Cost-effectiveness of alternating magnetic resonance imaging and digital mammography screening in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers

Cancer

Volumn 119, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 1266-1276

  Cott Chubiz, Jessica E ^a   Lee, Janie M ^a,b   Gilmore, Michael E ^a   Kong, Chung Y ^a,b   Lowry, Kathryn P ^a,b   Halpern, Elkan F ^a,b   McMahon, Pamela M ^a,b   Ryan, Paula D ^d   Gazelle, G Scott ^a,b,c  

^a MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^c HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^d FOX CHASE CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

BRCA1 gene; BRCA2 gene; breast neoplasms; cancer screening; cost effectiveness

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ASYMPTOMATIC DISEASE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; COMPUTER MODEL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST CONTROL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; GENE MUTATION; HEALTH CARE COST; MORTALITY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; ONCOGENE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; TUMOR SUPPRESSOR GENE;

ADULT; AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; GENES, BRCA1; GENES, BRCA2; GENETIC PREDISPOSITION TO DISEASE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; MONTE CARLO METHOD; MUTATION; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS;

EID: 84874749018     PISSN: 0008543X     EISSN: 10970142     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.27864     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Antoniou A, Pharoah PD, Narod S, et al. Average risks of breast and ovarian cancer associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations detected in case series unselected for family history: a combined analysis of 22 studies. Am J Hum Genet. 2003; 72: 1117-1130.
2. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Breast Cancer. Version 2. Jenkintown, PA: National Comprehensive Cancer Network; 2011.
3. Lee CH, Dershaw DD, 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.
4. Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007; 57: 75-89.
5. Warner E, Messersmith H, Causer P, et al. Systematic review: using magnetic resonance imaging to screen women at high risk for breast cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2008; 148: 671-679.
6. Le-Petross HT, Whitman GJ, Atchley DP, et al. Effectiveness of alternating mammography and magnetic resonance imaging for screening women with deleterious BRCA mutations at high risk of breast cancer. Cancer. 2011; 117: 3900-3907.
7. Lowry KP, Lee JM, Kong CY, et al. Annual screening strategies in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers: a comparative-effectiveness analysis. Cancer. 2012; 118: 2021-2030.
8. Smith-Bindman R, Miglioretti DL, Johnson E, et al. Use of diagnostic imaging studies and associated radiation exposure for patients enrolled in large integrated health care systems, 1996-2010. JAMA. 2012; 307: 2400-2409.
9. Dinan MA, Curtis LH, Hammill BG, et al. Changes in the use and costs of diagnostic imaging among Medicare beneficiaries with cancer, 1999-2006. JAMA. 2010; 303: 1625-1631.
10. Owens DK, Qaseem A, Chou R, et al. High-value, cost-conscious health care: concepts for clinicians to evaluate the benefits, harms, and costs of medical interventions. Ann Intern Med. 2011; 154: 174-180.
11. Qaseem A, Alguire P, Dallas P, et al. Appropriate use of screening and diagnostic tests to foster high-value, cost-conscious care. Ann Intern Med. 2012; 156: 147-149.
12. Lee JM, Kopans DB, McMahon PM, et al. Breast cancer screening in BRCA1 mutation carriers: effectiveness of MR imaging-Markov Monte Carlo decision analysis. Radiology. 2008; 246: 763-771.
13. Lee JM, McMahon PM, Kong CY, et al. Cost-effectiveness of breast MR imaging and screen-film mammography for screening BRCA1 gene mutation carriers. Radiology. 2010; 254: 793-800.
14. Kong CY, McMahon PM, Gazelle GS,. Calibration of disease simulation model using an engineering approach. Value Health. 2009; 12: 521-529.
15. 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: 1773-1783.
16. Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology. 2008; 246: 376-383.
17. Leach MO, Boggis CR, Dixon AK, 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.
18. Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, 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.
19. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, 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.
20. Sardanelli F, Podo F, D'Agnolo 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.
21. Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA, et al. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA. 2004; 292: 1317-1325.
22. Hendrick RE, Pisano ED, Averbukh A, et al. Comparison of acquisition parameters and breast dose in digital mammography and screen-film mammography in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010; 194: 362-369.
23. Preston DL, Mattsson A, Holmberg E, et al. Radiation effects on breast cancer risk: a pooled analysis of 8 cohorts. Radiat Res. 2002; 158: 220-235.
24. Sickles EA, Miglioretti DL, Ballard-Barbash R, et al. Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography. Radiology. 2005; 235: 775-790.
25. Rosenberg RD, Yankaskas BC, Abraham LA, et al. Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. Radiology. 2006; 241: 55-66.
26. Gutwein LG, Ang DN, Liu H, et al. Utilization of minimally invasive breast biopsy for the evaluation of suspicious breast lesions. Am J Surg. 2011; 202: 127-132.
