Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24247555›Full record

Observational studyJAMA internal medicine2014

Patterns of breast magnetic resonance imaging use in community practice.

Karen J Wernli, Wendy B DeMartini, Laura Ichikawa, Constance D Lehman, Tracy Onega, Karla Kerlikowske, Louise M Henderson, Berta M Geller, Mike Hofmann, Bonnie C Yankaskas and 1 more

Abstract readObservational Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study 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 79 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

79 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Management of MRI-Detected Benign Internal Mammary Lymph Nodes.The Indian journal of radiology & imaging · 2022
    Article
  20. Article

19 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Karen J WernliGroup Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington.
Wendy B DeMartiniDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle.
Laura IchikawaGroup Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington.
Constance D LehmanDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance, Seattle.
Tracy OnegaDepartment of Community and Family Medicine, Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, New Hampshire.
Karla KerlikowskeGeneral Internal Medicine Section, Department of Veterans Affairs, San Francisco, California5Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco6Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco.
Louise M HendersonDepartment of Radiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Berta M GellerDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington9Department of Radiology, University of Vermont, Burlington.
Mike HofmannDepartment of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.
Bonnie C YankaskasDepartment of Radiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium

Funding

Risk-based Imaging Strategies to Improve Breast Cancer Surveillance OutcomesP01CA154292 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI Diana L Miglioretti · 2011 to 2026
$52.9M
Statistical Coordinating Center for the Breast Cancer Surveillance ConsortiumU01CA086076 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF WASHINGTON · PI MIGLIORETTI, DIANA L · 2000 to 2011
$8.5M
IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF MAMMOGRAPHIC INTERPRETATIONU01CA063731 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF WASHINGTON · PI BUIST, DIANA SM · 1994 to 2011
$6.7M
VERMONT BREAST CANCER SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMU01CA070013 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT &ST AGRIC COLLEGE · PI GELLER, BERTA M · 1995 to 2011
$6.7M
UTILITY AND OUTCOMES FROM MAMMOGRAPHY IN NORTH CAROLINAU01CA070040 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI YANKASKAS, BONNIE C · 1995 to 2011
$6.4M
San Francisco Mammography Registry-A Research SourceU01CA063740 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI KERLIKOWSKE, KARLA M · 1994 to 2011
$6.2M
STRATEGIC STUDIES IN BREAST CANCER SURVEILLANCEU01CA086082 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI ONEGA, TRACY · 2000 to 2011
$4.9M
REFERRAL PATTERNS AND COST ANALYSIS OF SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY--FOLLOW-UP/BIOPSYU01CA063736 · NCI · COOPER INSTITUTE · PI CUTTER, GARY · 1994 to 2004
$2.7M
NEW MEXICO MAMMOGRAPHY PROJECTU01CA069976 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO · PI ROSENBERG, ROBERT D · 1995 to 2005
$2.7M
Comparative effectiveness of breast imaging strategies in community practiceRC2CA148577 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF WASHINGTON · PI BUIST, DIANA SM, GELLER, BERTA M · 2009 to 2009
$2.0M
UW Centers for Comparative and Health Systems Effectiveness Training ProgramK12HS019482 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI SULLIVAN, SEAN D · 2010 to 2010
$1.6M
AHRQ HHS K12 HS019482NCI NIH HHS P01 CA154292NCI NIH HHS RC2 CA148577NCI NIH HHS RC2CA148577NCI NIH HHS U01 CA063731NCI NIH HHS U01 CA063736NCI NIH HHS U01 CA063740NCI NIH HHS U01 CA069976NCI NIH HHS U01 CA070013NCI NIH HHS U01 CA070040NCI NIH HHS U01 CA086076NCI NIH HHS U01 CA086082NCI NIH HHS U01CA63731NCI NIH HHS U01CA63736NCI NIH HHS U01CA63740NCI NIH HHS U01CA69976NCI NIH HHS U01CA70013NCI NIH HHS U01CA70040NCI NIH HHS U01CA86076NCI NIH HHS U01CA86082
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceBreast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly used for breast cancer screening, diagnostic evaluation, and surveillance. However, we lack data on national patterns of breast MRI use in community practice.

objectiveTo describe patterns of breast MRI use in US community practice during the period 2005 through 2009. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsObservational cohort study using data collected from 2005 through 2009 on breast MRI and mammography from 5 national Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries. Data included 8931 breast MRI examinations and 1,288,924 screening mammograms from women aged 18 to 79 years. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We calculated the rate of breast MRI examinations per 1000 women with breast imaging within the same year and described the clinical indications for the breast MRI examinations by year and age. We compared women screened with breast MRI to women screened with mammography alone for patient characteristics and lifetime breast cancer risk.

resultsThe overall rate of breast MRI from 2005 through 2009 nearly tripled from 4.2 to 11.5 examinations per 1000 women, with the most rapid increase from 2005 to 2007 (P = .02). The most common clinical indication was diagnostic evaluation (40.3%), followed by screening (31.7%). Compared with women who received screening mammography alone, women who underwent screening breast MRI were more likely to be younger than 50 years, white non-Hispanic, and nulliparous and to have a personal history of breast cancer, a family history of breast cancer, and extremely dense breast tissue (all P < .001). The proportion of women screened using breast MRI at high lifetime risk for breast cancer (>20%) increased during the study period from 9% in 2005 to 29% in 2009. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Use of breast MRI for screening in high-risk women is increasing. However, our findings suggest that there is a need to improve appropriate use, including among women who may benefit from screening breast MRI.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAge FactorsBreastBreast NeoplasmsCohort StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMammographyMiddle AgedRisk FactorsUnited StatesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID24247555
PMCPMC3905972

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.