Benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts

Annals of Internal Medicine

Volumn 162, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 157-166

  Sprague, Brian L ^a   Stout, Natasha K ^b   Schechter, Clyde ^c   Van Ravesteyn, Nicolien T ^d   Cevik, Mucahit ^e   Alagoz, Oguzhan ^e   Lee, Christoph I ^f   Van Den Broek, Jeroen J ^d   Miglioretti, Diana L ^g   Mandelblatt, Jeanne S ^h   De Koning, Harry J ^d   Kerlikowske, Karla ⁱ   Lehman, Constance D ^f   Tosteson, Anna N A ^j  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT   (United States)

^b HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^c ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^e UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^h GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^j DARTMOUTH INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH POLICY AND CLINICAL PRACTICE   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST DENSITY; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; ECHOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; PATIENT HARM; POSTMENOPAUSE; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; QUALITY OF LIFE; RISK FACTOR; ADVERSE EFFECTS; ANATOMY AND HISTOLOGY; BIOPSY; BREAST; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; ECONOMICS; EPIDEMIOLOGY; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; MORTALITY; PROCEDURES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UNITED STATES;

AGED; BIOPSY; BREAST; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; RISK FACTORS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, MAMMARY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84922704709     PISSN: 00034819     EISSN: 15393704     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7326/M14-0692     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, Sun L, Stone J, Fishell E, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:227-36. [PMID: 17229950]
2. Tice JA, Cummings SR, Smith-Bindman R, Ichikawa L, Barlow WE, Kerlikowske K. Using clinical factors and mammographic breast density to estimate breast cancer risk: development and validation of a new predictive model. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:337-47. [PMID: 18316752]
3. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V. Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA. 1996;276:33-8. [PMID: 8667536]
4. Buist DS, Porter PL, Lehman C, Taplin SH, White E. Factors contributing to mammography failure in women aged 40-49 years. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96:1432-40. [PMID: 15467032]
5. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, Kerlikowske K, Rosenberg R, Rutter CM, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:168-75. [PMID: 12558355]
6. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, et al Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1773-83. [PMID: 16169887]
7. Dehkordy SF, Carlos RC. Dense breast legislation in the United States: state of the states. J Am Coll Radiol. 2013;10:899-902. [PMID: 24295937] doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2013.09.007
8. Lee CI, Bassett LW, Lehman CD. Breast density legislation and opportunities for patient-centered outcomes research. Radiology. 2012;264:632-6. [PMID: 22919037] doi:10.1148/radiol.12120184
9. th Cong. (2014). Accessed at www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5145 on 24 November 2014.
10. Sprague BL, Gangnon RE, Burt V, Trentham-Dietz A, Hampton JM, Wellman RD, et al. Prevalence of mammographically dense breasts in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106. [PMID: 25217577] doi:10.1093/jnci/dju255
11. th ed. Reston, VA: American Coll Radiology; 2013.
12. American College of Radiology. ACR Statement on Reporting Breast Density in Mammography Reports and Patient Summaries. 24 April 2012. Accessed at www.acr.org/About-Us/Media-Center/Position-Statements/Position-Statements-Folder/Statement-on-Reporting-Breast-Density-in-Mammography-Reports-and-Patient-Summaries on 30 June 2014.
13. Brower V. Breast density legislation fueling controversy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105:510-1. [PMID: 23524285] doi:10.1093/jnci/djt086
14. Smith ML. The density conundrum: does legislation help or hurt? J Am Coll Radiol. 2013;10:909-12. [PMID: 24295939] doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2013.09.012
15. D'Orsi CJ, Sickles EA. To seek perfection or not? That is the question [Editorial]. Radiology. 2012;265:9-11. [PMID: 22929336]
16. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, Böhm-Vélez M, et al ACRIN 6666 Investigators. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA. 2008;299:2151-63. [PMID: 18477782] doi:10.1001/jama.299.18.2151
17. Nothacker M, Duda V, Hahn M, Warm M, Degenhardt F, Madjar H, 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. [PMID: 19765317] doi:10.1186/1471-2407-9-335
18. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. 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 evaluations. Radiology. 2002;225:165-75. [PMID: 12355001]
19. Hooley RJ, Greenberg KL, Stackhouse RM, Geisel JL, Butler RS, Philpotts LE. Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41. Radiology. 2012;265:59-69. [PMID: 22723501]
20. Parris T, Wakefield D, Frimmer H. Real world performance of screening breast ultrasound following enactment of Connecticut Bill 458. Breast J. 2013;19:64-70. [PMID: 23240937] doi:10.1111/tbj.12053
