Close Window
Aetna Aetna
Clinical Policy Bulletin:
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) of the Breast
Number: 0105


Policy

  1. Aetna considers magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with or without contrast materials, of the breast medically necessary for members who have had a recent (within the past year) conventional mammogram and/or breast sonogram, in any of the following circumstances where MRI of the breast may affect their clinical management:

    1. To assess tumor location, size, and extent before and/or after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in persons with locally advanced breast cancer, for determination of eligibility for breast conservation therapy; or
    2. To detect implant rupture in symptomatic members; or
    3. To detect suspected local tumor recurrence in members with breast cancer who have undergone mastectomy and breast reconstruction with an implant; or
    4. To detect local tumor recurrence in individuals with breast cancer who have radiographically dense breasts or old scar tissue from previous breast surgery that compromises the ability of combined mammography and ultrasonography; or
    5. To detect the extent of residual cancer in the recently post-operative breast with positive pathological margins after incomplete lumpectomy when the member still desires breast conservation and local re-excision is planned; or
    6. To evaluate persons with lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS); or
    7. To guide localization of breast lesions to perform needle biopsy when suspicious lesions exclusively detected by contrast-enhanced MRI can not be visualized with mammography or ultrasonography; or
    8. To localize the site of primary occult breast cancer in individuals with adenocarcinoma suggestive of breast cancer discovered as axillary node metastasis or distant metastasis without focal findings on physical examination or on mammography/ultrasonography; or
    9. To map the extent of primary tumors and identify multi-centric disease in persons with localized breast cancer (stage I or II, T0-1 N0-1 M0) prior to surgery (lumpectomy versus mastectomy).
       
  2. Aetna considers breast MRI a medically necessary adjunct to mammography for screening of women considered to be at high genetic risk of breast cancer because of any of the following:

    1. Carry or have a first-degree relative who carries a genetic mutation in the TP53 or PTEN genes (Li-Fraumeni syndrome and Cowden and Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndromes); or
    2. Confirmed presence of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation; or
    3. First degree blood relative with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation and are untested; or
    4. Have a lifetime risk of breast cancer of 20 to 25 % or more using standard risk assessment models (BRCAPRO, Claus model, Gail model, or Tyrer-Cuzick); or
    5. Received radiation treatment to the chest between ages 10 and 30 years, such as for Hodgkin disease. 
       
  3. Aetna considers breast MRI medically necessary to detect intra-capsular (silent) rupture of silicone gel-filled breast implants. Screening for silent intra-capsular rupture more frequently than every 2 years is not considered medically necessary.

  4. Aetna considers breast MRI experimental and investigational for all other indications, including any of the following, because there is insufficient scientific evidence to support its use:

    1. To confirm implant rupture in symptomatic individuals whose ultrasonography shows rupture, especially with implants more than 10 years old (ultrasound sufficient to proceed with removal); or
    2. To differentiate benign from malignant breast disease, especially clustered micro-calcifications; or
    3. To differentiate cysts from solid lesions (ultrasound indicated); or
    4. To evaluate breasts before biopsy in an effort to reduce the number of surgical biopsies for benign lesions; or
    5. Surveillance of asymptomatic individuals with breast cancer who have completed primary therapy and who are not at high genetic risk of breast cancer; or
    6. To provide an early prediction of response to adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy in guiding choice of chemotherapy regimen; or
    7. To screen for breast cancer in members with average risk of breast cancer; or
    8. To screen BRCA-positive men.
    9.  
  5. Aetna considers computer-aided detection of malignancy with MRI of the breast experimental and investigational because its clinical value has not been established.

See also CPB 0584 - Mammography.



Background

Mammography is the only screening test proven to lower breast cancer morbidity and mortality.  Although mammography is an effective screening tool, it does have limitations, especially in women with dense breasts.  New imaging techniques are being developed to overcome these limitations, enhance cancer detection, and improve patient outcome.  Digital mammography, computer-aided detection (CAD), breast ultrasound, and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are frequently used adjuncts to mammography in today's clinical practice.

