Search

Objective: Identify the proportion of patients presenting for diagnostic breast imaging with clinically insignificant breast pain who are eligible for screening mammography and analyze the impact of routing these patients to screening on resource utilization, healthcare spending and cancer detection., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 100 consecutive women ≥40 years old without a history of breast cancer who underwent diagnostic mammogram and breast ultrasound for clinically insignificant breast pain from 1/2022 to 4/2022. Patients were screen-eligible if their last bilateral mammogram was over 12 months prior to presentation. Patients with only screening views during diagnostic mammography were assumed to have a negative/benign screening mammogram. Costs were calculated using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician Fee Schedule., Results: 68 of 100 patients with breast pain were screen-eligible at time of diagnostic imaging. With a screen first approach, 47/68 would have had negative/benign screening mammograms, allowing for the availability of 47 diagnostic breast imaging appointments. The current workflow led to 100 diagnostic mammograms and ultrasounds, 29 follow-up ultrasounds, and 10 image-guided biopsies, with a total cost of $42,872.41. With a screen first approach, there would have been 68 screening mammograms, 53 diagnostic mammograms and ultrasounds, 10 follow-up ultrasounds, and 9 image-guided biopsies, with a total cost of $34,231.60. Two cancers were identified, both associated with suspicious mammographic findings. None would have been missed in a screen-first approach., Discussion: Identifying screen-eligible patients with clinically insignificant breast pain and routing them to screening mammogram improves radiology resource allocation and decreases healthcare spending without missing any cancers., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) may improve sensitivity in population screening. However, evidence is currently limited on the performance of DBT in patients at a higher risk of breast cancer. This systematic review compares the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of DBT, digital mammography (DM), and ultrasound, for breast cancer detection in women with dense breasts and additional risk factors., Methods: Medline, Embase, and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews via OvidSP were searched to identify literature from 2010 to August 21, 2023. Selection of studies, data extraction, and quality assessment (using QUADAS-2 and CHEERS) were completed in duplicate. Findings were summarised descriptively and narratively., Results: Twenty-six studies met pre-specified inclusion criteria. In women with breast symptoms or recalled for investigation of screen-detected findings (19 studies), DBT may be more accurate than DM. For example, in symptomatic women, the sensitivity of DBT + DM ranged from 82.8 % to 92.5 % versus 56.8 %-81.3 % for mammography (DM/synthesised images). However, most studies had a high risk of bias due to participant selection. Evidence regarding DBT in women with a personal or family history of breast cancer, for DBT versus ultrasound alone, and cost-effectiveness of DBT was limited., Conclusions: In women with dense breasts and additional risk factors for breast cancer, evidence is limited about the accuracy of DBT compared to other imaging modalities, particularly in those with personal or family history of breast cancer. Future research in this population should consider head-to-head comparisons of imaging modalities to determine the relative effectiveness of these imaging tests., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO registration number CRD42021236470., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

BACKGROUND. Ultrasound may be sufficient in the diagnostic evaluation of many noncalcified lesions recalled from screening digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). In some scenarios, omission of diagnostic mammography can save health care costs. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a strategy of performing ultrasound first versus diagnostic mammography first in the diagnostic evaluation of noncalcified lesions recalled from screening DBT. METHODS. Decision tree analysis was performed to compare ultrasound first versus diagnostic mammography first in the diagnostic evaluation of DBT-recalled noncalcified lesions from a U.S. health care system perspective with a 40-year horizon. The analysis used probabilities and prevalence information from published single-institution prospective data, additional literature-derived estimates of diagnostic test performance, and Medicare-allowable reimbursement rates. Health states were represented in a Markov chain model. For each strategy, the total cost and effectiveness (expressed in quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) were estimated. Cost-effectiveness was assessed through incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and incremental net monetary benefit, with use of a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of US$100,000 per QALY gained. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed to estimate the impact of different input parameters, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis with Monte Carlo simulations was conducted to estimate the impact of combined uncertainty across parameters. RESULTS. In the base-case scenario, for diagnostic evaluation of DBT-recalled noncalcified lesions, a strategy of performing ultrasound first versus diagnostic mammography first resulted in more cost savings (total cost, US$17,672 vs US$18,323) and greater cost-effectiveness (QALYs, 23.1309 vs 23.1306) over the 40-year horizon. The ultrasound-first strategy resulted in an ICER of -2,170,000 (expressed as U.S. dollars per QALY) and an incremental net monetary benefit of US$681 versus the diagnostic mammography-first strategy. Therefore, performing ultrasound first was deemed the more cost-effective strategy at the WTP threshold. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, the most important driver of cost-effectiveness was lost utility from delayed diagnosis, followed by the relative sensitivities of ultrasound and diagnostic mammography. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, ultrasound first was the better strategy in 93.0% of iterations. CONCLUSION. A strategy of performing ultrasound first, with or without diagnostic mammography, is more cost-effective than a traditional strategy of conducting diagnostic mammography first. CLINICAL IMPACT. This cost-effectiveness analysis supports the growing prioritization of ultrasound as the primary method for evaluating DBT-recalled noncalcified lesions.

Objective: To evaluate the clinical performance and financial costs of breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI) as a biopsy-reducing problem-solving strategy in patients with inconclusive diagnostic imaging findings., Methods: A retrospective analysis of all patients for whom BSGI was utilized for inconclusive imaging findings following complete diagnostic mammographic and sonographic evaluation between January 2013 and December 2018 was performed. Positive BSGI findings were correlated and biopsied with either US or stereotactic technique with confirmation by clip location and pathology. After a negative BSGI result, patients were followed for a minimum of 24 months or considered lost to follow-up and excluded (22 patients). Results of further imaging studies, biopsies, and pathology results were analyzed. Net savings of avoided biopsies were calculated based on average Medicare charges., Results: Four hundred and forty female patients from 30 to 95 years (mean 55 years) of age were included in our study. BSGI demonstrated a negative predictive value (NPV) of 98.4% (314/319) and a positive predictive value for biopsy of 35.5% (43/121). The overall sensitivity was 89.6% (43/48), and the specificity was 80.1% (314/392). In total, 78 false positive but only 5 false negative BSGI findings were identified. Six hundred and twenty-one inconclusive imaging findings were analyzed with BSGI and a total of 309 biopsies were avoided. Estimated net financial savings from avoided biopsies were $646 897., Conclusion: In the management of patients with inconclusive imaging findings on mammography or ultrasonography, BSGI is a problem-solving imaging modality with high NPV that helps avoid costs of image-guided biopsies., (© Society of Breast Imaging 2024. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Purpose: Breast cancer is the leading type of cancer diagnosed and the second leading cause of cancer-related death in Ghana. Mammography and ultrasound have proven benefits in the early detection of breast cancer. This study evaluates mammography, breast ultrasound, and radiology work force availability throughout Ghana., Methods: A survey was administered to all hospitals in Ghana from November 2020 to October 2021. Mammography, breast ultrasound services, and the number of radiologists were assessed. For mammography, the number performed per month, cost incurred by the patient, where images were read, and how long it took to receive reports were also assessed. Health Facilities Regulatory Authority records on diagnostic centers were obtained to identify additional in-country breast imaging services., Results: Three hundred and twenty-eight of 346 hospitals participated in the survey (95%). Only 21 hospitals reported on-site mammography. One hospital reported performing >100 mammographies per month. The average cost to the patient ranged from 100 to 500 Cedis ($17-87 US dollars [USD]), although three hospitals performed mammography at no cost. An additional 10 mammography machines were identified at diagnostic centers throughout the country, with 41.3% of the female population living within 1 hour of mammography services. There were 135 hospital-based breast ultrasound services identified with 69.5% of the female population living within 1 hour of these services. There were an additional 190 ultrasound machines at diagnostic centers. There were 96 in-country radiologists identified., Conclusion: Although there is limited availability and utilization of mammography in Ghana, there is more readily available ultrasonography. A focus on increasing breast cancer early diagnostic capabilities with breast ultrasound should be prioritized in addition to further expansion of the radiology workforce.

