The emergence of diagnostic imaging technologies in breast cancer: Discovery, regulatory approval, reimbursement, and adoption in clinical guidelines

Cancer Imaging

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 13-24

  Gold, Laura S ^a   Klein, Gregory ^a   Carr, Lauren ^a   Kessler, Larry ^a   Sullivan, Sean D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; Comparative effectiveness research; Computed tomography; Diagnostic imaging; Magnetic resonance imaging; Mammography; Positron emission tomography; Ultrasonography; US Food and Drug Administration

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE; GADOLINIUM;

BREAST CANCER; CANCER STAGING; COMPUTER ASSISTED EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; DISTANT METASTASIS; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; FULL FIELD DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; META ANALYSIS; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; REIMBURSEMENT; REVIEW;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC TEST APPROVAL; FEMALE; HISTORY, 20TH CENTURY; HISTORY, 21ST CENTURY; HUMANS; INSURANCE, HEALTH, REIMBURSEMENT; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MAMMOGRAPHY; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, MAMMARY; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION;

EID: 84856873769     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14707330     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1102/1470-7330.2012.0003     Document Type: Review

References (127)

1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E. Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin 2010; 60: 277-300. doi:10.3322/caac.20073.
2. Esserman L. Integration of imaging in the management of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 1601-2. doi:10.1200/JCO.2005.11.026. (Pubitemid 46211408)
3. Lehman CD, Gatsonis C, Kuhl CK, et al. MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 1295-303. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa065447.
4. Hollingsworth AB, Stough RG, O'Dell CA, Brekke CE. Breast magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative locoregional staging. Am J Surg 2008; 196: 389-97. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2007.10.009.
5. Lehman CD, DeMartini W, Anderson BO, Edge SB. Indications for breast MRI in the patient with newly diagnosed breast cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2009; 7: 193-201.
6. Pettit K, Swatske M, Gao F, et al. The impact of breast MRI on surgical decision-making: are patients at risk for mastectomy? J Surg Oncol 2009; 100: 553-8. doi:10.1002/jso.21406.
7. Katipamula R, Degnim A, Hoskin T, et al. Trends in mastectomy rates at the Mayo Clinic Rochester: effect of surgical year and preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 4082-8. doi:10.1200/JCO.2008.19.4225.
8. Houssami N, Ciatto S, Macaskill P, et al. Accuracy and surgical impact of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging: systematic review and meta-analysis in detection of multifocal and multicentric cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 3248-58. doi:10.1200/JCO.2007.15.2108.
9. Berg W, Gutierrez L, NessAiver M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology 2004; 233: 830-49. doi:10.1148/radiol.2333031484.
10. Morrow M, Harris JR. More mastectomies: is this what patients really want? J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 4038-40. doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.23.0078.
11. Bleicher R, Ciocca R, Egleston B, et al. Association of routine pretreatment magnetic resonance imaging with time to surgery, mastectomy rate, and margin status. J Am Coll Surg 2009; 209: 180-7. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg. 2009.04.010.
12. Smith-Bindman R, Miglioretti DL, Larson EB. Rising use of diagnostic medical imaging in a large integrated health system. Health Aff (Millwood) 2008; 27: 1491-502. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.27.6.1491.
13. Dinan M, Curtis L, Hammill B, et al. Changes in the use and costs of diagnostic imaging among Medicare beneficiaries with cancer, 1999-2006. JAMA 2010; 303: 1625-31. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.460.
14. Sistrom C, Dang P, Weilburg J, Dreyer K, Rosenthal D, Thrall J. Effect of computerized order entry with integrated decision support on the growth of outpatient procedure volumes: seven-year time series analysis. Radiology 2009; 251: 147-55. doi:10.1148/radiol.2511081174.
15. Levin D, Rao V, Parker L. Physician orders contribute to hightech imaging slowdown. Health Aff (Millwood) 2010; 29: 189-95. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2009. 0528.
16. US Government Accountability Office. Medicare Part B: rapid spending growth and shift to physician offices indicate need for CMS to consider additional management practices. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-452. Accessed June 22, 2011.
