Patient preferences regarding use of contrast-enhanced imaging for breast cancer screening.

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.

Reduced Hospital Costs for Ultrasound-guided Vacuum-assisted Excision Compared with Open Surgery in Patients with Benign Breast Masses and High-risk Lesions.

OBJECTIVE: Benign breast masses represent a substantial proportion of breast cancer screening results and may require multiple follow-up visits and biopsy. Even with a preceding benign core biopsy, benign masses have been excised via open surgery for a variety of reasons. This study compared the procedural costs of US-guided vacuum-assisted excision (US-VAE) versus open surgical excisions for benign breast masses and high-risk lesions (HRL). METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, female outpatients receiving US-VAE or open excision of benign breast masses between 2015 and 2018 were identified within the Premier Healthcare Database. A secondary analysis was conducted for patients with HRLs. Propensity score matching and multivariate regression adjusted for patient demographics, encounter level covariates, and hospital characteristics. The total procedural costs were reported from a hospital perspective. RESULTS: A total of 33 724 patients underwent excisions for benign breast masses (8481 US-VAE and 25 242 open surgery). Procedural costs were significantly lower in unmatched patients who received US-VAE ($1350) versus open surgery ($3045) (P < 0.0001). After matching, a total of 5499 discharges were included in each group, with similar findings for US-VAE ($1348) versus open surgery ($3101) (P < 0.0001). A secondary analysis of matched HRL patients (41 discharges in each group) also showed significantly lower procedural costs with US-VAE ($1620) versus open surgery ($3870) (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Among patients with benign breast masses or HRLs, US-VAE was associated with significantly lower procedural costs versus open surgery. If excision is performed and expected clinical outcomes are equal, US-VAE is preferable to reduce costs without compromising the quality of care.