Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24247482›Full record

ArticleJAMA internal medicine2014

Rapid increase in breast magnetic resonance imaging use: trends from 2000 to 2011.

Natasha K Stout, Larissa Nekhlyudov, Lingling Li, Elisabeth S Malin, Dennis Ross-Degnan, Diana S M Buist, Marjorie A Rosenberg, Marina Alfisher, Suzanne W Fletcher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA internal medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Contrast-enhanced MRI for breast cancer screening.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2019
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Natasha K StoutDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Larissa NekhlyudovDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts2Department of Medicine, Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates, Boston, Massachusetts.
Lingling LiDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Elisabeth S MalinMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
Dennis Ross-DegnanDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Diana S M BuistGroup Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington.
Marjorie A RosenbergDepartment of Actuarial Science, Risk Management and Insurance, University of Wisconsin, Madison6Department of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Marina AlfisherDepartment of Radiology, Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates, Boston, Massachusetts.
Suzanne W FletcherDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

Institutional Clinical and Translational Science AwardUL1TR000427 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI DREZNER, MARC KENNETH · 2012 to 2016
$32.2M
INSTITUTIONAL CTSA (UW-MADISON): CLINICAL TRIALSUL1RR025011 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI DREZNER, MARC KENNETH · 2007 to 2011
$29.5M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000427NCRR NIH HHS 1UL1RR025011NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR025011
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceBreast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is highly sensitive for detecting breast cancer. Low specificity, cost, and little evidence regarding mortality benefits, however, limit recommendations for its use to high-risk women. How breast MRI is actually used in community settings is unknown.

objectiveTo describe breast MRI trends and indications in a community setting. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsRetrospective cohort study at a not-for-profit health plan and multispecialty group medical practice in New England of 10,518 women aged 20 years and older enrolled in the health plan for at least 1 year who had at least 1 breast MRI between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2011. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Breast MRI counts were obtained from claims data. Clinical indication (screening, diagnostic evaluation, staging or treatment, or surveillance) was determined using a prediction model developed from electronic medical records on a subset of participants. Breast cancer risk status was assessed using claims data and, for the subset, also through electronic medical record review. RESULTS; Breast MRI use increased more than 20-fold from 6.5 per 10,000 women in 2000 to 130.7 per 10,000 in 2009. Use then declined and stabilized to 104.8 per 10,000 by 2011. Screening and surveillance, rare indications in 2000, together accounted for 57.6% of MRI use by 2011; 30.1% had a claims-documented personal history and 51.7% a family history of breast cancer, whereas 3.5% of women had a documented genetic mutation. In the subset of women with electronic medical records who received screening or surveillance MRIs, only 21.0% had evidence of meeting American Cancer Society (ACS) criteria for breast MRI. Conversely, only 48.4% of women with documented deleterious genetic mutations received breast MRI screening. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Breast MRI use increased steeply over 10 years and then stabilized, especially for screening and surveillance among women with family or personal history of breast cancer; most women receiving screening and surveillance breast MRIs lacked documented evidence of meeting ACS criteria, and many women with mutations were not screened. Efforts are needed to ensure that breast MRI use and documentation are focused on those women who will benefit most.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBreastBreast NeoplasmsCohort StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleGenes, BRCA1Genes, BRCA2HumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID24247482
PMCPMC4145846

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.