To evaluate the implementations of Cancer Screening Program in Urban Hebei and to model the cost-effectiveness of a risk-based breast Cancer Screening Program. Women aged 40-74 years were invited to participate the Cancer Screening Program in Urban Hebei form 2016 to 2020 by completing questionnaires to collect information about breast cancer exposure. Clinical screening including ultrasound and mammography examination were performed. We developed a Markov model to estimate the lifetime costs and benefits, in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALY), of a high-risk breast Cancer Screening Program. Nine screening strategies and no screening were included in the study. The age-specific incidence, transition probability data and lifetime treatment costs were derived and adopted from other researches. Average cost-effectiveness ratios (ACERs) were estimated as the ratios of the additional costs of the screening strategies to the QLYG compared to no screening. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated based on the comparison of a lower cost strategies to the next more expensive and effective strategies after excluding dominated strategies and extendedly dominated strategies. ICERs were used to compare with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Sensitivity analysis was explored the influence factors. A total of 84,029 women completed a risk assessment questionnaire, from which 20,655 high-risk breast cancer females were evaluated, with a high-risk rate of 24.58%. There were 13,392 high-risk females completed the screening program, with participation rate was 64.84%. Undergoing ultrasound, mammography and combined screening, the suspicious positive detection rates were 15.00%, 9.20% and 19.30%, and the positive detection rates were 2.11%, 2.76% and 3.83%, respectively. According to the results by Markov model, at the end of 45 cycle, the early diagnosis rates were 55.53%, 60.68% and 62.47% underwent the annual screening by ultrasound, mammography and combined, the proportion of advanced cancer were 17.20%, 15.85% and 15.36%, respectively. Different screening method and interval yield varied. In the exploration of various scenarios, annual ultrasound screening is the most cost-effective strategy with the ICER of ¥116,176.15/QALY. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the results are robust. Although it was not cost effective, combined ultrasound and mammography screening was an effective strategy for higher positive detection rate of breast cancer. High-risk population-based breast cancer screening by ultrasound annually was the most cost-effective strategy in Urban Hebei Province., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: The vast majority of women with breast cancer in sub-Saharan Africa present with advanced stage disease, due primarily to the lack of opportunities for early detection and treatment. As part of a larger effort to increase access to diagnostic and therapeutic services for women's cancers in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), we implemented a curriculum to train the local workforce and a program to build the supportive infrastructure for the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer at a private sector health facility (Biamba Marie Mutombo Hospital) in Kinshasa., Study Design: After onsite trainings in the DRC by a US breast surgeon (RT), Congolese surgeons, general physicians, physician assistants, and nurses used the Phillips Lumify smart-phone ultrasound device to perform and interpret the results of whole breast ultrasound on symptomatic women. Surgeons were trained to perform ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy on those who met the criteria for tissue diagnosis, after which they trained nurses to do the same., Results: Over 3 years, 5,211 patients were identified as having a breast abnormality on clinical breast examination. Ultrasound abnormalities were noted in 1,493 (27%) patients, of which 632 (42%) met the criteria for ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy or fine needle aspiration. Pathology reports were available on 368 (58%) patients who underwent biopsy, of which 164 were malignant and 204 benign., Conclusions: We demonstrated how the "ability to look" using smart technology can be successfully used to augment clinical breast exam and triage patients for biopsy in a resource-constrained African setting., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Pathologic nipple discharge (PND) is one of the most common breast-related complaints for referral because of its supposed association with breast cancer. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the diagnostic efficacy of ultrasound, mammogram, cytology, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and ductoscopy in patients with PND, as well as to determine the best diagnostic strategy to assess the risk of malignancy as cause for PND. Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase were searched to collect relevant literature from the inception of each of the diagnostic methods until January 27, 2020. The search yielded 1472 original citations, of which 36 studies with 3764 patients were finally included for analysis. Direct and indirect comparisons were performed using an NMA approach to evaluate the combined odd ratios and to determine the surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) of the diagnostic value of different imaging methods for the detection of breast cancer in patients with PND. Additionally, a subgroup meta-analysis comparing ductoscopy to MRI when conventional imaging was negative was also performed. According to this NMA, sensitivity for detection of malignancy in patients with PND was highest for MRI (83%), followed by ductoscopy (58%), ultrasound (50%), cytology (38%), and mammogram (22%). Specificity was highest for mammogram (93%) followed by ductoscopy (92%), cytology (90%), MRI (76%), and ultrasound (69%). Diagnostic accuracy was the highest for ductoscopy (88%), followed by cytology (82%), MRI (77%), mammogram (76%), and ultrasound (65%). Subgroup meta-analysis (comparing ductoscopy to MRI when ultrasound and mammogram were negative) showed no significant difference in sensitivity, but ductoscopy was statistically significantly better with regard to specificity and diagnostic accuracy. The results from this NMA indicate that although ultrasound and mammogram may remain low-cost useful first choices for the detection of malignancy in patients with PND, ductoscopy outperforms most imaging techniques (especially MRI) and cytology., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To determine the diagnostic parameters of breast ultrasound (US) in the setting of routine radiological surveillance after a diagnosis of breast cancer and evaluate costs of the inclusion of breast US as well as any survival benefit of US detected cases of recurrence in surveillance., Methods: 622 patients underwent breast cancer surgery and follow up at Austin Health from July 2009 to December 2015. Retrospective data analysis was performed to determine; diagnostic parameters, financial costs of US and survival outcomes of US detected cases of recurrence., Results: Patients underwent 1-9 years of breast cancer surveillance, with a median of 4.24 years. 390 (62.7%) patients underwent additional breast US surveillance to mammography. 232 (38.3%) fit criteria for use of additional breast US. 199 abnormal imaging episodes occurred, leading to 16 screen detected-cases of locoregional recurrence. US alone generated 107 abnormal images and found 9 cancers. US had a sensitivity of 44.1%, specificity of 95.2% and positive predictive value of 11.7% in comparison to mammography; 20.6%, 97.4% and 9.9% respectively. US had a biopsy rate of 4.0% and lead to an incremental cancer detection rate of 0.38%. The cost of incremental cancer found was $31,463.72 AUD. Survival outcomes based on method of detection of recurrence were insignificant (p value = 0.71)., Conclusions: Breast US has a sensitivity of 44.1% and detected seven recurrences that were mammographically occult. Breast US has a similar PPV to mammography in surveillance. Breast US generated considerable biopsy rates and costs. Survival analysis was not able to detect any benefit of US detected cases of recurrence., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: In partial mastectomy (PM) or lumpectomy, ultrasound (US) localization avoids discomfort and additional procedures associated with wire localization. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between ultrasound-visible clip (UVC) use at the time of biopsy and US use during resection, hypothesizing that UVCs facilitate US localization and reduce costs compared with traditional radiopaque clips or no clip placement., Methods: The study population consisted of adult female patients with breast cancer undergoing PM or lumpectomy at our institution between 2014 and 2016. The core biopsy clip type and localization method during PM were characterized as wire localization versus US localization, and associations were estimated with multivariable regression models. For the cost evaluation, breast biopsy data were obtained from the Department of Radiology., Results: Among 674 patients, 490 had data on localization and the clip type. Ultrasound-visible clip placement at biopsy increased US use during resection by 13% (95% confidence interval, 6%-21%). There was no difference in the total specimen weight with US versus wire localization. The cost savings for using UVCs for the 2209 patients who underwent breast biopsy from 2014 to 2016 was $36,000., Conclusions: This study demonstrates that US localization for PM is feasible at a single institution and cost-effective when facilitated by UVCs. Placement of a UVC at the time of biopsy is recommended, as it is cost-effective and avoids the discomfort and inconvenience of wire localization., (© 2019 by the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.)

