Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 1/2013

01-01-2013 | Breast Oncology

Advanced Imaging Modalities in Early Stage Breast Cancer: Preoperative Use in the United States Medicare Population

Authors: Margaret L. Crivello, MD, Karen Ruth, MS, Elin R. Sigurdson, MD, PhD, Brian L. Egleston, PhD, Kathryn Evers, MD, Yu-Ning Wong, MD, Marcia Boraas, MD, Richard J. Bleicher, MD

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 1/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Guidelines for breast cancer staging exist, but adherence remains unknown. This study evaluates patterns of imaging in early stage breast cancer usually reserved for advanced disease.

Methods

Surveillance Epidemiology, and End Results data linked to Medicare claims from 1992–2005 were reviewed for stage I/II breast cancer patients. Claims were searched for preoperative performance of computed tomography (CT), positron emission tomography (PET), bone scans, and brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (“advanced imaging”).

Results

There were 67,874 stage I/II breast cancer patients; 18.8 % (n = 12,740) had preoperative advanced imaging. The proportion of patients having CT scans, PET scans, and brain MRI increased from 5.7 % to 12.4 % (P < 0.0001), 0.8 % to 3.4 % (P < 0.0001) and 0.2 % to 1.1 % (P = 0.008), respectively, from 1992 to 2005. Bone scans declined from 20.1 % to 10.7 % (P < 0.0001). “Breast cancer” (174.x) was the only diagnosis code associated with 62.1 % of PET scans, 37.7 % of bone scans, 24.2 % of CT, and 5.1 % of brain MRI. One or more symptoms or metastatic site was suggested for 19.6 % of bone scans, 13.0 % of CT, 13.0 % of PET, and 6.2 % of brain MRI. Factors associated (P < 0.05) with use of all modalities were urban setting, breast MRI and ultrasound. Breast MRI was the strongest predictor (P < 0.0001) of bone scan (odds ratio [OR] 1.63, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.44–1.86), Brain MRI (OR 1.74, 95 % CI 1.15–2.63), CT (OR 2.42, 95 % CI 2.12–2.76), and PET (OR 5.71, 95 % CI 4.52–7.22).

