Search

Full-field digital mammography (FFDM) is proposed as an alternative to screen-film mammography (SFM). The ability to separate and optimize the acquisition, storage, and display of images may allow greater visualization of breast cancers at equal or lower radiation doses, especially in younger women and those with denser breasts. This is a synopsis of a systematic review by the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center. This updated systematic review primarily incorporated the results of the ACR Imaging Network(R) Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST), which provided results on 42,760 asymptomatic women who underwent both FFDM and SFM and showed with reasonable certainty that there was no difference in the accuracy of the 2 modalities for asymptomatic women in general, with some advantages of FFDM in certain subgroups. There were no strong, new studies on the use of digital mammography compared with film mammography in a diagnostic population. However, the DMIST results indicated that tumors detected by FFDM, but not by SFM, were likely to be invasive carcinomas or medium-grade to high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ. On the basis of the suppositions that these are the cancers of greatest interest and the ones more likely to be found in a diagnostic population and that the diagnostic population may be younger on average than the screening population, it was concluded that there is sufficient evidence to support the use of FFDM for diagnostic purposes.

Wireless capsule endoscopy is proposed in the management of patients with obscure gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, defined as persistent or recurrent GI bleeding without a cause identified on routine endoscopy. Obscure GI bleeding often originates from a small-intestinal abnormality, which presents diagnostic and therapeutic challenges because the small intestine is not easily visualized on conventional workup. This is a synopsis of a systematic review by the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center. Limited evidence shows that capsule endoscopy identified small-bowel lesions generally beyond the reach of push enteroscopy in 25% to 50% of patients and revealed additional diagnostic findings in 25% of patients compared with small-bowel barium radiographic studies. The authors conclude that in some cases, the information provided by capsule endoscopy in this specific patient population with obscure GI bleeding not diagnosed via conventional workup can lead to changes in management that would improve net health outcome.

Imaging technologies (e.g., magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) have been proposed as noninvasive alternatives to surgical biopsy techniques in the follow-up of women with suspicious primary breast lesions. This article is a synopsis of a systematic review by the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center. According to the best available evidence, the sensitivity and specificity of MRI ranged from 91% to 99% and from 31% to 91%, respectively. Predictive values were calculated by using three likely scenarios of diagnostic performance and disease prevalence. The potential harm of failing to diagnose or delaying diagnosis of breast cancer in patients with false-negative MRI results is of significant concern. We conclude that the potential benefit of sparing some patients from unnecessary biopsy by using noninvasive imaging does not outweigh the potential harm of a missed or delayed diagnosis of breast cancer.

Evidence-based technology assessment can help answer critical questions concerning the safety, effectiveness, and appropriate uses of medical technologies. This practice can be used to avoid the promotion of ineffective technologies and the premature diffusion of technologies that have not been demonstrated to improve patient-oriented health outcomes, both of which draw resources from effective and appropriate medical care. This article describes the process of such evaluation as undertaken by the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center. The key components of the assessment process are described, including the problem formulation and evaluation of study quality, as well as the process by which the available evidence is judged against the five Technology Evaluation Center criteria.