Introduction: We investigated the downstream workup and costs associated with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) compared with 2-dimensional full field digital mammogram (FFDM) when employed as initial follow-up imaging in breast conservation therapy., Methods: Between the years 2015 and 2017, 450 consecutive breast conservation therapy patients, ages 32 to 89, with a follow-up DBT (n=162) or FFDM (n=288) were retrospectively reviewed. The primary endpoints were further workup after follow-up mammogram and associated health care costs at 1 year. A single DBT costs an estimated $149 compared with $111 for FFDM, based on Centers for Medicare claims data from the Oncology Care Model., Results: The first posttreatment mammogram was received within 3 (20%), 3 to 6 (32%), or after 6 months (48%) following radiation. Younger patients and those undergoing hypofractionated radiation were more likely to get DBT. There were no differences in stage, receptor status, or mammogram timing between those in the FFDM and DBT groups.The following downstream workup ensued for DBT compared with FFDM imaging: 18% versus 29% short-interval (6-mo) mammogram (odds ratio=1.83, P=0.01), 6% versus 11% breast magnetic resonance imaging (odds ratio=1.90, P=0.08), 4% ultrasound for each, and 3% biopsy for each (1 positive in the FFDM group). Including downstream workup, the estimated cost per patient in the DBT group was $216.14 compared with $237.83 in the FFDM group. Independent predictors for reduced downstream workup per multivariable analysis were the use of DBT and first follow-up mammogram at least 6 months after radiation (P<0.05)., Discussion: Excess workup was reduced with DBT compared with FFDM in the posttreatment setting, which translated to an improvement in cost efficiency in this study.

Background: Localization of nonpalpable breast lesions for breast-conserving surgery (BCS) remains highly variable and includes needle/wire localization (NL), radioactive seed localization, radar localization, and hematoma-directed ultrasound-guided (HUG) lumpectomy. The superiority of HUG lumpectomy over NL has been demonstrated repeatedly in terms of safety, accuracy, low positive margin rates, cosmesis, and patient satisfaction. In this study, we evaluate the cost effectiveness of HUG lumpectomy over NL for nonpalpable breast lesions., Methods: We performed a retrospective review of 569 patients who underwent lumpectomy at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences from May 2014 through December 2017. Lumpectomies were stratified by localization technique, i.e. NL versus HUG. A cost-savings estimate was determined for the HUG localization technique, and a total amount of dollars saved over the study period was calculated., Results: Overall, 569 lumpectomies were performed: 501 (88.0%) via HUG and 68 (12.0%) via NL. Intraoperative ultrasound was used in 566 operations (99.5%). Of the lumpectomies performed by HUG, 190 lesions (33.4%) were visible only on mammogram or breast magnetic resonance imaging prior to diagnostic core needle biopsy (CNB). Cost estimates comparing HUG with NL demonstrated a cost savings of $497.00 per procedure, the cost of preoperative needle localization by a radiologist, and a total of $94,430.00 for the study period., Conclusion: In utilizing HUG lumpectomy, the initial CNB serves as the diagnostic and localization procedure, thus saving time and a painful second procedure on the day of operation. HUG lumpectomy is safe, accurate, reduces healthcare costs, and results in a better patient experience for the surgical removal of nonpalpable breast lesions.

Purpose In low- to middle-income countries (LMICs), most breast cancers present as palpable lumps; however, most palpable lumps are benign. We have developed artificial intelligence-based computer-assisted diagnosis (CADx) for an existing low-cost portable ultrasound system to triage which lumps need further evaluation and which are clearly benign. This pilot study was conducted to demonstrate that this approach can be successfully used by minimally trained health care workers in an LMIC country. Patients and Methods We recruited and trained three nonradiologist health care workers to participate in an institutional review board-approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant pilot study in Jalisco, Mexico, to determine whether they could use portable ultrasound (GE Vscan Dual Probe) to acquire images of palpable breast lumps of adequate quality for accurate computer analysis. Images from 32 women with 32 breast masses were then analyzed with a triage-CADx system, generating an output of benign or suspicious (biopsy recommended). Triage-CADx outputs were compared with radiologist readings. Results The nonradiologists were able to acquire adequate images. Triage by the CADx software was as accurate as assessment by specialist radiologists, with two (100%) of two cancers considered suspicious and 30 (100%) of 30 benign lesions classified as benign. Conclusion A portable ultrasound system with CADx software can be successfully used by first-level health care workers to triage palpable breast lumps. These results open up the possibility of implementing practical, cost-effective triage of palpable breast lumps, ensuring that scarce resources can be dedicated to suspicious lesions requiring further workup.

Objective: The objective of this study is to analyze the incidence of women with breast pain who present to an imaging center and assess the imaging findings, outcomes, and workup costs at breast imaging centers affiliated with one institution., Materials and Methods: Demographic characteristics of and imaging findings for female patients presenting with breast pain at three community breast imaging centers between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2014, were reviewed. Patients who were pregnant, were lactating, had a history of breast cancer, or presented with palpable nipple or skin findings were excluded., Results: A total of 799 patients met the study criteria. Pain was diffuse in 30%, was focal in 30%, and was not localized in 40%. Of the 799 patients with breast pain, 790 (99%) presented for a diagnostic evaluation; 759 (95%) of these evaluated patients had negative findings. A benign sonographic correlate was detected in the area of pain in 5% of patients (39/799). One patient had a single cancer detected in the contralateral asymptomatic breast. When correlations between breast pain and the presence of cancer in the study patients were compared with the concurrent cancer detection rate in the screening population (5.5 cases per 1000 examinations performed), breast pain was not found to be a sign of breast cancer (p = 0.027). Patients younger than 40 years (316/799) underwent a total of 454 workup studies for breast pain; all findings were benign, and the cost of these studies was $87,322. Patients 40 years or older (483/799) underwent 745 workup studies, for a cost of $152,732., Conclusion: Breast pain represents an area of overutilization of health care resources. For female patients who present with pure breast pain, breast imaging centers should consider the following imaging protocols and education for referring physicians: an annual screening mammogram should be recommended for women 40 years or older, and reassurance without imaging should be offered to patients younger than 40 years.

