Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29341851›Full record

ArticleJournal of women's health (2002)2018

Underutilization of Supplemental Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening Among Patients at High Breast Cancer Risk.

Randy Miles, Fei Wan, Tracy L Onega, Amanda Lenderink-Carpenter, Ellen S O'Meara, Weiwei Zhu, Louise M Henderson, Jennifer S Haas, Deirdre A Hill, Anna N A Tosteson and 5 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of women's health (2002), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Coverage for evidence-based cancer survivorship care services.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Screening of Breast Cancer.Radiologic clinics of North America · 2021
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Randy Miles1 Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School , Boston, Massachusetts.
Fei Wan2 Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute , Seattle, Washington.
Tracy L Onega3 Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice , Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine, Lebanon , New Hampshire.
Amanda Lenderink-Carpenter4 Fort Collins Radiologic Associates , PC, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Ellen S O'Meara2 Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute , Seattle, Washington.
Weiwei Zhu2 Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute , Seattle, Washington.
Louise M Henderson5 Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina , Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Jennifer S Haas6 Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School , Boston, Massachusetts.
Deirdre A Hill7 Department of Internal Medicine, University of New Mexico , Albuquerque, New Mexico .
Anna N A Tosteson3 Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice , Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine, Lebanon , New Hampshire.
Karen J Wernli2 Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute , Seattle, Washington.
Jennifer Alford-Teaster3 Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice , Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine, Lebanon , New Hampshire.
Janie M Lee8 Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine , Seattle, Washington.
Constance D Lehman9 Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School , Boston, Massachusetts.
Christoph I Lee10 Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine ; Department of Health Services, University of Washington School of Public Health ; Hutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research, Seattle, Washington.
Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute · USMassachusetts General Hospital · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · USFred Hutch Cancer Center · USUniversity of New Mexico · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

Translational Engineering in Cancer (TEC)P30CA023108 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI Steven D Leach · 1985 to 2026
$91.3M
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
Promoting personalized decisions for breast cancer screening for women AND theirU54CA163307 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI HAAS, JENNIFER S, ONEGA, TRACY · 2011 to 2017
$6.1M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA154292NCI NIH HHS P30 CA023108NCI NIH HHS U54 CA163307
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWomen at high lifetime breast cancer risk may benefit from supplemental breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening, in addition to routine mammography screening for earlier cancer detection. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe performed a cross-sectional study of 422,406 women undergoing routine mammography screening across 86 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) facilities during calendar year 2012. We determined availability and use of on-site screening breast MRI services based on woman-level characteristics, including >20% lifetime absolute risk using the National Cancer Institute risk assessment tool. Multivariate analyses were performed to determine sociodemographic characteristics associated with on-site screening MRI use.

resultsOverall, 43.9% (2403/5468) of women at high lifetime risk attended a facility with on-site breast MRI screening availability. However, only 6.6% (158/2403) of high-risk women obtained breast MRI screening within a 2-year window of their screening mammogram. Patient factors associated with on-site MRI screening use included younger (<40 years) age (odds ratio [OR] = 2.39, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34-4.21), family history (OR = 1.72, 95% CI: 1.13-2.63), prior breast biopsy (OR = 2.09, 95% CI: 1.22-3.58), and postsecondary education (OR = 2.22, 95% CI: 1.04-4.74).

conclusionsWhile nearly half of women at high lifetime breast cancer risk undergo routine screening mammography at a facility with on-site breast MRI availability, supplemental breast MRI remains widely underutilized among those who may benefit from earlier cancer detection. Future studies should evaluate whether other enabling factors such as formal risk assessment and patient awareness of high lifetime breast cancer risk can mitigate the underutilization of supplemental screening breast MRI.

Indexed as

Healthcare DisparitiesAdultAgedBiopsyBreastBreast NeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealth FacilitiesHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMammographyMiddle AgedPredictive Value of Testsaccessbreast cancerdisparitieshigh-risk screeningsupplemental breast MRI

Identifiers

PMID29341851
PMCPMC6007803
OpenAlexW2783143738

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.