17. Houssami N, Hayes DF. Review of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in breast cancer: should MRI be performed on all women with newly diagnosed, early stage breast cancer? CA Cancer J Clin 2009; 59: 290-302. doi:10.3322/caac.20028.
18. Turnbull L, Brown S, Harvey I, et al. Comparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2010; 375: 563-71. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)62070-5.
19. US Food and Drug Administration. PMA premarket approval database; 2010.
20. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 510(k) premarket notification. May 5, 2010.
21. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center (TEC), Evidence-based Practice Center. http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/epc/bcbsatec. htm. Accessed June 21, 2011.
22. Aetna Inc. Aetna Medical clinical policy bulletins. http://www.aetna.com/ healthcare-professionals/policies-guidelines/medical-clinical-policy-bulletins. html. Accessed June 21, 2011.
23. Group Health Clinical Review. https://provider.ghc.org/open/ referralsAndClinicalReview/criteria/index.jhtml. Accessed June 21, 2011.
24. Wood EH. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). J Med Libr Assoc 2004; 92: 382-3.
25. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN breast cancer practice guidelines. 1996.
26. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Update of the NCCN guidelines for treatment of breast cancer. 1997.
27. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Breast cancer v. 1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network; 1999.
28. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Breast cancer screening and diagnosis v. 1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network; 2000.
29. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Breast cancer v. 1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network; 2001.
30. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Breast cancer v. 1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network; 2002.
31. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Breast cancer v. 1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network; 2003.
32. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Breast cancer v. 1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network; 2004.
33. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Breast cancer v. 1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network; 2005.
34. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Breast cancer v. 1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network; 2006.
35. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Breast cancer v. 1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network; 2007.
36. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Breast cancer screening and diagnosis v. 1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network; 2008.
37. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Breast cancer screening and diagnosis v. 1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network; 2009.
38. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Breast cancer screening and diagnosis v. 1. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology; 2010 http://www.nccn.org. Accessed January 20, 2010.
39. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Breast cancer. March 25, 2011.
40. Barlow WE, Lehman CD, Zheng Y, et al. Performance of diagnostic mammography for women with signs or symptoms of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002; 94: 1151-9. (Pubitemid 34919052)
41. Gold RH, Bassett LW, Widoff BE. Highlights from the history of mammography. Radiographics 1990; 10: 1111-31.
42. Egan RL. Experience with mammography in a tumor institution. Evaluation of 1,000 studies. Radiology 1960; 75: 894-900.
43. Strax P, Venet L, Shapiro S. Value of mammography in reduction of mortality from breast cancer in mass screening. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med 1973; 117: 686-9.
44. Williams MB, Fajardo LL. Digital mammography: performance considerations and current detector designs. Acad Radiol 1996; 3: 429-37. doi:10.1016/S1076- 6332(05)80680-4. (Pubitemid 126812857)
45. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 1773-83. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa052911. (Pubitemid 41549889)
46. Chan HP, Vyborny CJ, MacMahon H, Metz CE, Doi K, Sickles EA. Digital mammography. ROC studies of the effects of pixel size and unsharp-mask filtering on the detection of subtle microcalcifications. Invest Radiol 1987; 22: 581-9. doi:10.1097/00004424-198707000-00010. (Pubitemid 17136311)
47. Feig SA, Yaffe MJ. Digital mammography. Radiographics 1998; 18: 893-901. (Pubitemid 128466695)
48. Fenton JJ, Foote SB, Green P, Baldwin LM. Diffusion of computer-aided mammography after mandated Medicare coverage. Arch Intern Med 2010; 170: 987-9. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2010.104.
49. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). National Coverage Decision for Mammograms (220.4)1978.
50. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000. Ruling No. 01-01: http://www.cms.gov/Rulings/downloads/CMSR0101.pdf. Accessed June 21, 2011.
51. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Computer-aided detection with full-field digital mammography. 2006.
52. Aetna Inc. Clinical policy bulletin: mammography. Clinical Policy Bulletins. http://www.aetna.com/cpb/medical/data/500-599/0584.html. Accessed June 22, 2011.