27. Clarke-Pearson EM, Jacobson AF, Boolbol SK, et al. Quality assurance initiative at 1 institution for minimally invasive breast biopsy as the initial diagnostic technique. J Am Coll Surg. 2009; 208: 75-78.
28. Lakhani SR, Van De Vijver MJ, Jacquemier J, et al. The pathology of familial breast cancer: predictive value of immunohistochemical markers estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, HER-2, and p53 in patients with mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. J Clin Oncol. 2002; 20: 2310-2318.
29. Mavaddat N, Barrowdale D, Andrulis IL, et al. Pathology of breast and ovarian cancers among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: results from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012; 21: 134-147.
30. Allred DC, Bryant J, Land S, et al. Estrogen receptor expression as a predictive marker of the effectiveness of tamoxifen in the treatment of DCIS: findings from NSABP Protocol B-24 [abstract]. Paper presented at: San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, December 11-14, 2002; San Antonio, TX.
31. Honrado E, Benitez J, Palacios J,. Histopathology of BRCA1- and BRCA2-associated breast cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2006; 59: 27-39.
32. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Frequency of node-positivity and metastatic cancer by primary tumor size and method of detection [deidentified data obtained directly from BCSC, September 18, 2006]. Website: http://www.breastscreening.cancer.gov/.
33. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 2005; 365: 1687-1717.
34. Arias E,. United States life tables, 2006. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2010; 58: 1-40.
35. Horner MJ, Ries LAG, Krapcho M, et al. eds. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2006 [based on the November 2008 SEER data submission, available online 2009]. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2009.
36. Department of Health and Human Services; Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/apps/physician-fee-schedule/overview.aspx. Accessed September 14, 2010.
37. US Department of Labor; Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/. Accessed October 21, 2010.
38. Oestreicher N, Ramsey SD, McCune JS, et al. The cost of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early stage breast carcinoma. Cancer. 2005; 104: 2054-2062.
39. Mandelblatt JS, Schechter CB, Yabroff KR, et al. Toward optimal screening strategies for older women. Costs, benefits, and harms of breast cancer screening by age, biology, and health status. J Gen Intern Med. 2005; 20: 487-496.
40. Red Book. Montvale, NJ: Thomson Healthcare; 2007.
41. Levinsky NG, Yu W, Ash A, et al. Influence of age on Medicare expenditures and medical care in the last year of life. JAMA. 2001; 286: 1349-1355.
42. Secker-Walker RH, Vacek PM, Hooper GJ, et al. Screening for breast cancer: time, travel, and out-of-pocket expenses. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999; 91: 702-708.
43. US Department of Labor; Bureau of Labor Statistics. National Compensation Survey, 2006. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/ncs/data.htm. Accessed on October 21, 2010.
44. Lauzier S, Maunsell E, Drolet M, et al. Wage losses in the year after breast cancer: extent and determinants among Canadian women. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008; 100: 321-332.
45. Hayman JA, Langa KM, Kabeto MU, et al. Estimating the cost of informal caregiving for elderly patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2001; 19: 3219-3225.
46. Kurian AW, Thompson RN, Gaw AF, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of adjuvant trastuzumab regimens in early HER2/neu-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25: 634-641.
47. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al. eds. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
48. Rebbeck TR, Kauff ND, Domchek SM,. Meta-analysis of risk reduction estimates associated with risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009; 101: 80-87.
49. Kauff ND, Satagopan JM, Robson ME, et al. Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. N Engl J Med. 2002; 346: 1609-1615.
50. Swan JS, Lawrence WF, Roy J,. Process utility in breast biopsy. Med Decis Making. 2006; 26: 347-359.
51. Feig S,. Cost-effectiveness of mammography, MRI, and ultrasonography for breast cancer screening. Radiol Clin North Am. 2010; 48: 879-891.
52. Plevritis SK, Kurian AW, Sigal BM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of screening BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with breast magnetic resonance imaging. JAMA. 2006; 295: 2374-2384.
53. Grann VR, Patel PR, Jacobson JS, et al. Comparative effectiveness of screening and prevention strategies among BRCA1/2-affected mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011; 125: 837-847.
54. Pijpe A, Andrieu N, Easton DF, et al. Exposure to diagnostic radiation and risk of breast cancer among carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations: retrospective cohort study (GENE-RAD-RISK) [serial online]. BMJ. 2012; 345: e5660.
55. Rijnsburger AJ, Obdeijn IM, Kaas R, et al. BRCA1-associated breast cancers present differently from BRCA2-associated and familial cases: long-term follow-up of the Dutch MRISC Screening Study. J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28: 5265-5273.
56. Snyder L,. American College of Physicians Ethics Manual: 6th ed. Ann Intern Med. 2012; 156: 73-104.