Conclusions

Aside from bone scans, performance of advanced imaging is increasing in early stage Medicare breast cancer patients, with limited rationale provided by coded diagnoses. In light of existing guidelines and increasing scrutiny about health care costs, greater reinforcement of current indications is warranted.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E. Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61:133–4.CrossRef Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E. Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61:133–4.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Brennan ME, Houssami N. Evaluation of the evidence on staging imaging for detection of asymptomatic distant metastases in newly diagnosed breast cancer. Breast. 2012;21:112–23.PubMedCrossRef Brennan ME, Houssami N. Evaluation of the evidence on staging imaging for detection of asymptomatic distant metastases in newly diagnosed breast cancer. Breast. 2012;21:112–23.PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Warren JL, Klabunde CN, Schrag D, Bach PB, Riley GF. Overview of the SEER–Medicare data: content, research applications, and generalizability to the United States elderly population. Med Care. 2002;40:IV-3–18. Warren JL, Klabunde CN, Schrag D, Bach PB, Riley GF. Overview of the SEER–Medicare data: content, research applications, and generalizability to the United States elderly population. Med Care. 2002;40:IV-3–18.
6.
go back to reference FDG positron emission tomography—breast cancer. Decision memorandum CAG-00094A. Washington, DC: CMS; 2002. FDG positron emission tomography—breast cancer. Decision memorandum CAG-00094A. Washington, DC: CMS; 2002.
7.
go back to reference Zylstra S, D’Orsi CJ, Ricci BA, et al. Defense of breast cancer malpractice claims. Breast J. 2001;7:76–90.PubMedCrossRef Zylstra S, D’Orsi CJ, Ricci BA, et al. Defense of breast cancer malpractice claims. Breast J. 2001;7:76–90.PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Dick JF 3rd, Gallagher TH, Brenner RJ, et al. Predictors of radiologists’ perceived risk of malpractice lawsuits in breast imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:327–33.PubMedCrossRef Dick JF 3rd, Gallagher TH, Brenner RJ, et al. Predictors of radiologists’ perceived risk of malpractice lawsuits in breast imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:327–33.PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Bassett LW, Dhaliwal SG, Eradat J, et al. National trends and practices in breast MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191:332–9.PubMedCrossRef Bassett LW, Dhaliwal SG, Eradat J, et al. National trends and practices in breast MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191:332–9.PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Kuhl C, Weigel S, Schrading S, et al. Prospective multicenter cohort study to refine management recommendations for women at elevated familial risk of breast cancer: the EVA trial. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:1450–7.PubMedCrossRef Kuhl C, Weigel S, Schrading S, et al. Prospective multicenter cohort study to refine management recommendations for women at elevated familial risk of breast cancer: the EVA trial. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:1450–7.PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Houssami N, Hayes DF. Review of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in breast cancer: should MRI be performed on all women with newly diagnosed, early stage breast cancer? CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59:290–302.PubMedCrossRef Houssami N, Hayes DF. Review of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in breast cancer: should MRI be performed on all women with newly diagnosed, early stage breast cancer? CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59:290–302.PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Dinan MA, Curtis LH, Hammill BG, et al. Changes in the use and costs of diagnostic imaging among Medicare beneficiaries with cancer, 1999–2006. JAMA. 2010;303:1625–31.PubMedCrossRef Dinan MA, Curtis LH, Hammill BG, et al. Changes in the use and costs of diagnostic imaging among Medicare beneficiaries with cancer, 1999–2006. JAMA. 2010;303:1625–31.PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Wasif N, Maggard MA, Ko CY, Giuliano AE. Invasive lobular vs. ductal breast cancer: a stage-matched comparison of outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:1862–9.PubMedCrossRef Wasif N, Maggard MA, Ko CY, Giuliano AE. Invasive lobular vs. ductal breast cancer: a stage-matched comparison of outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:1862–9.PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Hilsenbeck SG, Ravdin PM, de Moor CA, Chamness GC, Osborne CK, Clark GM. Time-dependence of hazard ratios for prognostic factors in primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1998;52:227–37.PubMedCrossRef Hilsenbeck SG, Ravdin PM, de Moor CA, Chamness GC, Osborne CK, Clark GM. Time-dependence of hazard ratios for prognostic factors in primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1998;52:227–37.PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Myers RE, Johnston M, Pritchard K, Levine M, Oliver T; Breast Cancer Disease Site Group of the Cancer Care Ontario Practice Guidelines Initiative. Baseline staging tests in primary breast cancer: a practice guideline. CMAJ. 2001;164:1439–44.PubMed Myers RE, Johnston M, Pritchard K, Levine M, Oliver T; Breast Cancer Disease Site Group of the Cancer Care Ontario Practice Guidelines Initiative. Baseline staging tests in primary breast cancer: a practice guideline. CMAJ. 2001;164:1439–44.PubMed
16.
go back to reference Barrett T, Bowden DJ, Greenberg DC, Brown CH, Wishart GC, Britton PD. Radiological staging in breast cancer: which asymptomatic patients to image and how. Br J Cancer. 2009;101:1522–8.PubMedCrossRef Barrett T, Bowden DJ, Greenberg DC, Brown CH, Wishart GC, Britton PD. Radiological staging in breast cancer: which asymptomatic patients to image and how. Br J Cancer. 2009;101:1522–8.PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Gerber B, Seitz E, Müller H, et al. Perioperative screening for metastatic disease is not indicated in patients with primary breast cancer and no clinical signs of tumor spread. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2003;82:29–37.PubMedCrossRef Gerber B, Seitz E, Müller H, et al. Perioperative screening for metastatic disease is not indicated in patients with primary breast cancer and no clinical signs of tumor spread. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2003;82:29–37.PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Segaert I, Mottaghy F, Ceyssens S, et al. Additional value of PET-CT in staging of clinical stage IIB and III breast cancer. Breast J. 2010;16:617–24.PubMedCrossRef Segaert I, Mottaghy F, Ceyssens S, et al. Additional value of PET-CT in staging of clinical stage IIB and III breast cancer. Breast J. 2010;16:617–24.PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Nattinger AB, Schapira MM, Warren JL, Earle CC. Methodological issues in the use of administrative claims data to study surveillance after cancer treatment. Med Care. 2002;40:IV-69–74. Nattinger AB, Schapira MM, Warren JL, Earle CC. Methodological issues in the use of administrative claims data to study surveillance after cancer treatment. Med Care. 2002;40:IV-69–74.
Metadata
Title
Advanced Imaging Modalities in Early Stage Breast Cancer: Preoperative Use in the United States Medicare Population
Authors
Margaret L. Crivello, MD
Karen Ruth, MS
Elin R. Sigurdson, MD, PhD
Brian L. Egleston, PhD
Kathryn Evers, MD
Yu-Ning Wong, MD
Marcia Boraas, MD
Richard J. Bleicher, MD
Publication date
01-01-2013
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 1/2013
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-012-2571-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2013

Annals of Surgical Oncology 1/2013 Go to the issue