53. Howry DH, Stott DA, Bliss WR. The ultrasonic visualization of carcinoma of the breast and other soft-tissue structures. Cancer 1954; 7: 354-8. doi:10.1002/1097-0142(195403)7:2〈354::AIDCNCR2820070220〉3.0.CO;2-9.
54. Wild J, Neal D. Use of high-frequency ultrasonic waves for detecting changes of texture in living tissues. Lancet 1951; 1: 655-7.
55. Bassett L, Kimme-Smith C. Breast sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1991; 156: 449-55.
56. Nothacker M, Duda V, Hahn M, et al. Early detection of breast cancer: benefits and risks of supplemental breast ultrasound in asymptomatic women with mammographically dense breast tissue. A systematic review. BMC Cancer 2009; 9: 335. doi:10.1186/1471-2407-9-335.
57. Kerlikowske K, Smith-Bindman R, Ljung BM, Grady D. Evaluation of abnormal mammography results and palpable breast abnormalities. Ann Intern Med 2003; 139: 274-84. (Pubitemid 38129089)
58. Mehta TS. Current uses of ultrasound in the evaluation of the breast. Radiol Clin North Am 2003; 41: 841-56. doi:10.1016/S0033-8389(03)00040-X. (Pubitemid 36920081)
59. Krishnamurthy S. Current applications and future prospects of fine-needle aspiration biopsy of locoregional lymph nodes in the management of breast cancer. Cancer Cytopathol 2009; 117: 451-62.
60. Gunther-Tritsch K, Ohlinger R, Bojahr B. Diagnostic value of palpation and ultrasonography for diagnosing breast cancer recurrence after mastectomy-a comparison. Ultraschall Med 2009; 30: 577-584. doi:10.1055/s-0028-1109701.
61. Rissanen TJ, Makarainen HP, Mattila SI, Lindholm EL, Heikkinen MI, Kiviniemi HO. Breast cancer recurrence after mastectomy: diagnosis with mammography and US. Radiology 1993; 188: 463-7. (Pubitemid 23216272)
62. Yilmaz MH, Esen G, Ayarcan Y, et al. The role of US and MR imaging in detecting local chest wall tumor recurrence after mastectomy. Diagn Interv Radiol 2007; 13: 13-18. (Pubitemid 46394667)
63. Riebe E, Gunther K, Schulz K, et al. Recurrent disease after breast preserving therapy (BPT) and radiation therapy for breast cancer-diagnostic yield of palpation, mammography and ultrasonography. Ultraschall Med 2007; 28: 394-400. doi:10.1055/s-2007-963019. (Pubitemid 47342396)
64. Balu-Maestro C, Bruneton JN, Geoffray A, Chauvel C, Rogopoulos A, Bittman O. Ultrasonographic posttreatment follow-up of breast cancer patients. J Ultrasound Med 1991; 10: 1-7.
65. Phillips RA. Email correspondence March 17, 2010. Email correspondence regarding FDA approvals and clearances for diagnostic devices. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA); 2010.
66. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). National coverage determination (NCD) for ultrasound diagnostic procedures (220.5). Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS); 1966, p. 100-13.
67. Damadian R, Zaner K, Hor D, DiMaio T, Minkoff L, Goldsmith M. Nuclear magnetic resonance as a new tool in cancer research: human tumors by NMR. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1973; 222: 1048-76. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1973.tb15323.x.
68. Heywang S, Hahn D, Schmidt H, et al. MR imaging of the breast using gadolinium-DTPA. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1986; 10: 199-204. doi:10.1097/00004728- 198603000-00005. (Pubitemid 16113395)
69. Stelling CB, Wang PC, Lieber A, Mattingly SS, Griffen WO, Powell DE. Prototype coil for magnetic resonance imaging of the female breast. Work in progress. Radiology 1985; 154: 457-62. (Pubitemid 15168390)
70. Partridge SC. Future applications and innovations of clinical breast magnetic resonance imaging. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2008; 19: 171-6. doi:10.1097/RMR.0b013e31818a4090.
