et al. Breast cancer detection using automated whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breasts. Eur Radiol 2010, 20:734-742.