Rationale and Objectives
Our purpose is to understand patient preferences towards contrast-enhanced imaging
such as CEM or MRI for breast cancer screening. Methods and Materials: An anonymous
survey was offered to all patients having screening mammography at a single academic
institution from December 27 th 2019 to March 6 th 2020. Survey questions related
to: (1) patients’ background experiences (2) patients’ concern for aspects of MRI
and CEM measured using a 5-point Likert scale, and (3) financial considerations.
Results
75% (1011/1349) patients completed the survey. 53.0% reported dense breasts and of
those, 47.6% had additional screening. 49.6% had experienced a callback, 29.0% had
a benign biopsy, and 13.7% had prior CEM/MRI. 34.7% were satisfied with mammography
for screening. A majority were neutral or not concerned with radiation exposure, contrast
allergy, IV line placement, claustrophobia, and false positive exams. 54.7% were willing
to pay at least $250-500 for screening MRI. Those reporting dense breasts were less
satisfied with mammography for screening (p<0.001) and willing to pay more for MRI
(p<0.001). If patients had prior CEM/MRI, there was less concern for an allergic reaction
(p<0.001), IV placement (p=0.025), and claustrophobia (p=0.006). There was less concern
for false positives if they had a prior benign biopsy (p=0.029) or prior CEM/MRI (p=0.005)
and less concern for IV placement if they had dense breasts (p=0.007) or a previous
callback (p=0.013).
Conclusion
The screening population may accept CEM or MRI as a screening exam despite its risks
and cost, especially patients with dense breasts and patients who have had prior CEM/MRI.
Key Words
Abbreviations:
HIPPA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), IV (intravenous)To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Academic RadiologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast cancer screening and diagnosis.J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2009; 7: 1060-1096
- Cancer screening in the United States 2014: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening.CA Cancer J Clin. 2014; 64: 30-51
- Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer.N Engl J Med. 2005; 353: 1784-1792
- The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: what have we learned?.Radiol Clin North Am. 2004; 42: 793-806
- The impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality in Europe: a review of observational studies.J Med Screen. 2012; 19: 14-25
- Swedish Two-County Trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades.Radiology. 2011; 260: 658-663
- Effects of age, breast density, ethnicity, and estrogen replacement therapy on screening mammographic sensitivity and cancer stage at diagnosis: review of 183,134 screening mammograms in Albuquerque, New Mexico.Radiology. 1998; 209: 511-518
- MARIBS study group. Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS).Lancet. 2005; 365: 1769-1778
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening Study Group. Effcacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition.N Engl J Med. 2004; 351: 427-437
- Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST.Radiology. 2008; 246: 376-383
- Effect of age, breast density, ethnicity and estrogen replacement therapy on screening mammographic sensitivity and cancer stage at diagnosis: review of 183,134 screening mammograms in Albuquerque, New Mexico.Radiology. 1997; 209: 511-518
- MR imaging of the breast using gadolinium-DTPA.J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1986; 10: 199-204
- Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition.N Engl J Med. 2004; 351: 427-437
- Breast cancer screening with MRI-what are the data for patients at high risk?.N Engl J Med. 2004; 351: 497-500
- Contrast-enhanced MR imaging of breast lesions and effect on treatment.Eur J Surg Oncol. 2004; 30: 501-507
- A review of current evidence-based clinical applications for breast magnetic resonance imaging.Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2008; 19: 143-150
- Systematic review: using magnetic resonance imaging to screen women at high risk for breast cancer.Ann Intern Med. 2008; 148 (671–67)
- Triple-modality screening trial for familial breast cancer underlines the importance of magnetic resonance imaging and questions the role of mammography and ultrasound regardless of patient mutation status, age, and breast density.J Clin Oncol. 2016; 33: 1128-1135
- Accuracy and surgical impact of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging: systematic review and meta-analysis in detection of multifocal and multicentric cancer.J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26: 3248-3258
- Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results of a multireader, multicase study.Breast Cancer Res. 2012; 14: R94
- Diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced digital mammography versus contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for the preoperative evaluation of breast cancer.J Breast Cancer. 2018; 21: 453-462
- Contrast enhanced digital mammography versus magnetic resonance imaging for accurate measurement of the size of breast cancer.Br J Radiol. 2019; 9220180929
- Performance of dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography for screening women at increased risk of breast cancer.Radiology. 2019; 293: 81-88
- Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography vs. mammography and MRI - clinical performance in a multi-reader evaluation.Eur Radiol. 2017; 27: 2752-2764
- Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in comparison to conventional full-field digital mammography in a population of women with dense breasts.Breast Cancer. 2017; 24: 104-110