71. Sijens PE, Wijrdeman HK, Moerland MA, Bakker CJ, Vermeulen JW, Luyten PR. Human breast cancer in vivo: H-1 and P-31 MR spectroscopy at 1.5 T. Radiology 1988; 169: 615-20.
72. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Questions and answers on gadolinium-based contrast agents. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/ucm142889.htm. Accessed June 23, 2011.
73. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 510(k) summary for the AURORA magnetic resonance diagnostic device. Rockville, MD: FDA; 2008. K073425.
74. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Medicare National Coverage Determinations Manual: Chapter 1, Part 4: CMS; 2010.
75. Aetna Inc. Clinical policy bulletin: magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast. Clinical policy bulletins. http://www.aetna.com/cpb/medical/data/ 100-199/0105.html. Accessed June 23, 2011.
76. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). National coverage determination (NCD) for magnetic resonance spectroscopy (220.2.1). http://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/details/ncddetails.aspx?NCDId= 287&ncdver=1&DocID=220.2.1&SearchType=Advanced&bc= IAAAABAAAAAA&. Accessed June 23, 2011.
77. Aetna Inc. Clinical policy bulletin: magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS). Clinical Policy Bulletins. http://www.aetna.com/cpb/medical/data/200-299/ 0202.html. Accessed June 23, 2011.
78. Kuhl DE, Edwards RQ. Image separation radioisotope scanning. Radiology 1963; 80: 653-62.
79. Reese D, Carney J, Gisvold J, Karsell P, Kollins S. Computerized reconstructive tomography applied to breast pathology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1976; 126: 406-12.
80. Chang C, Sibala J, Fritz S, Gallagher J, Dwyer Sr. Templeton A. Computed tomographic evaluation of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1978; 131: 459-64. (Pubitemid 8388960)
81. Glick S. Breast CT. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2007; 9: 501-26. doi:10.1146/annurev.bioeng.9.060906.151924.
82. Davidson C, Erdogan A. Contrast media: procedural capacities and potential risks. Rev Cardiovasc Med 2008; 9(Suppl 1), S24-34. (Pubitemid 351550378)
83. Sechopoulos I, Vedantham S, Suryanarayanan S, D'Orsi C, Karellas A. Monte Carlo and phantom study of the radiation dose to the body from dedicated CT of the breast. Radiology 2008; 247: 98-105. doi:10.1148/radiol.2471071080.
84. Lindfors K, Boone J, Nelson T, Yang K, Kwan A, Miller D. Dedicated breast CT: initial clinical experience. Radiology 2008; 246: 725-33. doi:10.1148/radiol.2463070410.
85. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). National Coverage Determination (NCD) for Computed Tomography (220.1). Health and Human Services; 2008.
86. Facey K, Bradbury I, Laking G, Payne E. Overview of the clinical effectiveness of positron emission tomography imaging in selected cancers. Health Technol Assess 2007; 11: iii-iv, xi-267.
87. Almubarak M, Osman S, Marano G, Abraham J. Role of positron- emission tomography scan in the diagnosis and management of breast cancer. Oncology 2009; 23: 255-61.
88. Podoloff D, Advani R, Allred C, et al. NCCN task force report: positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) scanning in cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2007; 5(Suppl 1), S1-22; quiz S23-22.
89. Wahl R, Siegel B, Coleman R, Gatsonis C. Prospective multicenter study of axillary nodal staging by positron emission tomography in breast cancer: a report of the staging breast cancer with PET Study Group. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 277-85. doi:10.1200/JCO.2004.04.148. (Pubitemid 41095092)
90. Nutt R. 1999 ICP Distinguished Scientist Award. The history of positron emission tomography. Mol Imaging Biol 2002; 4: 11-26. (Pubitemid 34272707)
91. US Oncology, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA). Medical imaging in cancer care: charting the progressArlington, VA: Policy Analysis and Public Affairs; 2006.
