IMPORTANCE Increased use of computed tomography (CT) in pediatrics raises concerns about cancer risk from exposure to ionizing radiation. OBJECTIVES To quantify trends in the use of CT in pediatrics ...and the associated radiation exposure and cancer risk. DESIGN Retrospective observational study. SETTING Seven US health care systems. PARTICIPANTS The use of CT was evaluated for children younger than 15 years of age from 1996 to 2010, including 4 857 736 child-years of observation. Radiation doses were calculated for 744 CT scans performed between 2001 and 2011. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Rates of CT use, organ and effective doses, and projected lifetime attributable risks of cancer. RESULTS The use of CT doubled for children younger than 5 years of age and tripled for children 5 to 14 years of age between 1996 and 2005, remained stable between 2006 and 2007, and then began to decline. Effective doses varied from 0.03 to 69.2 mSv per scan. An effective dose of 20 mSv or higher was delivered by 14% to 25% of abdomen/pelvis scans, 6% to 14% of spine scans, and 3% to 8% of chest scans. Projected lifetime attributable risks of solid cancer were higher for younger patients and girls than for older patients and boys, and they were also higher for patients who underwent CT scans of the abdomen/pelvis or spine than for patients who underwent other types of CT scans. For girls, a radiation-induced solid cancer is projected to result from every 300 to 390 abdomen/pelvis scans, 330 to 480 chest scans, and 270 to 800 spine scans, depending on age. The risk of leukemia was highest from head scans for children younger than 5 years of age at a rate of 1.9 cases per 10 000 CT scans. Nationally, 4 million pediatric CT scans of the head, abdomen/pelvis, chest, or spine performed each year are projected to cause 4870 future cancers. Reducing the highest 25% of doses to the median might prevent 43% of these cancers. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The increased use of CT in pediatrics, combined with the wide variability in radiation doses, has resulted in many children receiving a high-dose examination. Dose-reduction strategies targeted to the highest quartile of doses could dramatically reduce the number of radiation-induced cancers.
IMPORTANCE: After the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved computer-aided detection (CAD) for mammography in 1998, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) provided ...increased payment in 2002, CAD technology disseminated rapidly. Despite sparse evidence that CAD improves accuracy of mammographic interpretations and costs over $400 million a year, CAD is currently used for most screening mammograms in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To measure performance of digital screening mammography with and without CAD in US community practice. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We compared the accuracy of digital screening mammography interpreted with (n = 495 818) vs without (n = 129 807) CAD from 2003 through 2009 in 323 973 women. Mammograms were interpreted by 271 radiologists from 66 facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Linkage with tumor registries identified 3159 breast cancers in 323 973 women within 1 year of the screening. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Mammography performance (sensitivity, specificity, and screen-detected and interval cancers per 1000 women) was modeled using logistic regression with radiologist-specific random effects to account for correlation among examinations interpreted by the same radiologist, adjusting for patient age, race/ethnicity, time since prior mammogram, examination year, and registry. Conditional logistic regression was used to compare performance among 107 radiologists who interpreted mammograms both with and without CAD. RESULTS: Screening performance was not improved with CAD on any metric assessed. Mammography sensitivity was 85.3% (95% CI, 83.6%-86.9%) with and 87.3% (95% CI, 84.5%-89.7%) without CAD. Specificity was 91.6% (95% CI, 91.0%-92.2%) with and 91.4% (95% CI, 90.6%-92.0%) without CAD. There was no difference in cancer detection rate (4.1 in 1000 women screened with and without CAD). Computer-aided detection did not improve intraradiologist performance. Sensitivity was significantly decreased for mammograms interpreted with vs without CAD in the subset of radiologists who interpreted both with and without CAD (odds ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29-0.97). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Computer-aided detection does not improve diagnostic accuracy of mammography. These results suggest that insurers pay more for CAD with no established benefit to women.
