Canadian Association of Radiologists Breast Disease Imaging Referral Guideline

The Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) Breast Disease Expert Panel consists of breast imaging radiologists, a high-risk breast clinician, a patient advisor, and an epidemiologist/guideline methodologist. After developing a list of 20 clinical/diagnostic scenarios, a systematic rapid scoping review was undertaken to identify systematically produced referral guidelines that provide recommendations for one or more of these clinical/diagnostic scenarios. Recommendations from 30 guidelines and contextualization criteria in the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) for guidelines framework were used to develop 69 recommendation statements across the 20 scenarios. This guideline presents the methods of development and the recommendations for referring asymptomatic individuals, symptomatic patients, and other scenarios requiring imaging of the breast.

Economic evaluation of supplemental breast cancer screening modalities to mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis in women with heterogeneously and extremely dense breasts and average or intermediate breast cancer risk in US healthcare

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost effectiveness of supplemental breast imaging modalities for women with heterogeneously and extremely dense breasts and average or intermediate risk of breast cancer (BC) in the USA, and analyze capacity requirements for supplemental magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM).

METHODS

Clinical and economic outcomes for supplemental imaging modalities including full- and abbreviated-protocol MRI (Fp-MRI, Ab-MRI), CEM, and ultrasound (U/S) as add-on to x-ray mammography (XM) or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), were compared to XM or DBT alone, in a decision tree linked to a Markov chain validated by comparison with a microsimulation analysis. A Delphi panel supplemented model input parameters from the literature. A capacity model evaluated the number of additional daily scans and scanners required for Fp-MRI and CEM.

RESULTS

Compared to XM or DBT alone, all supplemental imaging protocols were cost effective. Both Fp- and Ab-MRI, and to a lesser extent CEM and U/S, yielded superior clinical outcomes to XM or DBT. Compared to XM alone, U/S and Ab-MRI had the lowest incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). For U/S, the ICER was $23,394 for the average-risk population and $13,241 for the intermediate-risk population. For CEM, the ICER was $38,423 and $23,772, respectively. For the extremely dense subpopulation with intermediate risk, supplemental screening requirements could be accommodated by conducting one Fp-MRI scan per day per existing general scanner.

CONCLUSIONS

While ultrasound had the lowest ICER, MRI and CEM demonstrated the best clinical outcomes, compared to XM or DBT alone for women with dense breasts and intermediate and high risk. Existing MRI scanner capacity has the potential to meet most of the supplemental screening needs of this population.