92. Lakhani P, Maidment A, Weinstein S, Kung J, Alavi A. Correlation between quantified breast densities from digital mammography and 18F-FDG PET uptake. Breast J 2009; 15: 339-47. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4741.2009.00737.x.
93. Beaney R, Lammertsma A, Jones T, McKenzie C, Halnan K. Positron emission tomography for in-vivo measurement of regional blood flow, oxygen utilisation, and blood volume in patients with breast carcinoma. Lancet 1984; 1: 131-4. (Pubitemid 14217550)
94. Wahl RL, Cody RL, Hutchins GD, Mudgett EE. Primary and metastatic breast carcinoma: initial clinical evaluation with PET with the radiolabeled glucose analogue 2-[F-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose. Radiology 1991; 179: 765-70.
95. Townsend DW, Carney JP, Yap JT, Hall NC. PET/CT today and tomorrow. J Nucl Med 2004; 45 (Suppl 1), 4S-14S.
96. Osman MM, Cohade C, Nakamoto Y, Marshall LT, Leal JP, Wahl RL. Clinically significant inaccurate localization of lesions with PET/CT: frequency in 300 patients. J Nucl Med 2003; 44: 240-3.
97. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Positron emission tomography drug products; safety and effectiveness of certain PET drugs for specific indications. http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/98fr/031000a.txt. Accessed June 28, 2011.
98. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Application Number NDA 20306. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda- docs/nda/2000/20306-FLUDEOXYGLUCOSE-APPROV.PDF. Accessed June 28, 2011.
99. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 510(k) summary of safety and effectiveness: POSITRACE combined PET/CT imaging system. August 25, 2010. US FDA; 2000.
100. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). National coverage determination (NCD) for PET (FDG) for breast cancer (220.6.10). https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coveragedatabase/ details/ncd-details.aspx?NCDId= 297&ncdver=1&NCAId=71&NcaName= Positron+Emission+Tomography+%28FDG%29+for+Breast+Cancer&IsPopup=y&bc= AAAAAAAABAAA&. Accessed June 28, 2011.
101. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). CMS manual system pub 100-03 Medicare National Coverage Determinations: Department of Health and Human Services; 2009.
102. Aetna Inc. Clinical policy bulletin: positron emission tomography (PET). Clinical Policy Bulletins. http://www.aetna.com/ cpb/medical/data/1-99/0071. html. Accessed June 28, 2011.
103. Baker LC, Atlas SW, Afendulis CC. Expanded use of imaging technology and the challenge of measuring value. Health Aff (Millwood) 2008; 27: 1467-78. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.27.6.1467.
104. Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Liu D, et al. Impact of positron emission tomography/computed tomography and positron emission tomography (PET) alone on expected management of patients with cancer: initial results from the National Oncologic PET Registry. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 2155-61. doi:10.1200/JCO.2007.14. 5631.
105. Duijm LE, Guit GL, Zaat JO, Koomen AR, Willebrand D. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of breast imaging in the detection of cancer. Br J Cancer 1997; 76: 377-81. doi:10.1038/bjc.1997.393. (Pubitemid 27308089)
106. Eltahir A, Jibril JA, Squair J, et al. The accuracy of "one-stop" diagnosis for 1,110 patients presenting to a symptomatic breast clinic. J R Coll Surg Edinb 1999; 44: 226-30. (Pubitemid 29377994)
107. Flobbe K, van der Linden ES, Kessels AG, van Engelshoven JM. Diagnostic value of radiological breast imaging in a non-screening population. Int J Cancer 2001; 92: 616-18. doi:10.1002/ijc.1235. (Pubitemid 32319438)
108. Moskowitz M. Breast Imaging. In: Donegan WL, Spratt JS, editors. Cancer of the breast. 4th ed. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders; 1995, p. 206-239.
109. Poplack SP, Tosteson AN, Grove MR, Wells WA, Carney PA. Mammography in 53,803 women from the New Hampshire mammography network. Radiology 2000; 217: 832-40.
110. Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, Bougatsos C, Chan BK, Humphrey L. Screening for breast cancer: an update for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: 727-37, W237-742.