Introduction: Until now, no studies have investigated whether women other than those with dense breasts are suitable for adjunctive ultrasonography after negative mammography, and investigated whether all women with negative mammography are suitable for adjunctive ultrasonography., Methods: Based on the Multi-modality Independent Screening Trial in China, a total of 31,918 women aged 45 to 65 years underwent both ultrasonography and mammography. Physicians performed ultrasonography and mammography separately and were blinded to each other's findings until their interpretations had been recorded. For both ultrasonography and mammography, suspicious results and those highly suggestive of a malignancy were confirmed by pathologic examination, whereas other results were confirmed by 1-year follow-up after initial screening., Results: Based on Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) assessments, 84 (84.8%) of 99 cancers were identified on mammography (detection rate, 2.6/1000), and 61 (61.6%) of 99 cancers were identified on ultrasonography (detection rate, 1.9/1000). Integrated mammography with ultrasonography identified 94 (95.0%) of 99 cancers, with an increment of 11.9% in cancer detection rate (from 2.6/1000 to 2.9/1000) (P < .05). Moreover, among women with BIRADS 3, adjunctive ultrasonography detected no cancers. All 10 additional cancers detected by adjunctive ultrasonography were from women with BIRADS 0 to 2, at a cost of 207 women with false positives. Additionally, dense breasts and benign breast disease were significantly associated with positive ultrasonography after BIRADS 0 to 2 (all P values < .05)., Conclusions: After negative mammography, adjunctive ultrasonography should only be recommended for BIRADS 0 to 2 but not BIRADS 3, especially for women with dense breasts or benign breast disease., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Finding a breast mass in a child provokes apprehension in parents, especially in those with a family history of breast cancer. Clinicians must decide between serial imaging or biopsy of the mass. Herein, we identify management differences in those with and without a positive family history, as well as identify cost differences., Methods: An institutional retrospective review was performed of patients (2-18 years of age) with a diagnosis of breast mass. Patient demographics, presentation, medical and surgical history, physical exam, imaging, and pathologic diagnosis were collected. Cost data were acquired from the pediatric health information system (PHIS). Costs were compared between patients managed by biopsy versus serial ultrasounds. Bivariate analyses including Pearson's Chi-square, student's t tests, and logistic regression were performed., Results: The probability of biopsy increases with age (p = 0.0001) and female gender (p = 0.006). Biopsy rate is higher for larger masses (p < 0.0001), growing size (p < 0.0001), and in patients with a positive family history of breast cancer (p < 0.0001). The average cost of care for management with initial excisional biopsy was $4491 versus those with serial ultrasounds ($986) (p < 0.0001)., Conclusions: In patients with small lesions, even with a family history of breast cancer, non-operative monitoring is a safe and cost-effective alternative to invasive biopsy.

Background: Screening tests are generally not recommended in patients with advanced cancer and limited life expectancy. Nonetheless, screening mammography still occurs and may lead to follow-up testing., Objective: We assessed the frequency of downstream breast imaging following screening mammography in patients with advanced colorectal or lung cancer., Design: Population-based study., Participants: The study included continuously enrolled female fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries ≥65 years of age with advanced colorectal (stage IV) or lung (stage IIIB-IV) cancer reported to a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry between 2000 and 2011., Main Measures: We assessed the utilization of diagnostic mammography, breast ultrasound, and breast MRI following screening mammography. Logistic regression models were used to explore independent predictors of utilization of downstream tests while controlling for cancer type and patient sociodemographic and regional characteristics., Key Results: Among 34,127 women with advanced cancer (23% colorectal; 77% lung cancer; mean age at diagnosis 75 years), 9% (n = 3159) underwent a total of 5750 screening mammograms. Of these, 11% (n = 639) resulted in at least one subsequent diagnostic breast imaging examination within 9 months. Diagnostic mammography was most common (9%; n = 532), followed by ultrasound (6%; n = 334) and MRI (0.2%; n = 14). Diagnostic mammography rates were higher in whites than African Americans (OR, 1.6; p <0.05). Higher ultrasound utilization was associated with more favorable economic status (OR, 1.8; p <0.05)., Conclusions: Among women with advanced colorectal and lung cancer, 9% continued screening mammography, and 11% of these screening studies led to at least one additional downstream test, resulting in costs with little likelihood of meaningful benefit.

Introduction: A short-term radiologic follow-up after a benign breast biopsy or fine needle aspiration (FNA) is recommended in many guidelines. However, the current trend is to reduce imaging investigations, radiation dose and costs. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the cancer detection rate at short-term follow-up and to estimate its cost., Methods: We retrospectively assessed all consecutive patients referred to our 'one-stop' breast unit between 2004 and 2012, with a benign histological or cytological result and at least one short-term follow-up within 3-12 months after the initial diagnosis. We evaluated the number of cancers detected, as well as the mean cost to detect each cancer and per patient., Results: About 1366 patients were eligible for this study. Ten patients were diagnosed with cancers (0.73%) at short-term follow-up; six of 10 were low-grade tumours or ductal carcinoma in situ. The cost for detecting one cancer was 19,043€, with mean cost per patient of 139€., Conclusion: The cancer detection rate at short-term follow-up after benign biopsy or FNA was low and was similar to that of most national screening programs. The cost of cancer detection appeared high, considering that most cancers were indolent. This suggests that radiologic follow-up could reasonably be carried out at a later point in time., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: With the incidence of breast cancer rising worldwide, we are evaluating the iBreastExam (iBE) (UE LifeSciences Inc.), a handheld breast scanning device that can be utilized by community health workers to screen for breast abnormalities. The purpose of this study is to determine the sensitivity of the iBE in a population undergoing diagnostic breast imaging., Methods: Adult patients presenting to a breast imaging center for a diagnostic workup were eligible. Patients underwent an iBE exam performed by a trained ultrasound technician followed by their indicated imaging. Demographic, imaging, and biopsy data were recorded., Results: Seventy-eight iBE exams were completed, 77 females and one male with a mean age of 42 (21-79). All patients were evaluated by ultrasound, 52 had diagnostic mammography and 39 had biopsies. Imaging and/or biopsy confirmed a mass (fibroadenoma, cyst, papilloma, myofibroblastoma, fat necrosis, DCIS, or cancer) in 60 patients. Twelve patients had a cancer diagnosed. In total, 342 quadrants were scanned, 77 quadrants had lesions confirmed on imaging, and iBE correctly identified 66 lesions for a sensitivity of 86 % and specificity of 89 %., Conclusions: This validation study demonstrated excellent sensitivity of iBE for the identification of clinically significant lesions in patients presenting for diagnostic imaging., Trial Registration: A Cost-Effective Handheld Breast Scanner for Use in Low Resource Environments: A Validation Study: NCT02814292 .

Objective: To compare the incremental cancer detection rate (ICDR) using bilateral whole-breast ultrasonography (BWBUS) vs dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in patients with primary breast cancer., Methods: A retrospective database search in a single institution identified 259 patients with breast cancer diagnosed from January 2011 to August 2014 who underwent mammography, BWBUS and MRI before surgery. Patient characteristics, tumour characteristics and lesions seen on each imaging modality were recorded. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for each modality were calculated. ICDRs according to index tumour histology and receptor status were also evaluated. The effect of additional cancer detection on surgical planning was obtained from the medical records., Results: A total of 266 additional lesions beyond 273 index malignancies were seen on at least 1 modality, of which 121 (45%) lesions were malignant and 145 (55%) lesions were benign. MRI was significantly more sensitive than BWBUS (p = 0.01), while BWBUS was significantly more accurate and specific than MRI (p < 0.0001). Compared with mammography, the ICDRs using BWBUS and MRI were significantly higher for oestrogen receptor-positive and triple-negative cancers, but not for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive cancers. 22 additional malignant lesions in 18 patients were seen on MRI only. Surgical planning remained unchanged in 8 (44%) of those 18 patients., Conclusion: MRI was more sensitive than BWBUS, while BWBUS was more accurate and specific than MRI. MRI-detected additional malignant lesions did not change surgical planning in almost half of these patients., Advances in Knowledge: BWBUS may be a cost-effective and practical tool in breast cancer staging.

