The impact of alternative practices on the cost and quality of mammographic screening in the United States

Utilization and Cost of Mammography Screening Among Commercially Insured Women 50 to 64 Years of Age in the United States, 2012-2016

Background: In recent years, most insurance plans eliminated cost-sharing for breast cancer screening and recommended screening intervals changed, and newer modalities-digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis-became more widely available. The objectives of this study are to examine how these changes affected utilization, frequency, and costs of breast cancer screening among commercially insured women, and to understand factors associated with utilization and frequency of screening. Materials and Methods: This study used commercial insurance claims data for women 50 to 64 years of age, continuously enrolled in commercial insurance plans during 2012-2016. Results: Of the 685,737 eligible women, 20% were not screened, 40% received annual screening, 24% received biennial screening, and 16% were screened less frequently than recommended during the time period examined. Sociodemographic factors such as age <60 years, rurality, and fee-for-service insurance were associated with low screening utilization. Patients who received annual screening incurred ∼1.78 times higher costs compared to those who received biennial screening during the study period. Digital mammography was the most costly and commonly used modality along with computer-aided detection. Conclusions: Evidence-based interventions to promote screening among women who are screened less frequently are needed along with interventions to move toward biennial screening rather than annual screening. Increasing provider awareness regarding breast cancer screening rates and frequency among various sociodemographic groups is essential to guide provider recommendations and shared decision making. The results of this study can guide targeted public health interventions to reduce barriers to screening, and can also serve as inputs for economic analyses of screening interventions and programs.

Improvement in risk prediction, early detection and prevention of breast cancer in the NHS Breast Screening Programme and family history clinics: a dual cohort study

Background

In the UK, women are invited for 3-yearly mammography screening, through the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP), from the ages of 47–50 years to the ages of 69–73 years. Women with family histories of breast cancer can, from the age of 40 years, obtain enhanced surveillance and, in exceptionally high-risk cases, magnetic resonance imaging. However, no NHSBSP risk assessment is undertaken. Risk prediction models are able to categorise women by risk using known risk factors, although accurate individual risk prediction remains elusive. The identification of mammographic breast density (MD) and common genetic risk variants [single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)] has presaged the improved precision of risk models.

Objectives

To (1) identify the best performing model to assess breast cancer risk in family history clinic (FHC) and population settings; (2) use information from MD/SNPs to improve risk prediction; (3) assess the acceptability and feasibility of offering risk assessment in the NHSBSP; and (4) identify the incremental costs and benefits of risk stratified screening in a preliminary cost-effectiveness analysis.

Design

Two cohort studies assessing breast cancer incidence.

Setting

High-risk FHC and the NHSBSP Greater Manchester, UK.

Participants

A total of 10,000 women aged 20–79 years [Family History Risk Study (FH-Risk); UK Clinical Research Network identification number (UKCRN-ID) 8611] and 53,000 women from the NHSBSP [aged 46–73 years; Predicting the Risk of Cancer At Screening (PROCAS) study; UKCRN-ID 8080].

Interventions

Questionnaires collected standard risk information, and mammograms were assessed for breast density by a number of techniques. All FH-Risk and 10,000 PROCAS participants participated in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) studies. The risk prediction models Manual method, Tyrer–Cuzick (TC), BOADICEA (Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm) and Gail were used to assess risk, with modelling based on MD and SNPs. A preliminary model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of risk stratified screening was conducted.

Main outcome measures

Breast cancer incidence.

Data sources

The NHSBSP; cancer registration.

Results

A total of 446 women developed incident breast cancers in FH-Risk in 97,958 years of follow-up. All risk models accurately stratified women into risk categories. TC had better risk precision than Gail, and BOADICEA accurately predicted risk in the 6268 single probands. The Manual model was also accurate in the whole cohort. In PROCAS, TC had better risk precision than Gail [area under the curve (AUC) 0.58 vs. 0.54], identifying 547 prospective breast cancers. The addition of SNPs in the FH-Risk case–control study improved risk precision but was not useful inBRCA1(breast cancer 1 gene) families. Risk modelling of SNPs in PROCAS showed an incremental improvement from using SNP18 used in PROCAS to SNP67. MD measured by visual assessment score provided better risk stratification than automatic measures, despite wide intra- and inter-reader variability. Using a MD-adjusted TC model in PROCAS improved risk stratification (AUC = 0.6) and identified significantly higher rates (4.7 per 10,000 vs. 1.3 per 10,000;p < 0.001) of high-stage cancers in women with above-average breast cancer risks. It is not possible to provide estimates of the incremental costs and benefits of risk stratified screening because of lack of data inputs for key parameters in the model-based cost-effectiveness analysis.

