Natasha K. Stout

Importance: Medical imaging increased rapidly from 2000 to 2006, but trends in recent years have not been analyzed. Objective: To evaluate recent trends in medical imaging. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study of patterns of medical imaging between 2000 and 2016 among 16 million to 21 million patients enrolled annually in 7 US integrated and mixed-model insurance health care systems and for individuals receiving care in Ontario, Canada. Exposures: Calendar year and country (United States vs Canada). Main Outcomes and Measures: Use of computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), ultrasound, and nuclear medicine imaging. Annual and relative imaging rates by imaging modality, country, and age (children [<18 years], adults [18-64 years], and older adults [≥65 years]). Results: Overall, 135 774 532 imaging examinations were included; 5 439 874 (4%) in children, 89 635 312 (66%) in adults, and 40 699 346 (30%) in older adults. Among adults and older adults, imaging rates were significantly higher in 2016 vs 2000 for all imaging modalities other than nuclear medicine. For example, among older adults, CT imaging rates were 428 per 1000 person-years in 2016 vs 204 per 1000 in 2000 in US health care systems and 409 per 1000 vs 161 per 1000 in Ontario; for MRI, 139 per 1000 vs 62 per 1000 in the United States and 89 per 1000 vs 13 per 1000 in Ontario; and for ultrasound, 495 per 1000 vs 324 per 1000 in the United States and 580 per 1000 vs 332 per 1000 in Ontario. Annual growth in imaging rates among US adults and older adults slowed over time for CT (from an 11.6% annual percentage increase among adults and 9.5% among older adults in 2000-2006 to 3.7% among adults in 2013-2016 and 5.2% among older adults in 2014-2016) and for MRI (from 11.4% in 2000-2004 in adults and 11.3% in 2000-2005 in older adults to 1.3% in 2007-2016 in adults and 2.2% in 2005-2016 in older adults). Patterns in Ontario were similar. Among children, annual growth for CT stabilized or declined (United States: from 10.1% in 2000-2005 to 0.8% in 2013-2016; Ontario: from 3.3% in 2000-2006 to -5.3% in 2006-2016), but patterns for MRI were similar to adults. Changes in annual growth in ultrasound were smaller among adults and children in the United States and Ontario compared with CT and MRI. Nuclear medicine imaging declined in adults and children after 2006. Conclusions and Relevance: From 2000 to 2016 in 7 US integrated and mixed-model health care systems and in Ontario, rates of CT and MRI use continued to increase among adults, but at a slower pace in more recent years. In children, imaging rates continued to increase except for CT, which stabilized or declined in more recent periods. Whether the observed imaging utilization was appropriate or was associated with improved patient outcomes is unknown.

BACKGROUND: Despite trials of mammography and widespread use, optimal screening policy is controversial. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate U.S. breast cancer screening strategies. DESIGN: 6 models using common data elements. DATA SOURCES: National data on age-specific incidence, competing mortality, mammography characteristics, and treatment effects. TARGET POPULATION: A contemporary population cohort. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Societal. INTERVENTIONS: 20 screening strategies with varying initiation and cessation ages applied annually or biennially. OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of mammograms, reduction in deaths from breast cancer or life-years gained (vs. no screening), false-positive results, unnecessary biopsies, and overdiagnosis. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: The 6 models produced consistent rankings of screening strategies. Screening biennially maintained an average of 81% (range across strategies and models, 67% to 99%) of the benefit of annual screening with almost half the number of false-positive results. Screening biennially from ages 50 to 69 years achieved a median 16.5% (range, 15% to 23%) reduction in breast cancer deaths versus no screening. Initiating biennial screening at age 40 years (vs. 50 years) reduced mortality by an additional 3% (range, 1% to 6%), consumed more resources, and yielded more false-positive results. Biennial screening after age 69 years yielded some additional mortality reduction in all models, but overdiagnosis increased most substantially at older ages. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: Varying test sensitivity or treatment patterns did not change conclusions. LIMITATION: Results do not include morbidity from false-positive results, patient knowledge of earlier diagnosis, or unnecessary treatment. CONCLUSION: Biennial screening achieves most of the benefit of annual screening with less harm. Decisions about the best strategy depend on program and individual objectives and the weight placed on benefits, harms, and resource considerations. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) treatment has changed substantially over time, but we do not know whether survival post-metastasis has improved at the population level. METHODS: We searched for studies of MBC patients that reported survival after metastasis in at least two time periods between 1970 and the present. We used meta-regression models to test for survival improvement over time in four disease groups: recurrent, recurrent estrogen (ER)-positive, recurrent ER-negative, and de novo stage IV. We performed sensitivity analyses based on bias in some studies that could lead earlier cohorts to include more aggressive cancers. RESULTS: There were 15 studies of recurrent MBC (N = 18 678 patients; 3073 ER-positive and 1239 ER-negative); meta-regression showed no survival improvement among patients recurring between 1980 and 1990, but median survival increased from 21 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 18 to 25) months to 38 (95% CI = 31 to 47) months from 1990 to 2010. For ER-positive MBC patients, median survival increased during 1990-2010 from 32 (95% CI = 23 to 43) to 57 (95% CI = 37 to 87) months, and for ER-negative MBC patients from 14 (95% CI = 11 to 19) to 33 (95% CI = 21 to 51) months. Among eight studies (N = 35 831) of de novo stage IV MBC, median survival increased during 1990-2010 from 20 (95% CI = 16 to 24) to 31 (95% CI = 24 to 39) months. Results did not change in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: By bridging studies over time, we demonstrated improvements in survival for recurrent and de novo stage IV MBC overall and across ER-defined subtypes since 1990. These results can inform patient-doctor discussions about MBC prognosis and therapy.