Background: Screening with mammography can detect breast cancer early, before clinical symptoms appear. Some cancers, however, are not captured with mammography screening alone. Ultrasound has been suggested as a safe adjunct screening tool that can detect breast cancers missed on mammography. We investigated the benefits, harms, cost-effectiveness, and cost burden of ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography compared with mammography alone for screening women at average risk and at high risk for breast cancer., Methods: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, EBM Reviews, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, from January 1998 to June 2015, for evidence of effectiveness, harms, diagnostic accuracy, and cost-effectiveness. Only studies evaluating the use of ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography in the specified populations were included. We also conducted a cost analysis to estimate the costs in Ontario over the next 5 years to fund ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography in breast cancer screening for high-risk women who are contraindicated for MRI, the current standard of care to supplement mammography., Results: No studies in average-risk women met the inclusion criteria of the clinical review. We included 5 prospective, paired cohort studies in high-risk women, 4 of which were relevant to the Ontario context. Adjunct ultrasound identified between 2.3 and 5.9 additional breast cancers per 1,000 screens. The average pooled sensitivity of mammography and ultrasound was 53%, a statistically significant increase relative to mammography alone (absolute increase 13%; P < .05). The average pooled specificity of the combined test was 96%, an absolute increase in the false-positive rate of 2% relative to mammography screening alone. The GRADE for this body of evidence was low. Additional annual costs of using breast ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography for high-risk women in Ontario contraindicated for MRI would range from $15,500 to $30,250 in the next 5 years., Conclusions: We found no evidence that evaluated the comparative effectiveness or diagnostic accuracy of screening breast ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography among average-risk women aged 50 years and over. In women at high risk of developing breast cancer, there is low-quality evidence that screening with mammography and adjunct ultrasound detects additional cases of disease, with improved sensitivity compared to mammography alone. Screening with adjunct ultrasound also increases the number of false-positive findings and subsequent biopsy recommendations. It is unclear if the use of screening breast ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography will reduce breast cancer-related mortality among high-risk women. The annual cost burden of using adjunct ultrasound to screen high-risk women who cannot receive MRI in Ontario would be small.

Background: Whereas the impact of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast on the surgical management of breast cancer patients is well documented, less is known about its effect on health care costs. This study aimed to evaluate whether MRI use for women with invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) significantly changes the cost of care., Methods: Patients with ILC were recruited to a prospective registry study of breast MRI. Women who met the same inclusion criteria but had not undergone breast MRI were retrospectively identified for comparison. A micro-costing analysis using institutional billing records was conducted. Nonparametric bootstrapping was used to compare the unadjusted cost differences between the patients receiving MRI and those receiving no MRI., Results: Of the patients in this study, 51 had preoperative MRI, and 60 did not. Method of diagnostic biopsy, disease stage, oncologic procedure, and rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy were similar between the two groups. The patients in the MRI group were younger (median age 55 vs. 64 years; p = 0.01) and more likely to undergo reconstruction (45.1 vs. 25 %; p = 0.03). The median costs of care were significantly higher in the MRI group ($24,781 vs. $18,921; p < 0.01). After adjustment for clinical factors, MRI remained significantly associated with increased cost (p = 0.03). Other factors associated with increased cost included type of oncologic procedure (mastectomy vs. lumpectomy; p < 0.01), number of operations required to achieve negative margins (1 vs. >1; p < 0.01), and use of reconstruction (p < 0.01)., Conclusion: Preoperative breast MRI increases the median total cost of care per patient. However, the contribution to the overall cost of care is modest compared with the cost of other interventions.

Background: Many states have laws requiring mammography facilities to tell women with dense breasts and negative results on screening mammography to discuss supplemental screening tests with their providers. The most readily available supplemental screening method is ultrasonography, but little is known about its effectiveness., Objective: To evaluate the benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts., Design: Comparative modeling with 3 validated simulation models., Data Sources: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium; and medical literature., Target Population: Contemporary cohort of women eligible for routine screening., Time Horizon: Lifetime., Perspective: Payer., Intervention: Supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts after a negative screening mammography result., Outcome Measures: Breast cancer deaths averted, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, biopsies recommended after a false-positive ultrasonography result, and costs., Results of Base-Case Analysis: Supplemental ultrasonography screening after a negative mammography result for women aged 50 to 74 years with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts averted 0.36 additional breast cancer deaths (range across models, 0.14 to 0.75), gained 1.7 QALYs (range, 0.9 to 4.7), and resulted in 354 biopsy recommendations after a false-positive ultrasonography result (range, 345 to 421) per 1000 women with dense breasts compared with biennial screening by mammography alone. The cost-effectiveness ratio was $325,000 per QALY gained (range, $112,000 to $766,000). Supplemental ultrasonography screening for only women with extremely dense breasts cost $246,000 per QALY gained (range, $74,000 to $535,000)., Results of Sensitivity Analysis: The conclusions were not sensitive to ultrasonography performance characteristics, screening frequency, or starting age., Limitation: Provider costs for coordinating supplemental ultrasonography were not considered., Conclusion: Supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts would substantially increase costs while producing relatively small benefits., Primary Funding Source: National Cancer Institute.

Background: To determine the outcome and cost saving by placing ultrasound guided surgical clips for tumor localization in patients undergoing neo-adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer., Materials and Methods: This retrospective cross sectional analytical study was conducted at the Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan from January to December 2014. A sample of 25 women fulfilling our selection criteria was taken. All patients came to our department for ultrasound guided core biopsy of suspicious breast lesions and clip placement in the index lesion prior to neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. All the selected patients had biopsy proven breast cancer., Results: The mean age was 45 ± 11.6 years. There were no complications seen after clip placement in terms of clip migration or hemorrhage. The cost of commercially available markers was approximately PKR 9,000 (US$ 90) and that of the surgical clip was PKR 900 (US$ 9). The cost of surgical clips in 25 patients was PKR 22,500 (US$ 225), when compared to the commercially available markers which may have incurred a cost of PKR 225,000 (US$ 2,250). The total cost saving for 25 patients was PKR 202,500 (US$ 2, 025), making it PKR 8100 (US$ 81) per patient., Conclusions: The results of our study show that ultrasound guided surgical clip placement in index lesions prior to neo-adjuvant therapy is a safe and cost effective method to identify tumor bed and response to treatment for further management.

Background: Newer approaches to mammography, including digital image acquisition and computer-aided detection (CAD), and adjunct imaging (e.g., magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) have diffused into clinical practice. The impact of these technologies on screening-related cost and outcomes remains undefined, particularly among older women., Methods: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database, we constructed two cohorts of women without a history of breast cancer and followed each cohort for 2 years. We compared the use and cost of screening mammography including digital mammography and CAD, adjunct procedures including breast ultrasound, MRI, and biopsy between the period of 2001 and 2002 and the period of 2008 and 2009 using χ(2) and t test. We also assessed the change in breast cancer stage and incidence rates using χ(2) and Poisson regression. All statistical tests were two-sided., Results: There were 137150 women (mean age = 76.0 years) in the early cohort (2001-2002) and 133097 women (mean age = 77.3 years) in the later cohort (2008-2009). The use of digital image acquisition for screening mammography increased from 2.0% in 2001 and 2002 to 29.8% in 2008 and 2009 (P < .001). CAD use increased from 3.2% to 33.1% (P < .001). Average screening-related cost per capita increased from $76 to $112 (P < .001), with annual national fee-for-service Medicare spending increasing from $666 million to $962 million. There was no statistically significant change in detection rates of early-stage tumors (2.45 vs 2.57 per 1000 person-years; P = .41)., Conclusions: Although breast cancer screening-related costs increased substantially from 2001 through 2009 among Medicare beneficiaries, a clinically significant change in stage at diagnosis was not observed., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: To evaluate the accuracy and direct medical cost of different screening modalities of physical examination (PE), mammography (MAM), and high-frequency ultrasonography (US) for breast cancer among Chinese women., Methods: This study was designed as a blindly carried outcom parative parallel screening trial for breast cancer among Chinese women aged 35 years or older. Physical examination was conducted with the subjects in the first round of breast cancer screening. The negative cases were followed up approximately 1 year later and moved into the second round of screening. Using the results of biopsies and 1-year follow-up as the gold standards, the accuracy and cost indexes of different screening modalities were calculated. Data were analyzed by McNemar test., Results: A total of 2 471 eligible women were included in this trial, and 14 breast cancers were identified among them. Mammography enabled to detect 11 cancers, high-frequency ultrasonography detected 9 cancers and physical examination detected 8 cancers. Considering the three modalities separately, MAM identified the fewest suspicious cases (52 cases) and detected the most cancers (11 cases). Using US alone at the first stage, followed by MAM when indicated, offered the highest specificity (99.7%)and correct positive predictive value (11.4%), meanwhile the sensitivity was 78.6%, and the mean costs of the screening modality in urban and rural areas were 291, 210 yuan and 886,050 yuan per cancer case detected., Conclusions: The strategy of screening with US alone at the first stage, followed by MAM when indicated, may be the most suitable modality of breast cancer detection in most regions of China, but the cost is still too high to develop the breast cancer screening in some low incidence regions with limited health resources.