Conclusions

Risk precision can be improved by using DNA and MD, and can potentially be used to stratify NHSBSP screening. It may also identify those at greater risk of high-stage cancers for enhanced screening. The cost-effectiveness of risk stratified screening is currently associated with extensive uncertainty. Additional research is needed to identify data needed for key inputs into model-based cost-effectiveness analyses to identify the impact on health-care resource use and patient benefits.

Future work

A pilot of real-time NHSBSP risk prediction to identify women for chemoprevention and enhanced screening is required.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme. The DNA saliva collection for SNP analysis for PROCAS was funded by the Genesis Breast Cancer Prevention Appeal.

Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women. Through greater awareness, mammographic screening, and aggressive biopsy of calcifications, the proportion of low-grade, early stage cancers and in situ lesions among all breast cancers has risen substantially. The introduction of molecular testing has increased the recognition of lower risk subtypes, and less aggressive treatments are more commonly recommended for these subtypes. Mammographically detected breast cancers are much more likely to have low-risk biology than symptomatic tumors found between screenings (interval cancers) or that present as clinical masses. Recognizing the lower risk associated with these lesions and the ability to confirm the risk with molecular tests should safely enable the use of less aggressive treatments. Importantly, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) lesions, or what have been called stage I cancers, in and of themselves are not life-threatening. In situ lesions have been treated in a manner similar to that of invasive cancer, but there is little evidence to support that this practice has improved mortality. It is also being recognized that DCIS lesions are heterogeneous, and a substantial proportion of them may in fact be precursors of more indolent invasive cancers. Increasing evidence suggests that these lesions are being overtreated. The introduction of molecular tests should be able to help usher in a change in approach to these lesions. Reclassifying these lesions as part of the spectrum of high-risk lesions enables the use of a prevention approach. Learning from the experience with active surveillance in prostate cancer should empower the introduction of new approaches, with a focus on preventing invasive cancer, especially given that there are effective, United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved breast cancer preventive interventions.

Recall Rate Reduction with Tomosynthesis During Baseline Screening Examinations: An Assessment From a Prospective Trial

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Assess results of a prospective, single-site clinical study evaluating digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) during baseline screening mammography.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Under an institutional review board-approved Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant protocol, consenting women between ages 34 and 56 years scheduled for their initial and/or baseline screening mammogram underwent both full field digital mammography (FFDM) and DBT. The FFDM and the FFDM plus DBT images were interpreted independently in a reader by mode balanced approach by two of 14 participating radiologists. A woman was recalled for a diagnostic work-up if either radiologist recommended a recall. We report overall recall rates and related diagnostic outcome from the 1080 participants. Proportion of recommended recalls (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System 0) were compared using a generalized linear mixed model (SAS 9.3) with a significance level of P = .0294.

RESULTS

The fraction of women without breast cancer recommended for recall using FFDM alone and FFDM plus DBT were 412 of 1074 (38.4%) and 274 of 1074 (25.5%), respectively (P < .001). Large inter-reader variability in terms of recall reduction was observed among the 14 readers; however, 11 of 14 readers recalled fewer women using FFDM plus DBT (5 with P < .015). Six cancers (four ductal carcinomas in situ [DCIS] and two invasive ductal carcinomas [IDC]) were detected. One IDC was detected only on DBT and one DCIS cancer was detected only on FFDM, whereas the remaining cancers were detected on both modalities.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of FFDM plus DBT resulted in a significant decrease in recall rates during baseline screening mammography with no reduction in sensitivity.

Aggregate cost of mammography screening in the United States: comparison of current practice and advocated guidelines

BACKGROUND

Controversy exists over how often and at what age mammography screening should be implemented. Given that evidence supports less frequent screening, the cost differences among advocated screening policies should be better understood.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the aggregate cost of mammography screening in the United States in 2010 and compare the costs of policy recommendations by professional organizations.

DESIGN

A model was developed to estimate the cost of mammography screening in 2010 and 3 screening strategies: annual (ages 40 to 84 years), biennial (ages 50 to 69 years), and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines (biennial for those aged 50 to 74 years and personalized based on risk for those younger than 50 years and based on comorbid conditions for those 75 years and older).