An expert panel convened by the American Cancer Society recommended the use of MRI for screening women at a 20 to 25 % or greater lifetime risk for breast cancer (Saslow et al, 2007).  The panel states that, in addition to mammography, annual screening using MRI is recommended for women who:

  • Carry or have a first-degree relative who carries a genetic mutation in the TP53 or PTEN genes (Li-Fraumeni syndrome and Cowden and Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndromes)
  • Have a BRCA 1 or 2 mutation
  • Have a first-degree relative with a BRCA 1 or 2 mutation and are untested
  • Have a lifetime risk of breast cancer of 20 to 25 % or more using standard risk assessment models
  • Received radiation treatment to the chest between ages 10 and 30, such as for Hodgkin Disease

The ACS guidelines recommend use of MRI in addition to, not in place of, mammography for screening high-risk women (Saslow et al, 2007).  The guidelines explain that all of the clinical trials screened participants with both MRI and mammography at the same time.  The guidelines state that there is no evidence to support one approach over the other.  "For the majority of women at high risk, it is critical that MRI screening be provided in addition to, not instead of, mammography, as the sensitivity and cancer yield of MRI and mammography combined is greater than for MRI alone."

The guideline provides information about 3 risk assessment models available for calculating breast cancer risk (BRCAPRO, Claus model, and Tyrer-Cuzick).  Software for each model is available online (see Appendix below).  The 3 risk models utilize different combinations of risk factors, are derived from different data sets, and vary in the age to which they calculate cumulative breast cancer risk.  As a result, they may generate different risk estimates for a given patient.  This variability is an indicator that the risk models provide approximate, rather than precise, estimates of breast cancer risk.  According to ACS guidelines, each of the risk models can be used for the purpose of identifying patients who would benefit from breast MRI screening (Saslow et al, 2007).  In addition, the Gail model is widely used in research studies and clinical counseling to predict a woman's lifetime risk of developing breast cancer.  Calculation of a 5-year and lifetime breast cancer risk according to the Gail model can be performed by accessing the National Cancer Institute's website (http://www.nci.nih.gov) and searching for information on breast cancer risk.

The ACS panel also identified several risk subgroups for which the available data are insufficient to recommend either for or against MRI screening (Saslow et al, 2007).  They include women with a personal history of breast cancer, carcinoma in situ, atypical hyperplasia, and extremely dense breasts on mammography.

Although ultrasound is sufficient to confirm rupture of breast implants in women with symptoms, MRI may be necessary to detect intra-capsular rupture of silicone gel-filled breast implants in asymptomatic women.  The sensitivity of plastic surgeons familiar with implants to diagnose rupture is 30 % compared to 89 % for MRI (Holmich et al, 2005).  The FDA therefore recommends that women with silicone gel-filled breast implants have regular breast MRIs over their lifetime to screen for silent rupture.  The FDA-approved labeling of silicone gel-filled breast implants recommends that the first MRI be performed 3 years post-operatively, then every 2 years thereafter.  The FDA recommends that the MRI have at least a 1.5 Tesla magnet, a dedicated breast coil, and a radiologist experienced with breast implant MRI films for signs of rupture.

Houssami et al (2008) reviewed the evidence on MRI in staging the affected breast to determine its accuracy and impact on treatment.  These researchers estimated summary receiver operating characteristic curves, positive predictive value (PPV), true-positive (TP) to false-positive (FP) ratio, and examined their variability according to quality criteria.  Pooled estimates of the proportion of women whose surgery was altered were calculated.  Data from 19 studies showed MRI detects additional disease in 16 % of women with breast cancer (n = 2,610).  Magnetic resonance imaging incremental accuracy differed according to the reference standard (RS; p = 0.016) decreasing from 99 % to 86 % as the quality of the RS increased.  Positive predictive value was 66 % (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 52 % to 77 %) and TP:FP ratio was 1.91 (95 % CI: 1.09 to 3.34). Conversion from wide local excision (WLE) to mastectomy was 8.1 % (95 % CI: 5.9 to 11.3), from WLE to more extensive surgery was 11.3 % in multi-focal/multi-centric disease (95 % CI: 6.8 to 18.3).  Due to MRI-detected lesions (in women who did not have additional malignancy on histology) conversion from WLE to mastectomy was 1.1 % (95 % CI: 0.3 to 3.6) and from WLE to more extensive surgery was 5.5 % (95 % CI: 3.1 to 9.5).  The authors concluded that MRI staging causes more extensive breast surgery in an important proportion of women by identifying additional cancer, however there is a need to reduce FP MRI detection.  They stated that randomized trials are needed to determine the clinical value of detecting additional disease which changes surgical treatment in women with apparently localized breast cancer.