A low cost, quasi real-time elastography system, displacement-gradient elastography (DGE), was developed by applying digital image correlation (DIC) method and smoothing algorithm to B-mode ultrasound images. In order to achieve quasi real-time elastogram display, a new fast pattern matching algorithm, decoupled cross-correlation (DCC), was proposed and validated. By applying the DGE to various phantoms, elastograms were generated to identify the lesion with wide variations of stiffness ratio and applied strain. The performance of DGE was qualitatively compared with those from a high-end ultrasound scanner using the elastograms of a commercial elastography breast phantom. DGE was also applied to the ultrasound images of human breast lesions in various BI-RADS categories. This study suggests that DGE may have comparable performance to conventional elastography in detecting breast cancer, while it can be easily implemented onto conventional ultrasound scanners.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess how an incorrect indication for an examination may affect the diagnostic workup and diagnosis as well as healthcare expenditure., Materials and Methods: We considered all the requests for breast imaging (mammography, ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging) received by our radiology department between October 2010 and December 2010, and assessed their appropriateness based on the patient's age and the clinical question, if present. We then analysed the unnecessary costs resulting from inappropriate requests., Results: Out of a total of 1500 requests for ultrasound examination, the request was appropriate in 855 (57%) cases; out of a total of 2350 requests for mammography, the request was appropriate in 493 (21%) cases; out of a total of 100 requests for magnetic resonance imaging, the request was appropriate in 83 (83%) cases. The cost deriving from inappropriate requests was 51,235.04 Euros., Conclusions: Improving the timeliness of diagnosis is an important goal to be pursued by enhancing the available health services, improving communication and coordination of the different professionals involved and optimising diagnostic pathways in order to reduce healthcare spending.

Background: Screening with mammography has the ability to detect breast cancer at an early stage but misses some cancers. Supporters of adjunct ultrasonography to the screening regimen argue that it might be a safe and inexpensive approach to reduce the false-negative rates of screening. Critics are concerned that adjunct ultrasonography will also increase the rate of false-positive findings and can lead to unnecessary biopsies and treatments in women at average risk., Aims: The purpose of this review was to systematically assess the comparative benefits and harms of mammography with adjunct breast ultrasonography and mammography only in breast cancer screening., Methods: We searched multiple electronic databases and the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register (from 1995 to February 2012). To detect ongoing or unpublished studies, we searched trial registries and multiple sources of grey literature. Two researchers independently reviewed all abstracts and full-text articles against pre-defined eligibility criteria. We dually rated the risk of bias of studies and the strength of evidence based on established guidance., Results: We did not detect any controlled studies that provide evidence for (or against) the use of adjunct ultrasonography for screening in women at average risk for breast cancer. Extrapolations of results from women at elevated risk for breast cancer indicate that the false-positive rates in women at average risk who were recalled because of positive ultrasonographies will exceed 98%. In women with dense or very dense breast tissue, the evidence regarding the use of adjunct ultrasonography is not conclusive., Conclusions: No methodologically sound evidence is available justifying the routine use of ultrasonography as an adjunct screening tool in women at average risk for breast cancer., Implications for Practice: Clinicians should not use ultrasonography as a screening tool for breast cancer screening on a routine basis. The use should be limited to women with dense breasts for whom the accuracy of mammography is low, or for diagnostic purposes., (© 2013 The Authors. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare © 2013 The Joanna Briggs Institute.)

Objectives: Breast cancer is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in women worldwide. Breast screening in normal and/or asymptomatic women is essential to reduce the burden of breast malignancies. Our study aimed to identify possible risk- and/or co-factors associated with breast screening in North Indian women., Methods: A public health research survey was conducted among 100 women of North Indian ethnicity during clinic visits in a 6-month timeline (April-October 2012). Demographic and clinical data, including mammography screening, were recorded in the questionnaire-based proforma after conducting a 10 minute interview. Written informed consent was taken from all the participants., Results: The mean age of the participants was 32.2±9.9 years. Out of 100 women, 6% had family history of breast disease. Breast-related complaints/malignancy, including galactorrhoea, mastitis, axillary lump, fibrocystic disease, fibroadenosis and adenocarcinoma were observed in 41% participants; age stratification revealed that 82.9% of this group (n=41) were <30 years, while 9.7% and 7.3% were >30 years and 30 years of age, respectively. 32% participants underwent mammography screening and 8% had breast ultrasound imaging. Age stratification in the mammography screening group demonstrated that 24 women were <40 years, while 7 women were >40 years., Conclusions: Our pilot study identified possible co-factors affecting breast screening in North Indian women. These findings may be beneficial in early detection of breast abnormalities, including malignancies in women susceptible to breast cancer, and thus aid in future design of cost-effective screening strategies to reduce the increasing burden of breast carcinoma in women worldwide.

The aim of this study was to determine the potential of screening breast ultrasound to improve breast cancer detection in women with mammographically normal, but dense breasts. Six Connecticut radiology practices with 12 total sites participated in a retrospective chart review. The total number of screening mammograms, screening ultrasounds broken down by BIRADS (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System) codes, and the number of positive and negative biopsies were collected from November 2009 through November 2010. Demographic data on the patients with positive biopsies as well as cancer staging were also collected. Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive Predictive Value, and Negative Predictive Value were calculated. A total of 72,030 screening mammograms and 8,647 screening ultrasounds were performed at the research sites during the study period. Relevant research indicates that 41% of the female population has dense breasts. In this study, 12% (8,647/72,030) underwent follow-up breast ultrasound screening. A total of 86% (7,451/8,647) of the ultrasounds were BIRADS 1 or 2, 9% (767/8,647) were BIRADS 3, 5% (429/8,647) were BIRADS 4 or 5. Of those 429 recommended to undergo biopsy 418 were performed and 28 cancers were found. There was one false negative. Screening breast ultrasound in women with mammographically normal, but dense breasts has a Positive Predictive Value (PPV) of 6.7% (28/418), Negative Predictive Value (NPV) of 99.9% (7,450/7,451), sensitivity of 96.6% (28/29), and a specificity of 94.9% (7,450/7,851). Screening ultrasound had an additional yield of 3.25 per 1,000 cancers in women with dense breasts and normal mammograms and no additional risk factors. As with all screening tests, time, cost, and false positive risk must be considered., (© 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Purpose: To determine performance and utilization of screening breast ultrasonography (US) in women with dense breast tissue who underwent additional screening breast US in the 1st year since implementation of Connecticut Public Act 09-41 requiring radiologists to inform patients with heterogeneous or extremely dense breasts at mammography that they may benefit from such examination., Materials and Methods: Informed consent was waived for this institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant retrospective review of 935 women with dense breasts at mammography who subsequently underwent handheld screening and whole-breast US from October 1, 2009, through September 30, 2010., Results: Of 935 women, 614 (65.7%) were at low risk, 149 (15.9%) were at intermediate risk, and 87 (9.3%) were at high risk for breast cancer. Of the screening breast US examinations, in 701 (75.0%), results were classified as Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 1 or 2; in 187 (20.0%), results were classified as BI-RADS category 3; and in 47 (5.0%), results were classified as BI-RADS category 4. Of 63 aspirations or biopsies recommended and performed in 53 patients, in nine, lesions were BI-RADS category 3, and in 54, lesions were BI-RADS category 4. Among 63 biopsies and aspirations, three lesions were malignant (all BI-RADS category 4, diagnosed with biopsy). All three cancers were smaller than 1 cm, were found in postmenopausal patients, and were solid masses. One cancer was found in each risk group. In 44 of 935 (4.7%) patients, examination results were false-positive. Overall positive predictive value (PPV) for biopsy or aspirations performed in patients with BI-RADS category 4 masses was 6.5% (three of 46; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.7%, 19%). Overall cancer detection rate was 3.2 cancers per 1000 women screened (three of 935; 95% CI: 0.8 cancers per 1000 women screened, 10 cancers per 1000 women screened)., Conclusion: Technologist-performed handheld screening breast US offered to women in the general population with dense breasts can aid detection of small mammographically occult breast cancers (cancer detection rate, 0.8-10 cancers per 1000 women screened), although the overall PPV is low., (© RSNA, 2012.)