SETTING

United States.

PATIENTS

Women aged 40 to 85 years.

INTERVENTION

Mammography annually, biennially, or following USPSTF guidelines.

MEASUREMENTS

Cost of screening per year, using Medicare reimbursements.

RESULTS

The estimated cost of mammography screening in the United States in 2010 was $7.8 billion, with approximately 70% of women screened. The simulated cost of screening 85% of women was $10.1 billion, $2.6 billion, and $3.5 billion for annual, biennial, and USPSTF guidelines, respectively. The largest drivers of cost (in order) were screening frequency, percentage of women screened, cost of mammography, percentage of women screened with digital mammography, and percentage of mammography recalls.

LIMITATION

Cost estimates and assumptions used in the model were conservative.

CONCLUSION

The cost of mammography varies by at least $8 billion per year on the basis of screening strategy. The USPSTF guidelines are based on the scientific evidence to date to maximize patient benefit and minimize harm but also result in far more effective use of resources.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

University of California and the Safeway Foundation.

The Effect of Budgetary Restrictions on Breast Cancer Diagnostic Decisions

We develop a finite-horizon discrete-time constrained Markov decision process (MDP) to model diagnostic decisions after mammography where we maximize the total expected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of a patient under resource constraints. We use clinical data to estimate the parameters of the MDP model and solve it as a mixed-integer program. By repeating optimization for a sequence of budget levels, we calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios attributable to consecutive levels of funding and compare actual clinical practice with optimal decisions. We prove that the optimal value function is concave in the allocated budget. Comparing to actual clinical practice, using optimal thresholds for decision making may result in approximately 22% cost savings without sacrificing QALYs. Our analysis indicates short-term follow-ups are the immediate target for elimination when budget becomes a concern. Policy change is more drastic in the older age group with the increasing budget, yet the gains in total expected QALYs related to larger budgets are predominantly seen in younger women along with modest gains for older women.

Predictive value of BI-RADS classification for breast imaging in women under age 50

In this study, we assessed the positive-predictive value (PPV) of mammography and/or ultrasonography in women age 50 based on recommendations for biopsies and final pathology results. We performed a retrospective analysis of all mammography and ultrasonography reports issued from 9/2005 to 1/2007 resulting in biopsy among women aged 18-50 at a large county hospital. Data included demographics, imaging modality, breast density, type of finding, BI-RADS, and final pathology. Results were compared to women aged >50 at the same institution. Four hundred and seventy-five biopsies in 395 patients were reviewed. The PPV of BI-RADS 3 (n = 11) was 9.1%, BI-RADS 4 (n = 440) 5.9%, and BI-RADS 5 (n = 24) 66.7%. Forty three (9%) were malignant, of which 31 (6.5%) were invasive carcinomas and 12 (2.5%) were noninvasive. None of the biopsies on patients aged <30 were malignant. Recommended biopsies based on mammography alone were malignant in 20.2% (20/99) compared to 3.4% (7/205) for ultrasonography alone, and 8.9% (15/168) for both mammography and ultrasonography. Suspicious calcifications were malignant in 25% compared to 6.8% for masses/nodules and 3.6% for cysts. Lesions larger than 2 cm are more likely to be malignant (11.8%) than lesions between 1 and 2 cm (3.6%) or below 1 cm (4.3%). The PPV of the current screening modalities diminishes markedly in women under the age of 50 and even more below the age of 40. Calcifications and masses larger than 2 cm should be biopsied, but the current BI-RADS criteria may benefit from revision for other findings in young patients.

Influence of annual interpretive volume on screening mammography performance in the United States

PURPOSE

To examine whether U.S. radiologists' interpretive volume affects their screening mammography performance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Annual interpretive volume measures (total, screening, diagnostic, and screening focus [ratio of screening to diagnostic mammograms]) were collected for 120 radiologists in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) who interpreted 783 965 screening mammograms from 2002 to 2006. Volume measures in 1 year were examined by using multivariate logistic regression relative to screening sensitivity, false-positive rates, and cancer detection rate the next year. BCSC registries and the Statistical Coordinating Center received institutional review board approval for active or passive consenting processes and a Federal Certificate of Confidentiality and other protections for participating women, physicians, and facilities. All procedures were compliant with the terms of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

