Abstract B101: Cost comparison of high-risk targeted breast MRI vs. mammography in screening underserved women
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: Our current recommendations for mammographic and MRI screening are based on studies in European, European-Canadian and European-American women. To our knowledge, there has been no large-scale analysis of the effectiveness of mammographic screening in African-American and Latino women. We have little information on the relative benefits of general mammography screening versus high-risk targeted breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) screening in underserved women. Mammography has the advantage of being relatively inexpensive and well accepted. In contrast, MRI is expensive and has the potential to increase the number of benign biopsy. Methods: We compared the ability of mammography screening in a general risk underserved population (standard-of-care) with targeted breast MRI screening in high-risk underserved women to a) detect breast cancer, b) cost of screening/breast diagnosis, c) number of benign biopsies, and d) compliance. From 6/15/2004 to 5/7/2011, 1) 299 general risk women underserved women were underwent digital mammographic screening and 2) 299 high-risk women underwent combined mammogram and breast MRI screening. Women were recruited by our Breast Navigation team from sites throughout central North Carolina and underwent screening accompanied by a member of our Navigation team. Women found to have an abnormal mammogram were evaluated by ultrasound, ultrasound guided biopsy, and/or stereotactic biopsy. Women with an abnormal breast MRI were evaluated with ultrasound, ultrasound guided biopsy, and/or MRI guided biopsy. All follow-up services were provided for free. Results: The average age of women was 50 years for women undergoing mammographic screening and 47 years for women undergoing MRI. The racial composition of general-risk women undergoing mammographic screening was 40% African American, 25% Caucasian, 25% Hispanic, and 1% other vs. 33% African American, 62% Caucasian, 3% Hispanic, and 2% other for high-risk women undergoing breast MRI. Mammographic screening detected 1 breast cancer vs. 9 for MRI. The cost per diagnosis was $37,375.00 vs. $21,561.22. The number of benign breast biopsies/total biopsies was 7/8 (88%) for mammographic screening vs. 31/40 (78%) for MRI. Compliance with follow-up studies was 75% for mammographic screening vs. 90% for MRI. Conclusions: Breast MRI screening in high-risk underserved women is highly feasible and with Navigation, there is a high rate of compliance with follow up studies. The cost per breast cancer diagnosis is significantly lower for targeted breast MRI screening of high-risk women than for mammographic screening of general risk women. Citation Information: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2011;20(10 Suppl):B101.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,018 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».