Background: Preoperative needle localization (NL) is the gold standard for lumpectomy of nonpalpable breast cancer. Hematoma ultrasound-guided (HUG) lumpectomy can offer several advantages. The purpose of this study was to compare the use of HUG with NL lumpectomy in a single surgical practice., Study Design: Patients with nonpalpable lesions who underwent NL or HUG lumpectomy from January 2007 to December 2009 by a single surgeon were identified from a breast surgery database. Ease of scheduling, volume excised, re-excision rates, operating room time, and health care charges were the main outcomes variables. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to compare the 2 groups., Results: Lumpectomy was performed in 110 patients, 55 underwent HUG and 55 underwent NL. Hematoma ultrasound-guided lumpectomy was associated with a nearly 3-fold increase in the odds ratio of additional tissue being submitted to pathology (p = 0.039), but neither the total amount of breast tissue removed, nor the need for second procedure were statistically different between the 2 groups. Duration of the surgical procedure did not vary between the 2 groups; however, the time from biopsy to surgery was shorter for HUG by an expected 9.7 days (p = 0.019), implying greater ease of scheduling. Mean charges averaged $250 less for HUG than for NL, but this difference was not statistically significant., Conclusions: Hematoma ultrasound-guided is equivalent to NL with regard to volume of tissue excised, need for operative re-excision, and operating room time. Adoption of HUG in our practice allowed for more timely surgical care., (Copyright © 2012 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommended screening of all women with silicone gel breast implants with magnetic resonance imaging 3 years after implantation and every 2 years thereafter to assess their integrity. The cost for these serial examinations over the lifetime of the breast implants is an added burden to insurance payers and to women. The authors performed an economic analysis to determine optimal screening strategies by considering the diagnostic accuracy of the screening tests, costs of the tests, and subsequent implant removal., Methods: The authors determined aggregate/pooled values for sensitivity and specificity of the screening tests of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in detecting silicone breast implant ruptures from the data obtained from published literature. They compiled costs, based on Medicare reimbursements for 2011, for the following elements: imaging modalities, anesthesia, and three surgical treatment options for detected ruptures. A decision tree was used to compare three alternate screening strategies of ultrasound only, magnetic resonance imaging only, and ultrasound followed by magnetic resonance in asymptomatic and symptomatic women., Results: The cost per rupture of screening and management of rupture with ultrasound in asymptomatic women was $1090; in symptomatic women, it was $1622. A similar cost for magnetic resonance imaging in asymptomatic women was $2067; in symptomatic women it was $2143. A similar cost for ultrasound followed by imaging in asymptomatic women was $637; in symptomatic women, it was $2908., Conclusion: Screening with ultrasound followed by magnetic resonance imaging was optimal for asymptomatic women, and screening with ultrasound was optimal for symptomatic women.

We aimed to examine a cohort of patients presenting with breast implant complications to establish the sensitivity and specificity of clinical examination, Ultrasound Scanning (US) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis of implant rupture, and to examine the correlation between US and MRI. We performed a 26-month retrospective review. Patients underwent US and MRI to exclude rupture. Results of US and MRI were compared prospectively for concordance, then retrospectively to clinical findings and surgical diagnosis. Thirty-four patients with 60 implants were reviewed. The sensitivities of clinical diagnosis, US, and MRI for rupture was 42%, 50%, and 83%, respectively, while the specificities were 50%, 90%, and 90%. The concordance between US and MRI was 87%. MRI is the investigation of choice for implant rupture. US is a valuable alternative with good concordance with MRI. When US is positive for implant rupture an MRI is not necessary to confirm the diagnosis. Knowledge of the sensitivity and specificity as well as the concordance between the two investigations is useful to ensure the appropriate use of available resources., (© 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

In this article, we trace the chronology of developments in breast imaging technologies that are used for diagnosis and staging of breast cancer, including mammography, ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, and positron emission tomography. We explore factors that affected clinical acceptance and utilization of these technologies from discovery to clinical use, including milestones in peer-reviewed publication, US Food and Drug Administration approval, reimbursement by payers, and adoption into clinical guidelines. The factors driving utilization of new imaging technologies are mainly driven by regulatory approval and reimbursement by payers rather than evidence that they provide benefits to patients. Comparative effectiveness research can serve as a useful tool to investigate whether these imaging modalities provide information that improves patient outcomes in real-world settings.

Purpose: The objective of the study was to determine whether the various breast biopsy procedures specified in the S 3 guidelines are sensibly represented within the current German health system as considered from a cost evaluation perspective., Materials and Methods: This prospectively designed multicenter study analyzed 221 breast biopsies at 7 institutions from 04/2006 to 01/2007. Core needle biopsies, vacuum-assisted biopsies and surgical open biopsies under sonographic or mammographic guidance were evaluated. During an analysis of process costs, the individual process steps were recorded in diagrammatic form and assigned to the true consumption of resources. The actual resource consumption costs were entered. A process-related breakeven analysis was conducted to check whether the reimbursement of individual biopsy types covers the costs., Results: Only sonographically guided core needle biopsy and surgical open biopsy are adequately reimbursed in the current German health system. All other breast biopsies indicate a negative profit margin. The principal reasons for under-funding are found in the area of reimbursement of investment and non-personnel costs., Conclusion: The reimbursement of breast biopsies must be improved in order to guarantee nationwide care of the population using the breast biopsy methods recommended in the S 3 guidelines and to avoid disincentives with respect to breast biopsy indications., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

