Tag: breast density

The Cost of Extra Cancer Detection

Posted on by Brian Casey

It’s well known that using additional screening modalities beyond traditional 2D mammography can detect more cancers in women with dense breast tissue. But at what cost? A new study in Clinical Breast Cancer documents both the clinical value and the economic cost of supplemental breast imaging technologies. 

2D mammography is the basis for any breast cancer screening program, but the modality’s shortcomings are well known, especially in women with dense breasts. 

  • In fact, the FDA earlier this month began requiring breast imaging providers to notify women of their density status and explain how higher density is a breast cancer risk factor. 

Imaging vendors and clinicians have developed a range of technologies to supplement 2D mammography when needed, ranging from DBT to molecular breast imaging to breast MRI.

  • Each has its own advantages and disadvantages, which can leave many breast imaging providers confused about the best technology to use.

To shed some light, Matthew Covington, MD, of the University of Utah compared detection rates for various supplemental imaging modalities; he then estimated costs for each if it was the only modality used for supplemental imaging with 2D mammography in a U.S. population with 469k detectable breast cancers. 

  • The study assumed that 2D mammography would detect only 41% of cancers – leaving the majority undetected. 

Adding a supplemental modality boosted cancer detection rates, but also screening’s cost …

  • DBT detected 47% of all cancers at a cost of $933M
  • Ultrasound detected 51% at a cost of $1.84B
  • MBI detected 71% at a cost of $4.16B
  • Contrast-enhanced mammography detected 80% at a cost of $3.87B
  • MRI detected 100% at a cost of $6.36B

As the data indicate, MRI is clearly the most effective supplemental modality, but at a cost that’s almost 7X that of DBT. 

The Takeaway

The new data are a fascinating – if sobering – look at the intersection of clinical value and economic cost. They also highlight healthcare’s inconvenient truth: The resources needed to provide the highest-quality care are finite, regardless of whether you’re in a single-payor or fee-for-service system.

Why the FDA’s Density Rule Matters

Posted on by Brian Casey

The FDA’s new rules on reporting breast density to women getting mammograms went into effect on September 10. The implementation has been expected for some time, but this week’s rollout generated a wave of positive press coverage that highlights the importance both of breast density awareness and of breast screening.

The FDA in March 2023 said it would implement a national standard requiring providers to inform women of their breast density, which can obscure lesions on conventional X-ray mammography. 

  • Breast density is also a risk factor for cancer, and patient advocacy groups had been pressuring the FDA to set a standard to replace what has become a patchwork of state-by-state notification rules. 

The FDA’s rules have been incorporated into the Mammography Quality Standards Act, and require that … 

  • Mammography reports include a plain-language patient summary with “an overall assessment of breast density.” 
  • The summary must include specific language that defines breast density, explains its ramifications for detection and cancer risk, and suggests the need for additional imaging tests.

A novel aspect of the new rules is that they were mostly driven by patients – women like JoAnn Pushkin and the late Nancy Cappello who as patients discovered first-hand the shortcomings of X-ray-based mammography for women with dense breast tissue. 

What’s next? Density-awareness proponents are now turning their attention to reimbursement, which for supplemental imaging is inconsistent across the U.S.

  • A fix for the problem – the Find It Early Act – is working its way through Congress, and women’s health advocates lobbied on Capitol Hill this week to try to push the legislation through before the end of the current Congressional session. 

The new reporting landscape also creates opportunities for better software tools to detect and manage breast density and better predict risk in patients with dense breast tissue. 

  • Clinicians already realize that women with dense breasts not only need different screening modalities like MRI and ultrasound, but that they might also require more frequent screening due to their heightened cancer risk. 

The Takeaway

The FDA’s new breast density rules matter for a variety of reasons, from showing the power of patients to change their imaging experience to outlining a future in which risk plays a more prominent role in breast screening. While more work remains to be done, this is a good time to savor the triumph.

Taking Ultrasound Beyond Breast Density

Posted on by Brian Casey

When should breast ultrasound be used as part of mammography screening? It’s often used in cases of dense breast tissue, but other factors should also come into play, say researchers in a new study in Cancer. 

Conventional X-ray mammography has difficulties when used for screening women with dense breast tissue, so supplemental modalities like ultrasound and MRI are called into play. But focusing too much on breast density alone could mean that many women who are at high risk of breast cancer don’t get the additional imaging they need.

To study this issue, researchers analyzed the risk of mammography screening failures (defined as interval invasive cancer or advanced cancer) in ~825k screening mammograms in ~377k women, and more than ~38k screening ultrasound studies in ~29k women. All exams were acquired from 2014 to 2020 at 32 healthcare facilities across the US.

Researchers then compared the mammography failure rate in women who got ultrasound and mammography to those who got mammography alone. Their findings included: 

  • Ultrasound was appropriately targeted at women with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts, with 95.3% getting scans
  • However, based on their complete risk factor profile, women with dense breasts who got ultrasound had only a modestly higher risk of interval breast cancer compared to women who only got mammography (23.7% vs. 18.5%) 
  • More than half of women undergoing ultrasound screening had low or average risk of an interval breast cancer based on their risk factor profile, despite having dense breasts
  • The risk of advanced cancer was very close between the two groups (32.0% vs. 30.5%), suggesting that a large fraction of women at risk of advanced cancer are getting only mammography screening with no supplemental imaging

The Takeaway 

On the positive side, ultrasound is being widely used in women with dense breast tissue, indicating success in identifying these women and getting them the supplemental imaging they need. But the high rate of advanced cancer in women who only received mammography indicates that consideration of other risk factors – such as family history of breast cancer and body mass index – is necessary beyond just breast tissue density to identify women in need of supplemental imaging. 

Get every issue of The Imaging Wire, delivered right to your inbox.

You might also like..

Select All

You're signed up!

It's great to have you as a reader. Check your inbox for a welcome email.

-- The Imaging Wire team

You're all set!