- Diagnostic performance of dual-energy contrast-enhanced subtracted mammography in dense breasts compared to mammography alone: interobserver blind-reading analysis.Eur Radiol. 2014; 24: 2394-2403
- Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) versus breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): a retrospective comparison in 66 breast lesions.Diagn Interv Imaging. 2017; 98: 113-123
- Comparison between breast MRI and contrast-enhanced spectral mammography.Med Sci Monit. 2015; 21: 1358-1367
- Clinical evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography and contrast enhanced tomosynthesis–comparison to contrast-enhanced breast MRI.Eur J Radiol. 2015; 84: 2501-2508
- Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus MRI: initial results in the detection of breast cancer and assessment of tumour size.Eur Radiol. 2014; 24: 256-264
- Bilateral contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography: feasibility and comparison with conventional digital mammography and MR imaging in women with known breast carcinoma.Radiology. 2013; 266: 743-751
- Contrast enhanced spectral mammography: better than MRI?.Eur J Radiol. 2012; 81 (Suppl): S162-S164
- A simple classification system (the Tree flowchart) for breast MRI can reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies in MRI-only lesions.Eur Radiol. 2017; 27: 3799-3809
- National trends and practices in breast MRI.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008; 191: 332-339
- Contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast: Overview after 1250 patient examinations.Electromedica. 1993; 2: 43-52
- MR imaging screening of the contralateral breast in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer: preliminary results.Radiology. 2003; 226: 773-778
- MR imaging of the ipsilateral breast in women with percutaneously proven breast cancer.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003; 180: 901-910
- Breast MR imaging screening in 192 women proved or suspected to be carriers of a breast cancer susceptibility gene: preliminary results.Radiology. 2000; 215: 267-279
- Multicenter comparative multimodality surveillance of women at genetic-familial high risk for breast cancer (HIBCRIT study): interim results.Radiology. 2007; 242: 698-715
- Comparative dose of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM), digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018; 211: 839-846
- Manual on Contrast Media. Version 10.3.American College of Radiology, Reston, VA2018
- Adverse reactions to ionic and nonionic contrast media. A report from the Japanese Committee on the safety of contrast media.Radiology. 1990; 175: 621-628
- Trends in adverse events after IV administration of contrast media.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001; 176: 1385-1388
- Frequency, outcome, and appropriateness of treatment of nonionic iodinated contrast media reactions.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008; 191: 409-415
- Abbreviated breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): first postcontrast subtracted images and maximum-intensity projection-a novel approach to breast cancer screening with MRI.J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32: 2304-2310
- Abbreviated MRI protocols: wave of the future for breast cancer screening.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013; 208: 284-289
- Cancer statistics, 2019.CA Cancer J Clin. 2019; 69: 7-34
- Breast Cancer Statistics, 2019.CA Cancer J Clin. 2019; 69: 438-451
- Patient awareness of breast density and interest in supplemental screening tests: comparison of an academic facility and a county hospital.J Am Coll Radiol. 2015; 12: 249-255
- Preferences and attitudes regarding adjunct breast cancer screening among patients with dense breasts.J Breast Imag. 2020; 2: 119-124
- Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) versus MRI in the high-risk screening setting: patient preferences and attitudes.Clin Imaging. 2017; 42: 193-197
- Why patients decline digital breast tomosynthesis? Results from a patient survey in an urban academic breast center.Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2019; 00: 1-5
- Patient-centered assessment of the value of oral contrast material.J Am Coll Radiol. 2017; 14: 1626-1631
- Patient awareness, perception and attitude to contrast-enhanced CT examination: Implications for communication and compliance with patients' preferences.Adv Clin Exp Med. 2019; 28: 923-929
- Abbreviated MRI of the breast: Does it provide value?.J Magn Reson Imaging. 2019; : 49e85-4e100
- Breast MRI: state of the art.Radiology. 2019; 292: 520-536
- Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and contrast enhanced MRI (CEMRI): patient preferences and tolerance.J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2015; 59: 300-305
Article info
Publication history
Published online: April 09, 2021
Footnotes
Disclosures:
The authors declare that they had full access to all of the data in this study and the authors take complete responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. All authors should have made substantial contributions to all of the following: (1) the conception and design of the study, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data, (2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content, (3) final approval of the version to be submitted.
Authors have no relevant disclosures except for Jordana Phillips MD. Dr. Phillips is an unpaid consultant for General Electric. Dr. Phillips has been awarded a grant to fund research on contrast enhanced mammography. The grant has had no impact on this current manuscript.
Identification
Copyright
© 2021 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
