tolerability of breast cancer screening, diagnostic and biopsy procedures: an acrin 6666 substudy...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Tolerability of Breast Cancer Screening, Diagnostic and Biopsy Procedures: An ACRIN 6666 Substudy Mark D. Schleinitz, MD, MS Dina DePalo Jeffrey Blume,](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697bfa51a28abf838c97f1b/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Tolerability of Breast Cancer Screening, Diagnostic and Biopsy
Procedures:An ACRIN 6666 Substudy
Mark D. Schleinitz, MD, MS
Dina DePalo
Jeffrey Blume, PhD
Jean Cormack, PhD
Etta D. Pisano, MD
Wendie A. Berg, MD, PhD
![Page 2: Tolerability of Breast Cancer Screening, Diagnostic and Biopsy Procedures: An ACRIN 6666 Substudy Mark D. Schleinitz, MD, MS Dina DePalo Jeffrey Blume,](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697bfa51a28abf838c97f1b/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Funding
• Avon Foundation
• NCI U01 CA079778, U01 CA89008
![Page 3: Tolerability of Breast Cancer Screening, Diagnostic and Biopsy Procedures: An ACRIN 6666 Substudy Mark D. Schleinitz, MD, MS Dina DePalo Jeffrey Blume,](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697bfa51a28abf838c97f1b/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Background
• In women at elevated risk with mammographically dense breasts the addition of US:– Improves cancer detection– Increases rates of additional imaging and biopsies
• What is the trade-off between improved cancer detection and increased healthcare utilization?
![Page 4: Tolerability of Breast Cancer Screening, Diagnostic and Biopsy Procedures: An ACRIN 6666 Substudy Mark D. Schleinitz, MD, MS Dina DePalo Jeffrey Blume,](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697bfa51a28abf838c97f1b/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Objectives
• To estimate the tolerability of imaging and biopsies
• To compare these results across procedures
• To determine if patient factors affect tolerability
• To combine tolerability with survival
![Page 5: Tolerability of Breast Cancer Screening, Diagnostic and Biopsy Procedures: An ACRIN 6666 Substudy Mark D. Schleinitz, MD, MS Dina DePalo Jeffrey Blume,](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697bfa51a28abf838c97f1b/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Methods: Process Utility
• Place test tolerability on same scale as benefits (survival)
• Waiting time trade-off– How long (in days) would you wait to get results
and avoid procedure?– How do you feel about waiting?– Combined via multiplication
Swan, Med Decis Making 2000, 2006
![Page 6: Tolerability of Breast Cancer Screening, Diagnostic and Biopsy Procedures: An ACRIN 6666 Substudy Mark D. Schleinitz, MD, MS Dina DePalo Jeffrey Blume,](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697bfa51a28abf838c97f1b/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Methods: Combine with Survival
• CISNET models of mammography screening strategies– Survival gain– Procedures incurred
• Use our data to scale QOL impact of:– Screening– Additional imaging– Negative biopsies
Mandelblatt, Ann Intern Med, 2009
![Page 7: Tolerability of Breast Cancer Screening, Diagnostic and Biopsy Procedures: An ACRIN 6666 Substudy Mark D. Schleinitz, MD, MS Dina DePalo Jeffrey Blume,](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697bfa51a28abf838c97f1b/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Results: Imaging
Process Utilities in Days
Screening Diagnostic
Mammogram US MRI Mammogram US
N=109 N=109 N=110 N=108 N=108
Median (IQR)
0.6 (0.1-1.6)
0.4 (0.03-1.0)
1.7 (0.6-4.4)
0.5 (0.1-2.2)
0.5 (0.05-1.4)
Mean (SD)
3.6 (10.3)
2.4 (7.5)
4.9 (11.5)
5.4 (35.2)
1.0 (1.8)
![Page 8: Tolerability of Breast Cancer Screening, Diagnostic and Biopsy Procedures: An ACRIN 6666 Substudy Mark D. Schleinitz, MD, MS Dina DePalo Jeffrey Blume,](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697bfa51a28abf838c97f1b/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Results: Biopsy
Process Utilities in DaysUS-Guided
CoreStereotactic
CoreMRI-guided
CoreExcisional
N=103 N=47 N=9 N=42
Median(IQR)
1.5 (0.4-4.6)
1.5(0.4-3.7)
1.9(0.4-3.8)
2.2(0.6-3.8)
Mean(SD)
7.9 (37.9)
4.9(9.4)
6.6(12.5)
10.3(28.3)
![Page 9: Tolerability of Breast Cancer Screening, Diagnostic and Biopsy Procedures: An ACRIN 6666 Substudy Mark D. Schleinitz, MD, MS Dina DePalo Jeffrey Blume,](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697bfa51a28abf838c97f1b/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Results: Patient Factors
• Procedures better tolerated by:
– Women with prior cancer
– Women over 50
– Post-menopausal women
![Page 10: Tolerability of Breast Cancer Screening, Diagnostic and Biopsy Procedures: An ACRIN 6666 Substudy Mark D. Schleinitz, MD, MS Dina DePalo Jeffrey Blume,](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697bfa51a28abf838c97f1b/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
ResultsBenefits /1000 women
vs. no screeningProcedures / 1000 women
Strategy Cancer Deaths Averted
Life-years gained
Mammograms Additional imaging
Negative Biopsies
Biennial 50-74
7.5 121 11,109 940 66
Biennial 40-69
6.1 120 13,865 1,250 88
Annual 50-69
7.3 132 17,759 1,350 95
Annual 50-74
9.5 156 21,357 1,570 110
Annual 40-69
8.3 164 27,583 2,250 158
Mandelblatt, Ann Intern Med, 2009
QOL toll (QALYs)
Mean Median
124.4 19.8
156.4 25.0
196.4 31.4
235.3 37.7
307.5 49.1
![Page 11: Tolerability of Breast Cancer Screening, Diagnostic and Biopsy Procedures: An ACRIN 6666 Substudy Mark D. Schleinitz, MD, MS Dina DePalo Jeffrey Blume,](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697bfa51a28abf838c97f1b/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Limitations
• Generalizability– Elevated risk– Dense breasts– SES– Trial participants– MRI participation rate
• Methodologically– Timing of procedures
![Page 12: Tolerability of Breast Cancer Screening, Diagnostic and Biopsy Procedures: An ACRIN 6666 Substudy Mark D. Schleinitz, MD, MS Dina DePalo Jeffrey Blume,](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062500/5697bfa51a28abf838c97f1b/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Conclusions
• US better tolerated than mammography
• MRI less well-tolerated still
• Tolerability, especially for induced procedures, should be considered in setting policy
• Variability high, policy may not apply to all