A total of 2,546,325 breast cancer survivors are estimated to live in the United States. The organized breast cancer follow-up programs do not generally include breast ultrasound in asymptomatic women. The purpose of our prospective study was to investigate the efficacy of breast ultrasound in detecting previously occult recurrences. A total of 735 eligible patients with a history of breast cancer were recruited. We assessed the same patient population before (routine follow-up program) and after (study follow-up program) the introduction of an additional ultrasound examination. In the routine follow-up program 245 of 735 patients (33.3% [95% confidence-interval (CI): 29.9-36.7]) had an ultrasound due to abnormal local or mammographic findings. 490 of 735 patients (66.7% [95% CI: 63.3-70.1]) were initially considered asymptomatic and received an additional ultrasound exclusively within the study follow-up program. All positive examination results were followed by accelerated core needle biopsy. The routine follow-up program led to a biopsy in 66 of 735 patients (9.0%) revealing a recurrent cancer in 27 cases (3.7%). The study follow-up program with the additional ultrasound led to another 21 biopsies raising the total number of patients who had to undergo a biopsy from 9.0% (95% CI: 6.9-11.1) to 11.8% (95% CI: 9.5-14.2). Finally, we diagnosed a previously occult malignant lesion in an additional six patients following this protocol. Therefore, the rate of detected recurrences rose from 3.7% (95% CI: 2.3-5.0) in the routine follow-up program to 4.5% (95% CI: 3.0-6.0) in the study follow-up program (p = 0.041). Negative side effects were the additional costs (the costs per detected malignancy in the routine follow-up program were $2455.69; the costs for each additionally detected malignancy in the study follow-up program were $7580.30), the higher overall biopsy rate (9.0 vs. 11.8%) and the elevated benign biopsies rate (59.1% vs. 71.4%). Regarding these results, the advantages and disadvantages of additional breast ultrasound must be discussed for every follow-up patient individually even today, as we can detect a significantly higher number of previously occult malignancies., (Copyright © 2011 World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To determine the utility of 6-month follow-up imaging after benign concordant image-guided percutaneous breast biopsy results., Materials and Methods: The institutional review board approved this retrospective, HIPAA-compliant study; informed consent was waived. Findings from consecutive stereotactic and ultrasonographically guided core breast biopsies performed from 2001 to 2005 were analyzed and included lesions with benign pathologic findings without atypia found to be concordant with imaging at a consensus conference. Rebiopsy recommendation rates and positive predictive values (PPVs) for detecting malignancy at each follow-up interval were measured and compared by using a two-tailed Fisher exact test., Results: In 2244 biopsies, lesions in 1465 were benign, concordant, and not excised. In 1057 of 1465 (72.2%) biopsies with imaging follow-up (average, 26.4 months; range, 4.0-49.9 months), recommended rebiopsy rates were 0.8% (four of 526), 0.5% (three of 588), and 1.0% (eight of 802) at 6-month, 12-month, and long-term follow-up intervals, respectively. When the initial follow-up did not occur until 12 months, the recommended rebiopsy rate was 0.9% (three of 322), compared with 0.8% (four of 526) at 6 months (P > .99), and no malignancies were found in either group. One malignancy was detected at the long-term follow-up interval (PPV for excision recommended, 12% [one of eight]; PPV for excision performed, 20% [one of five])., Conclusion: Because rebiopsy recommendation rates and PPVs did not differ in the 6- and 12-month groups, a 6-month follow-up imaging examination, in the context of a formal concordancy consensus conference, may not contribute to improved breast cancer diagnosis., Supplemental Material: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.10091824/-/DC1., (© RSNA, 2010)

Purpose: Preoperative axillary sonography with fine needle aspiration (FNA) in patients with invasive breast cancer identifies patients with nodal metastasis who can be spared further surgery. Indiscriminate use of the diagnostic modality can increase costs and yield inaccurate results. We evaluate the costs associated with the use of highly sensitive axillary ultrasonography in patients with stage ≥T2 tumors., Patients and Methods: We constructed a decision analysis tree using TreeAge Pro 2009 software comparing direct hospital charges between patients with and without routine use of axillary ultrasound. Base case estimates were derived from our institutional data and compared with those derived from the literature. One- and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed to check the validity of our inferences., Results: We found that, for the base case estimate with 35% lymph node positivity in stage ≥T2 tumors and sensitivity of the axillary ultrasound set at 86% with a specificity of 40%, the strategy to perform preoperative axillary ultrasound yielded rollback costs of $15,215, compared with $15,940 for surgery plus sentinel lymph node biopsy (cost difference, $725 per patient favoring axillary ultrasound). On two-way sensitivity analysis, the cost benefit for axillary ultrasound was not seen in patients with a low risk for nodal metastasis., Conclusion: The adoption of routine preoperative axillary sonography with FNA is a lower-cost strategy than conventional strategies in patients with stage ≥T2 invasive breast cancer.

Screening mammography performed annually on all women beginning at age 40 years has reduced breast cancer deaths by 30% to 50%. The cost per year of life saved is well within the range for other commonly accepted medical interventions. Various studies have estimated that reduction in treatment costs through early screening detection may be 30% to 100% or more of the cost of screening. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening is also cost-effective for very high-risk women, such as BRCA carriers, and others at 20% or greater lifetime risk. Further studies are needed to determine whether MRI is cost-effective for those at moderately high (15%-20%) lifetime risk. Future technical advances could make MRI more cost-effective than it is today. Automated whole-breast ultrasonography will probably prove cost-effective as a supplement to mammography for women with dense breasts., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To examine the budget impact of ultrasound-guided 14-g large core breast biopsy (US-guided LCBB) by comparing the costs of US-guided LCBB and open surgical biopsy (OSB); to calculate the cost savings attributable to US-guided LCBB; and to assess the frequency with which US-guided LCBB obviates the need for an OSB., Materials and Methods: In a retrospective study, we reviewed 399 suspicious breast lesions on which US-guided LCBB and OSB or, in cases of benign histology, clinical follow-up, were performed. Cost savings were calculated using nationally allowed flat rates (A-drg) and patient charges. Costs were measured from both, a hospital and a socioeconomic perspective. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were simulated to assess the extent of achievable cost savings., Results: Overall cost savings for US-guided LCBB over OSB were euro 977 (euro 2,337/euro 3,314) per case from a hospital perspective, resulting in a total cost decrease of 30% for the diagnosis of suspicious breast lesions. From a socioeconomic perspective, cost savings were euro 1,542 (euro 2,600/euro 4,142) per case, resulting in a 37% reduction in biopsy cost. US-guided LCBB obviated the need for a surgical procedure in 240 (60%) of 399 women. In all four sensitivity analyses, costs of US-guided LCBB remained lower than that of OSB., Conclusion: From an economic perspective, US-guided LCBB is highly recommended for the diagnosis of suspicious breast lesions, as this procedure reduces the cost of diagnosis substantially. In Austria, annual cost savings would be euro 18.5 million., (Copyright (c) 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Preoperative axillary lymph node ultrasound (US) and fine-needle aspiration (FNA) biopsy can identify a proportion of node-positive patients and avoid sentinel lymph node (SLN) surgery and direct surgical treatment. We compared the costs with preoperative US/FNA to without US/FNA (standard of care) for invasive breast cancer., Methods: Using decision-analytic software we constructed a model to assess the costs associated with the two preoperative strategies. Diagnostic test sensitivities and specificities were obtained from literature review. Costs were derived from Medicare payment rates and actual resource utilization. Base-case results were fully probabilistic to capture parameter uncertainty in economic results., Results: Base-case results estimate total mean costs per patient of $10,947 ("$" indicates US dollars throughout) with the US/FNA strategy and $10,983 with standard of care, an incremental cost savings of $36, on average, per patient [95% confidence interval (CI) of cost difference: -$248 to $179]. Most (63%) of the simulations resulted in cost saving with axillary US/FNA. One-way sensitivity analyses suggest that results are sensitive to assumed diagnostic and surgical costs and selected diagnostic test parameters. US/FNA approach was similar in costs or cost saving relative to the standard of care for all tumor stages., Conclusions: The additional cost of performing axillary US with possible FNA in every patient is balanced, on average, by the savings from avoiding SLN in cases where metastasis can be documented preoperatively. Routine use of preoperative axillary US with FNA to guide surgical planning can decrease the overall cost of patient care for invasive breast cancer.