RESULTS

Mean sensitivity was 85.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 83.7%, 86.6%) and was significantly lower for radiologists with a greater screening focus (P = .023) but did not significantly differ by total (P = .47), screening (P = .33), or diagnostic (P = .23) volume. The mean false-positive rate was 9.1% (95% CI: 8.1%, 10.1%), with rates significantly higher for radiologists who had the lowest total (P = .008) and screening (P = .015) volumes. Radiologists with low diagnostic volume (P = .004 and P = .008) and a greater screening focus (P = .003 and P = .002) had significantly lower false-positive and cancer detection rates, respectively. Median invasive tumor size and proportion of cancers detected at early stages did not vary by volume.

CONCLUSION

Increasing minimum interpretive volume requirements in the United States while adding a minimal requirement for diagnostic interpretation could reduce the number of false-positive work-ups without hindering cancer detection. These results provide detailed associations between mammography volumes and performance for policymakers to consider along with workforce, practice organization, and access issues and radiologist experience when reevaluating requirements.

A role for biomarkers in the screening and diagnosis of breast cancer in younger women

The widespread usage of screening mammography has resulted in an increase in the detection of early-stage disease, particularly in situ (stage 0) and early-stage (stage 1) cancers. However, incidence of stage 2 and 3 disease has not fallen commensurately, suggesting a bias in the detection of indolent cancers rather than aggressive cancers. Improved screening and diagnosis of a broader range of cancers is therefore an important need. Although MRI is a very sensitive breast cancer detection tool that has become standard for women at very high risk, it lacks sufficient specificity and cost-effectiveness for use as a general screen. The greatest opportunity for molecular tools to improve breast cancer outcomes is to better discern biologically aggressive cancers, especially in women under the age of 50 years. In this age group, presentation in stage 2 or 3 is more common and mammographic screening is less efficacious. We propose a multi-tiered triage strategy that uses emerging markers of susceptibility to segment the population for more focused screening with imaging. In particular, it would be helpful to identify a subset of at-risk, younger women who would benefit from intensive surveillance or preventive interventions. It is likely that tests for susceptibility, unless they are highly specific, will need to be combined with indicators of short-term risk. Although the combined sensitivity and specificity of screening must be high, each individual test does not require high specificity. It is important, however, for the susceptibility tests and short-term risk markers to be highly sensitive. If the majority of women under 50 years of age who develop breast cancer are captured with this strategy, then mammography screening for the general population can start at age 50 years. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, biomarkers of susceptibility and short-term risk are likely to provide insight into the biology of tumors that develop, leading to new interventions to support prevention. The most effective preventive strategies will be those where a marker predicts risk for the disease, as well as the benefit from preventive interventions.

Use of modeling to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of cancer screening programs

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is an analytic tool that provides a framework for comparing the health benefits and resource expenditures associated with competing medical and public health interventions, thereby allowing decision makers to identify interventions that yield the greatest amount of health, given their resource constraints. Models are important components of most, if not all, CEAs, and they play a key role in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of cancer screening programs, in particular. In this article, we describe the basic types of models used to evaluate cancer screening programs and provide examples of the use of models in CEAs and to guide cancer screening policy. Finally, we offer some suggestions for important concepts to consider when interpreting model results.

Reader variability in mammography and its implications for expected utility over the population of readers and cases

The multiple-reader, multiple-case (MRMC) approach to receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis is becoming the dominant assessment paradigm in medical imaging. Its most common version involves having many readers read every patient case in the study, a critical feature since differences among competing imaging modalities are often dominated by differences in reader performance. The present authors have carried out MRMC ROC analysis on a uniquely large data set for mammography. The analysis quantifies the great range of observed reader skill in that data set. It also demonstrates that the sample sizes are sufficiently large that the conclusions generalize to the populations sampled here with little uncertainty from the finite sample size. A schematic approach to bracketing the utility matrix is then used to study trends in the resulting expected utility functions that correspond to the range of observed ROC curves. This is done for both the screening and the diagnostic context. The results raise 2 hypotheses for further investigation. First, it is possible that the present ambiguity surrounding the effectiveness of mammography is due in part to the observed range of reader skills and corresponding expected utility functions. Second, it is possible that computer-assisted modalities for mammography may lead to improvements in the expected utility function not only for screening but also in the diagnostic context, especially for the lower performing readers.