111. Warner E, Hill K, Causer P, et al. Prospective study of breast cancer incidence in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation under surveillance with and without magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 1664-9. doi:10.1200/JCO.2009.27.0835.
112. Solin L, Orel S, Hwang W, Harris E, Schnall M. Relationship of breast magnetic resonance imaging to outcome after breastconservation treatment with radiation for women with earlystage invasive breast carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 386-91. doi:10.1200/JCO.2006.09.5448. (Pubitemid 351171689)
113. Kuhl C, Kuhn W, Braun M, Schild H. Pre-operative staging of breast cancer with breast MRI: one step forward, two steps back? Breast 2007; 16(Suppl 2), S34-44. doi:10.1016/j.breast.2007.07.014.
114. Bruening W, Launders J, Pinkney N, Kostinsky H, Schoelles K, Turkelson C. Effectiveness of noninvasive diagnostic tests for breast abnormalities. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2006.
115. Uematsu T, Sano M, Homma K, Shiina M, Kobayashi S. Three-dimensional helical CT of the breast: accuracy for measuring extent of breast cancer candidates for breast conserving surgery. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2001; 65: 249-57. doi:10.1023/A:1010641223012. (Pubitemid 32328546)
116. Uematsu T, Sano M, Homma K, Sato N. Comparison between high-resolution helical CT and pathology in breast examination. Acta Radiol 2002; 43: 385-90. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0455.2002.430408.x.
117. Sardanelli F, Calabrese M, Zandrino F, et al. Dynamic helical CT of breast tumors. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1998; 22: 398-407. doi:10.1097/00004728- 199805000-00010. (Pubitemid 28396732)
118. Yamamoto A, Fukushima H, Okamura R, et al. Dynamic helical CT mammography of breast cancer. Radiat Med 2006; 24: 35-40. doi:10.1007/BF02489987. (Pubitemid 43253886)
119. Peters NH, van Esser S, van den Bosch MA, et al. Preoperative MRI and surgical management in patients with nonpalpable breast cancer: the MONET - randomised controlled trial. Eur J Cancer 2011; 47: 879-86. doi:10.1016/j.ejca. 2010.11.035.
120. Pearson SD, Knudsen AB, Scherer RW, Weissberg J, Gazelle GS. Assessing the comparative effectiveness of a diagnostic technology: CT colonography. Health Aff (Millwood) 2008; 27: 1503-14. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.27.6.1503.
121. McCaffery KJ, Jansen J. Pre-operative MRI for women with newly diagnosed breast cancer: perspectives on clinician and patient decision-making when evidence is uncertain. Breast 2010; 19: 10-12. doi:10.1016/j.breast.2009.11.005.
122. Pandharipande PV, Gazelle GS. Comparative effectiveness research: what it means for radiology. Radiology 2009; 253: 600-5. doi:10.1148/radiol.2533091286.
123. American College of Radiology. ACR Clinical Research Center Annual Report 2009. http://www.acrin.org/Portals/0/Administrative/ACR-CRC-2010AnnualReport. pdf. Accessed August 3, 2011.
124. Society of Nuclear Medicine. SNM receives grant from AHRQ for comparative effectiveness research. http://www.snm.org/index.cfm?PageID=9645. Accessed August 3, 2011.
125. Berg WA, Madsen KS, Schilling K, et al. Breast cancer: comparative effectiveness of positron emission mammography and MR imaging in presurgical planning for the ipsilateral breast. Radiology 2011; 258: 59-72. doi:10.1148/radiol.10100454.
126. Sorenson C, Drummond M, Kanavos P, McGuire A. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): How does it work and what are the implications for the US? 2008 http://www.npcnow.org/App-Themes/Public/pdf/ Issues/pub-ebm/NICE%20Full%20Report%20Final%206-23-08.pdf Accessed January 3, 2012.
127. Whitlock EP, Lopez SA, Chang S, Helfand M, Eder M, Floyd N. AHRQ series paper 3: identifying, selecting, and refining topics for comparative effectiveness systematic reviews: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63: 491-501. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.03.008.