Purpose To establish performance benchmarks for modern screening digital mammography and assess performance trends over time in U.S. community practice. Materials and Methods This HIPAA-compliant, ...institutional review board-approved study measured the performance of digital screening mammography interpreted by 359 radiologists across 95 facilities in six Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) registries. The study included 1 682 504 digital screening mammograms performed between 2007 and 2013 in 792 808 women. Performance measures were calculated according to the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, 5th edition, and were compared with published benchmarks by the BCSC, the National Mammography Database, and performance recommendations by expert opinion. Benchmarks were derived from the distribution of performance metrics across radiologists and were presented as 50th (median), 10th, 25th, 75th, and 90th percentiles, with graphic presentations using smoothed curves. Results Mean screening performance measures were as follows: abnormal interpretation rate (AIR), 11.6 (95% confidence interval CI: 11.5, 11.6); cancers detected per 1000 screens, or cancer detection rate (CDR), 5.1 (95% CI: 5.0, 5.2); sensitivity, 86.9% (95% CI: 86.3%, 87.6%); specificity, 88.9% (95% CI: 88.8%, 88.9%); false-negative rate per 1000 screens, 0.8 (95% CI: 0.7, 0.8); positive predictive value (PPV) 1, 4.4% (95% CI: 4.3%, 4.5%); PPV2, 25.6% (95% CI: 25.1%, 26.1%); PPV3, 28.6% (95% CI: 28.0%, 29.3%); cancers stage 0 or 1, 76.9%; minimal cancers, 57.7%; and node-negative invasive cancers, 79.4%. Recommended CDRs were achieved by 92.1% of radiologists in community practice, and 97.1% achieved recommended ranges for sensitivity. Only 59.0% of radiologists achieved recommended AIRs, and only 63.0% achieved recommended levels of specificity. Conclusion The majority of radiologists in the BCSC surpass cancer detection recommendations for screening mammography; however, AIRs continue to be higher than the recommended rate for almost half of radiologists interpreting screening mammograms.
RSNA, 2016 Online supplemental material is available for this article.
IMPORTANCE: The risk of malignant ovarian cancer associated with simple cysts is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the risk of ovarian cancer based on ultrasonographic characteristics of ovarian ...masses, including simple cysts, in a large unselected population. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a nested case-control study of patients enrolled in Kaiser Permanente Washington, a large integrated health care system in Washington State. Participants were 72 093 women who underwent pelvic ultrasonography between January 1, 1997, and December 31, 2008. Analysis was completed in April 2017. EXPOSURES: Ultrasonographic characteristics of ovarian masses measured in 1043 women, and also, using weights derived from the sampling strategy, estimated frequencies for the entire cohort. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Malignant ovarian cancer, identified through December 31, 2011, by cancer registry linkage. RESULTS: Among 210 women who were diagnosed as having ovarian cancer, 49 were younger than 50 years, and 161 were 50 years or older. Ultrasonography findings were predictive of cancer (C statistic, 0.89). The risk of cancer was significantly elevated in women with complex cysts or solid masses, with likelihood ratios relative to women with normal ovaries ranging from 8 to 74 and the 3-year risk of cancer ranging from 9 to 430 cases per 1000 women based on patient age and ultrasonography findings. In contrast, the 23.8% of women younger than 50 years and the 13.4% of women 50 years or older with simple cysts were not at a significantly increased risk of ovarian cancer compared with women with normal ovaries. Likelihood ratios associated with the detection of a simple cyst were 0.00 in women younger than 50 years (no cancers were identified) and 0.10 (95% CI, 0.01-0.48) in women 50 years or older, and the absolute 3-year risk of cancer ranged from 0 to 0.5 cases per 1000 women. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: According to this study, the ultrasonographic appearance of ovarian masses is strongly associated with a woman’s risk of ovarian cancer. Simple cysts are not associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer, whereas complex cysts or solid masses are associated with a significantly increased risk of ovarian cancer.
Little has been published characterizing specific patterns of the dramatic rise in diagnostic imaging during the past decade. In a large health plan, 377,048 patients underwent 4.9 million diagnostic ...tests from 1997 through 2006. Cross-sectional imaging nearly doubled over those years, rising from 260 to 478 examinations per thousand enrollees per year. Imaging with computed tomography (CT) doubled, and imaging with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) tripled. Cross-sectional studies added to existing studies instead of replacing them, and the annual per enrollee cost of radiology imaging more than doubled. The dramatic rise in imaging raises both costs and radiation exposure.
Full text
Available for:
CEKLJ, DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, ODKLJ, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Screening mammography has lower sensitivity and specificity in women with dense breasts, who experience higher breast cancer risk.
To perform a systematic review of reproducibility of Breast Imaging ...Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) density categorization and test performance and clinical outcomes of supplemental screening with breast ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in women with dense breasts and negative mammography results.
MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane database from January 2000 to July 2015.