Screening mammography: costs and use of screening-related services

PURPOSE

To determine the costs and screening-related services in women undergoing screening mammography.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study procedures were approved by the institutional committee for the protection of human subjects, and participants gave prior written consent. Data from a statewide mammography registry were used to identify imaging examinations, clinical consultations, interventional procedures, and pathology reports associated with screening mammography. The analysis included 99 064 women in the New Hampshire Mammography Network who underwent screening mammography between November 1, 1996, and March 31, 2000. Use of screening-related services in each case was tracked over an 18-month period, and procedure-specific national Medicare reimbursement rates from 2002 were applied for estimation of costs. Descriptive statistics (means, medians, standard deviations, 95% confidence intervals, frequencies, and percentages of resources and of costs) were calculated.

RESULTS

The majority of subjects (85 809, or 87%) underwent screening mammography only. Of the 13 255 (13%) who underwent diagnostic imaging, additional mammographic views were obtained in most at the time of screening, within days or weeks of screening, or at short-interval follow-up. The total cost was $12 287 739. Approximately 80% ($9 777 670) of the total cost was related to imaging, and 68% ($8 410 313), specifically to screening mammography. Twenty percent ($2 510 069) of the total cost was associated with consultation and interventional procedures in only 2942 (3%) of the women, primarily those who underwent biopsy. Procedures resulted in benign findings in 2247 (76%) of the 2942. Mean total direct medical costs per capita were low ($99) in women who underwent screening mammography only, moderate ($286) in women who also underwent diagnostic imaging, and substantially greater in women who underwent biopsy ($993).

CONCLUSION

While the largest component cost of screening mammography is that incurred in obtaining screening views alone, the highest costs per capita are associated with interventional procedures.

A Model-Based Comparison of Breast Cancer Screening Strategies: Mammograms and Clinical Breast Examinations

In screening for secondary prevention of breast cancer, clinical breast examination (CBE) combined with mammography may improve overall screening sensitivity compared with mammography alone. A systematic evaluation of the relative expenses and projected benefit of combining these two screening modalities is not presently available. We addressed this issue using a microsimulation model incorporating age-specific preclinical duration of the disease, age-specific sensitivities of the two modalities, age-specific incidence of the disease, screening strategy, and competing causes of mortality. We examined a total of 48 screening strategies, depending on the age range, the examination interval, and whether mammography or CBE is given at every one or two exam. Our results indicate that a biennial mammography can be cost-effective if coupled with annual CBE. For each screening interval and starting age, giving mammography every two exams and CBE at every exam has the lowest marginal cost per year of quality-adjusted life saved, whereas giving both at every exam has the highest. Comparing annual mammography and CBE to biennial mammography and annual CBE from 50 to 79, the total cost was reduced by 35%, whereas the marginal quality-adjusted life years only decreased by 12%. Similar reductions are observed for other starting ages. It is cost-effective to have a biennial mammography if coupled with an annual CBE. Annual mammography combined with CBE every 6 months will lead to a 41% increase in the quality-adjusted life years compared with annual mammography and CBE from 50 to 79, whereas the total cost increases by 30%.

Recall and detection rates in screening mammography

BACKGROUND

The authors investigated the correlation between recall and detection rates in a group of 10 radiologists who had read a high volume of screening mammograms in an academic institution.

METHODS

Practice-related and outcome-related databases of verified cases were used to compute recall rates and tumor detection rates for a group of 10 Mammography Quality Standard Act (MQSA)-certified radiologists who interpreted a total of 98,668 screening mammograms during the years 2000, 2001, and 2002. The relation between recall and detection rates for these individuals was investigated using parametric Pearson (r) and nonparametric Spearman (rho) correlation coefficients. The effect of the volume of mammograms interpreted by individual radiologists was assessed using partial correlations controlling for total reading volumes.

RESULTS

A wide variability of recall rates (range, 7.7-17.2%) and detection rates (range, 2.6-5.4 per 1000 mammograms) was observed in the current study. A statistically significant correlation (P < 0.05) between recall and detection rates was observed in this group of 10 experienced radiologists. The results remained significant (P < 0.05) after accounting for the volume of mammograms interpreted by each radiologist.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimal performance in screening mammography should be evaluated quantitatively. The general pressure to reduce recall rates through "practice guidelines" to below a fixed level for all radiologists should be assessed carefully.