Importance: Given recent advances in screening mammography and adjuvant therapy (treatment), quantifying their separate and combined effects on US breast cancer mortality reductions by molecular subtype could guide future decisions to reduce disease burden. Objective: To evaluate the contributions associated with screening and treatment to breast cancer mortality reductions by molecular subtype based on estrogen-receptor (ER) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (ERBB2, formerly HER2 or HER2/neu). Design, Setting, and Participants: Six Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Network (CISNET) models simulated US breast cancer mortality from 2000 to 2012 using national data on plain-film and digital mammography patterns and performance, dissemination and efficacy of ER/ERBB2-specific treatment, and competing mortality. Multiple US birth cohorts were simulated. Exposures: Screening mammography and treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures: The models compared age-adjusted, overall, and ER/ERBB2-specific breast cancer mortality rates from 2000 to 2012 for women aged 30 to 79 years relative to the estimated mortality rate in the absence of screening and treatment (baseline rate); mortality reductions were apportioned to screening and treatment. Results: In 2000, the estimated reduction in overall breast cancer mortality rate was 37% (model range, 27%-42%) relative to the estimated baseline rate in 2000 of 64 deaths (model range, 56-73) per 100 000 women: 44% (model range, 35%-60%) of this reduction was associated with screening and 56% (model range, 40%-65%) with treatment. In 2012, the estimated reduction in overall breast cancer mortality rate was 49% (model range, 39%-58%) relative to the estimated baseline rate in 2012 of 63 deaths (model range, 54-73) per 100 000 women: 37% (model range, 26%-51%) of this reduction was associated with screening and 63% (model range, 49%-74%) with treatment. Of the 63% associated with treatment, 31% (model range, 22%-37%) was associated with chemotherapy, 27% (model range, 18%-36%) with hormone therapy, and 4% (model range, 1%-6%) with trastuzumab. The estimated relative contributions associated with screening vs treatment varied by molecular subtype: for ER+/ERBB2-, 36% (model range, 24%-50%) vs 64% (model range, 50%-76%); for ER+/ERBB2+, 31% (model range, 23%-41%) vs 69% (model range, 59%-77%); for ER-/ERBB2+, 40% (model range, 34%-47%) vs 60% (model range, 53%-66%); and for ER-/ERBB2-, 48% (model range, 38%-57%) vs 52% (model range, 44%-62%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this simulation modeling study that projected trends in breast cancer mortality rates among US women, decreases in overall breast cancer mortality from 2000 to 2012 were associated with advances in screening and in adjuvant therapy, although the associations varied by breast cancer molecular subtype.

BACKGROUND: Controversy persists about optimal mammography screening strategies. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate screening outcomes, taking into account advances in mammography and treatment of breast cancer. DESIGN: Collaboration of 6 simulation models using national data on incidence, digital mammography performance, treatment effects, and other-cause mortality. SETTING: United States. PATIENTS: Average-risk U.S. female population and subgroups with varying risk, breast density, or comorbidity. INTERVENTION: Eight strategies differing by age at which screening starts (40, 45, or 50 years) and screening interval (annual, biennial, and hybrid [annual for women in their 40s and biennial thereafter]). All strategies assumed 100% adherence and stopped at age 74 years. MEASUREMENTS: Benefits (breast cancer-specific mortality reduction, breast cancer deaths averted, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years); number of mammograms used; harms (false-positive results, benign biopsies, and overdiagnosis); and ratios of harms (or use) and benefits (efficiency) per 1000 screens. RESULTS: Biennial strategies were consistently the most efficient for average-risk women. Biennial screening from age 50 to 74 years avoided a median of 7 breast cancer deaths versus no screening; annual screening from age 40 to 74 years avoided an additional 3 deaths, but yielded 1988 more false-positive results and 11 more overdiagnoses per 1000 women screened. Annual screening from age 50 to 74 years was inefficient (similar benefits, but more harms than other strategies). For groups with a 2- to 4-fold increased risk, annual screening from age 40 years had similar harms and benefits as screening average-risk women biennially from 50 to 74 years. For groups with moderate or severe comorbidity, screening could stop at age 66 to 68 years. LIMITATION: Other imaging technologies, polygenic risk, and nonadherence were not considered. CONCLUSION: Biennial screening for breast cancer is efficient for average-risk populations. Decisions about starting ages and intervals will depend on population characteristics and the decision makers' weight given to the harms and benefits of screening. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.