Studies reporting BI-RADS density reproducibility or supplemental screening results for women with dense breasts.
Quality assessment and abstraction of 24 studies from 7 countries; 6 studies were good-quality.
Three good-quality studies reported reproducibility of BI-RADS density; 13% to 19% of women were recategorized between "dense" and "nondense" at subsequent screening. Two good-quality studies reported that sensitivity of ultrasonography for women with negative mammography results ranged from 80% to 83%; specificity, from 86% to 94%; and positive predictive value (PPV), from 3% to 8%. The sensitivity of MRI ranged from 75% to 100%; specificity, from 78% to 94%; and PPV, from 3% to 33% (3 studies). Rates of additional cancer detection with ultrasonography were 4.4 per 1000 examinations (89% to 93% invasive); recall rates were 14%. Use of MRI detected 3.5 to 28.6 additional cancer cases per 1000 examinations (34% to 86% invasive); recall rates were 12% to 24%. Rates of cancer detection with DBT increased by 1.4 to 2.5 per 1000 examinations compared with mammography alone (3 studies). Recall rates ranged from 7% to 11%, compared with 7% to 17% with mammography alone. No studies examined breast cancer outcomes.
Good-quality evidence was sparse. Studies were small and CIs were wide. Definitions of recall were absent or inconsistent.
Density ratings may be recategorized on serial screening mammography. Supplemental screening of women with dense breasts finds additional breast cancer but increases false-positive results. Use of DBT may reduce recall rates. Effects of supplemental screening on breast cancer outcomes remain unclear.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
National legislation is under consideration that would require women with mammographically dense breasts to be informed of their breast density and encouraged to discuss supplemental breast cancer ...screening with their health care providers. The number of US women potentially affected by this legislation is unknown.
We determined the mammographic breast density distribution by age and body mass index (BMI) using data from 1518 599 mammograms conducted from 2007 through 2010 at mammography facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC). We applied these breast density distributions to age- and BMI-specific counts of the US female population derived from the 2010 US Census and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to estimate the number of US women with dense breasts.
Overall, 43.3% (95% confidence interval CI = 43.1% to 43.4%) of women 40 to 74 years of age had heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts, and this proportion was inversely associated with age and BMI. Based on the age and BMI distribution of US women, we estimated that 27.6 million women (95% CI = 27.5 to 27.7 million) aged 40 to 74 years in the United States have heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts. Women aged 40 to 49 years (N = 12.3 million) accounted for 44.3% of this group.
The prevalence of dense breasts among US women of common breast cancer screening ages exceeds 25 million. Policymakers and healthcare providers should consider this large prevalence when debating breast density notification legislation and designing strategies to ensure that women who are notified have opportunities to evaluate breast cancer risk and discuss and pursue supplemental screening options if deemed appropriate.
We determined whether the association between breast density and breast cancer risk and cancer severity differs according to menopausal status and postmenopausal hormone therapy (HT) use.
We ...collected data on 587,369 women who underwent 1,349,027 screening mammography examinations; 14,090 women were diagnosed with breast cancer. We calculated 5-year breast cancer risk from a survival model for subgroups of women classified by their Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) breast density, age, menopausal status, and current HT use, assuming a body mass index of 25 kg/m(2). Odds of advanced (ie, IIb, III, IV) versus early (ie, I, IIa) stage invasive cancer was calculated according to BIRADS density.
Breast cancer risk was low among women with low density (BIRADS-1): women age 55 to 59 years, 5-year risk was 0.8% (95% CI, 0.6 to 0.9%) for non-HT users and 0.9% (95% CI, 0.7% to 1.1%) for estrogen and estrogen plus progestin users. Breast cancer risk was high among women with very high density (BIRADS-4), particularly estrogen plus progestin users: women age 55 to 59 years, 5-year risk was 2.4% (95% CI, 2.0% to 2.8%) for non-HT users, 3.0% (95% CI, 2.6% to 3.5%) for estrogen users, and 4.2% (95% CI, 3.7% to 4.6%) for estrogen plus progestin users. Advanced-stage breast cancer risk was increased 1.7-fold for postmenopausal HT users who had very high density (BIRADS-4) compared to those with average density (BIRADS-2).
Postmenopausal women with high breast density are at increased risk of breast cancer and should be aware of the added risk of taking HT, especially estrogen plus progestin.