21. Weigert J, Steenbergen S. The Connecticut experiment: the role of ultrasound in the screening of women with dense breasts. Breast J. 2012;18:517-22. [PMID: 23009208] doi:10.1111/tbj.12003
22. Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D, Jong RA, Pisano ED, Barr RG, et al ACRIN 6666 Investigators. Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA. 2012; 307:1394-404. [PMID: 22474203] doi:10.1001/jama.2012.388
23. Clarke LD, Plevritis SK, Boer R, Cronin KA, Feuer EJ. A comparative review of CISNET breast models used to analyze U.S. breast cancer incidence and mortality trends. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2006:96-105. [PMID: 17032899]
24. Mandelblatt JS, Cronin KA, Bailey S, Berry DA, de Koning HJ, Draisma G, et al Breast Cancer Working Group of the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network. Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: model estimates of potential benefits and harms. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:738-47. [PMID: 19920274] doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-10-200911170-00010
25. van Ravesteyn NT, Miglioretti DL, Stout NK, Lee SJ, Schechter CB, Buist DS, et al. Tipping the balance of benefits and harms to favor screening mammography starting at age 40 years: a comparative modeling study of risk. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156:609-17. [PMID: 22547470] doi:10.7326/0003-4819-156-9-201205010-00002
26. Tan SY, van Oortmarssen GJ, de Koning HJ, Boer R, Habbema JD. The MISCAN-Fadia continuous tumor growth model for breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2006:56-65. [PMID: 17032895]
27. Mandelblatt J, Schechter CB, Lawrence W, Yi B, Cullen J. The SPECTRUM population model of the impact of screening and treatment on U.S. breast cancer trends from 1975 to 2000: principles and practice of the model methods. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2006:47-55. [PMID: 17032894]
28. Fryback DG, Stout NK, Rosenberg MA, Trentham-Dietz A, Kuruchittham V, Remington PL. The Wisconsin Breast Cancer Epidemiology Simulation Model. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2006:37-47. [PMID: 17032893]
29. Feuer EJ. Modeling the impact of adjuvant therapy and screening mammography on U.S. breast cancer mortality between 1975 and 2000: introduction to the problem. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2006:2-6. [PMID: 17032887]
30. Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK, Fryback DG, Clarke L, Zelen M, et al Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) Collaborators. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1784-92. [PMID: 16251534]
31. Barlow WE, White E, Ballard-Barbash R, Vacek PM, Titus-Ernstoff L, Carney PA, et al. Prospective breast cancer risk prediction model for women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:1204-14. [PMID: 16954473]
32. Stout NK, Lee SJ, Schechter CB, Kerlikowske K, Alagoz O, Berry D, et al. Benefits, harms, and costs for breast cancer screening after US implementation of digital mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106:dju092. [PMID: 24872543] doi:10.1093/jnci/dju092
33. Gartlehner G, Thaler K, Chapman A, Kaminski-Hartenthaler A, Berzaczy D, Van Noord MG, et al. Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women at average risk. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;4:CD009632. [PMID: 23633376] doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009632.pub2
34. Hanmer J, Lawrence WF, Anderson JP, Kaplan RM, Fryback DG. Report of nationally representative values for the noninstitutionalized US adult population for 7 health-related quality-of-life scores. Med Decis Making. 2006;26:391-400. [PMID: 16855127]
35. Stout NK, Rosenberg MA, Trentham-Dietz A, Smith MA, Robinson SM, Fryback DG. Retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis of screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:774-82. [PMID: 16757702]
36. de Haes JC, de Koning HJ, van Oortmarssen GJ, van Agt HM, de Bruyn AE, van Der Maas PJ. The impact of a breast cancer screening programme on quality-adjusted life-years. Int J Cancer. 1991;49:538-44. [PMID: 1917155]
37. Yabroff KR, Lamont EB, Mariotto A, Warren JL, Topor M, Meekins A, et al. Cost of care for elderly cancer patients in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:630-41. [PMID: 18445825] doi: 10.1093/jnci/djn103
38. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, eds. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford Univ Pr; 1996.
39. Tosteson AN, Fryback DG, Hammond CS, Hanna LG, Grove MR, Brown M, et al. Consequences off alse-positive screening mammograms. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174:954-61. [PMID: 24756610] doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.981
40. Kelly KM, Dean J, Comulada WS, Lee SJ. Breast cancer detection using automated whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breasts. Eur Radiol. 2010;20:734-42. [PMID: 19727744] doi:10.1007/s00330-009-1588-y
41. Giuliano V, Giuliano C. Improved breast cancer detection in asymptomatic women using 3D-automated breast ultrasound in mammographically dense breasts. Clin Imaging. 2013;37:480-6. [PMID: 23116728] doi:10.1016/j.clinimag.2012.09.018
42. Kerlikowske K, Hubbard RA, Miglioretti DL, Geller BM, Yankaskas BC, Lehman CD, et al Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:493-502. [PMID: 22007043] doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00005