IMPORTANCE: Medical imaging increased rapidly from 2000 to 2006, but trends in recent years have not been analyzed. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate recent trends in medical imaging. DESIGN, SETTING, AND ...PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study of patterns of medical imaging between 2000 and 2016 among 16 million to 21 million patients enrolled annually in 7 US integrated and mixed-model insurance health care systems and for individuals receiving care in Ontario, Canada. EXPOSURES: Calendar year and country (United States vs Canada). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Use of computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), ultrasound, and nuclear medicine imaging. Annual and relative imaging rates by imaging modality, country, and age (children <18 years, adults 18-64 years, and older adults ≥65 years). RESULTS: Overall, 135 774 532 imaging examinations were included; 5 439 874 (4%) in children, 89 635 312 (66%) in adults, and 40 699 346 (30%) in older adults. Among adults and older adults, imaging rates were significantly higher in 2016 vs 2000 for all imaging modalities other than nuclear medicine. For example, among older adults, CT imaging rates were 428 per 1000 person-years in 2016 vs 204 per 1000 in 2000 in US health care systems and 409 per 1000 vs 161 per 1000 in Ontario; for MRI, 139 per 1000 vs 62 per 1000 in the United States and 89 per 1000 vs 13 per 1000 in Ontario; and for ultrasound, 495 per 1000 vs 324 per 1000 in the United States and 580 per 1000 vs 332 per 1000 in Ontario. Annual growth in imaging rates among US adults and older adults slowed over time for CT (from an 11.6% annual percentage increase among adults and 9.5% among older adults in 2000-2006 to 3.7% among adults in 2013-2016 and 5.2% among older adults in 2014-2016) and for MRI (from 11.4% in 2000-2004 in adults and 11.3% in 2000-2005 in older adults to 1.3% in 2007-2016 in adults and 2.2% in 2005-2016 in older adults). Patterns in Ontario were similar. Among children, annual growth for CT stabilized or declined (United States: from 10.1% in 2000-2005 to 0.8% in 2013-2016; Ontario: from 3.3% in 2000-2006 to −5.3% in 2006-2016), but patterns for MRI were similar to adults. Changes in annual growth in ultrasound were smaller among adults and children in the United States and Ontario compared with CT and MRI. Nuclear medicine imaging declined in adults and children after 2006. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: From 2000 to 2016 in 7 US integrated and mixed-model health care systems and in Ontario, rates of CT and MRI use continued to increase among adults, but at a slower pace in more recent years. In children, imaging rates continued to increase except for CT, which stabilized or declined in more recent periods. Whether the observed imaging utilization was appropriate or was associated with improved patient outcomes is unknown.
Controversy persists about optimal mammography screening strategies.
To evaluate screening outcomes, taking into account advances in mammography and treatment of breast cancer.
Collaboration of 6 ...simulation models using national data on incidence, digital mammography performance, treatment effects, and other-cause mortality.
United States.
Average-risk U.S. female population and subgroups with varying risk, breast density, or comorbidity.
Eight strategies differing by age at which screening starts (40, 45, or 50 years) and screening interval (annual, biennial, and hybrid annual for women in their 40s and biennial thereafter). All strategies assumed 100% adherence and stopped at age 74 years.
Benefits (breast cancer-specific mortality reduction, breast cancer deaths averted, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years); number of mammograms used; harms (false-positive results, benign biopsies, and overdiagnosis); and ratios of harms (or use) and benefits (efficiency) per 1000 screens.
Biennial strategies were consistently the most efficient for average-risk women. Biennial screening from age 50 to 74 years avoided a median of 7 breast cancer deaths versus no screening; annual screening from age 40 to 74 years avoided an additional 3 deaths, but yielded 1988 more false-positive results and 11 more overdiagnoses per 1000 women screened. Annual screening from age 50 to 74 years was inefficient (similar benefits, but more harms than other strategies). For groups with a 2- to 4-fold increased risk, annual screening from age 40 years had similar harms and benefits as screening average-risk women biennially from 50 to 74 years. For groups with moderate or severe comorbidity, screening could stop at age 66 to 68 years.
Other imaging technologies, polygenic risk, and nonadherence were not considered.
Biennial screening for breast cancer is efficient for average-risk populations. Decisions about starting ages and intervals will depend on population characteristics and the decision makers' weight given to the harms and benefits of screening.
National Institutes of Health.
PDF