In a review on the utility of MRI for the screening and staging of breast cancer, Patani and Mokbel (2008) stated that while MRI can facilitate local staging, especially the evaluation of ipsilateral multi-centric or multi-focal lesions as well as synchronous contralateral disease that may be missed by conventional imaging; however, efficacy with respect to clinically relevant and patient oriented end-points has yet to be addressed in the context of clinical trials.

Computer-aided detection has been used to aid radiologists’ interpretation of contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast, which is sometimes used as an alternative to mammography or other screening and diagnostic tests because of its high sensitivity in detecting breast lesions, even among those in whom mammography is less accurate (e.g., younger women and those with denser breasts).  However, MRI has a high FP rate because of the difficulty in differentiating between benign and malignant lesions.  The use of CAD may also reduce the time needed to interpret breast MRI images, which currently takes much longer than reading mammograms. 

The BlueCross and BlueShield Association’s Technology Evaluation Center (TEC) Medical Advisory Panel (2006) assessed the evidence on the use of CAD with MRI of the breast by comparing the sensitivity, specificity, and recall rate (percentage of patients asked to come back for further evaluation) of MRI with and without the use of commercially available CAD systems in detecting malignant lesions, evaluating the extent of disease in women with cancer, or gauging the impact of treatment.  According to this assessment, many of the studies on the use of CAD with MRI of the breast mainly reported on the development of CAD systems, or testing new CAD approaches.  The assessment noted that few of them evaluated commercially available CAD systems.  Several of those that did, reported on the development and testing of approaches that underlie one of the commercially available systems (3TP); the assessment stated that it is not clear to what degree the current 3TP system has or has not been modified compared to these earlier approaches.  Although the studies had to have separate testing data sets to be included in the TEC assessment, these data sets often were enriched with more cancer cases or consisted exclusively of cases in which lesions had been found.  The TEC assessment found, as a result, the range of sensitivities and specificities cannot be applied to the populations usually found in a clinical setting.  The TEC assessment also found that many of the studies of CAD systems were retrospective, and reported primarily on their development and testing; thus, these studies lacked the rigor and generalizability of a large, prospective, well-designed study.

The TEC assessment stated that the literature is unclear on how CAD systems are to be used.  In the case of CAD with mammography, the radiologist reads the original films first, makes a diagnosis, and then reviews the CAD results.  The TEC assessment explained that, because CAD is not 100 % sensitive, lesions detected by mammography both before the use of CAD and after viewing the CAD results may be worked up.  Thus, CAD can add to the sensitivity of mammography, but not its specificity.  The TEC assessment noted, however, with MRI of the breast, the sensitivity is already high, and the focus is mainly on enhancing the specificity.  In some studies, it appears that CAD was intended as an adjunct to the initial MRI reading, just as with CAD and mammography.  In other studies, it was proposed as a way of speeding up the MRI reading process, and the precise protocol to be followed in reading the MRI images is unclear.  In addition, unlike in the case of CAD with mammography, in the documents regarding the FDA clearance it did not specify that CAD must be added only after an initial reading of the images alone, although it did say for one system that “patient management decisions should not be made based solely on the results of the CADstream analysis”.  The TEC assessment observed that the impact of CAD on the accuracy of MRI of the breast may depend partly on how the CAD results are incorporated into the reading and diagnostic process.

Based on the available evidence, the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Medical Advisory Panel concluded that there is insufficient evidence to evaluate if the use of CAD systems would maintain or increase the sensitivity, specificity, and recall rates of MRI of the breast.  The TEC assessment concluded that, given the inability to evaluate these intermediate outcomes, it is impossible to evaluate the impact of CAD on health outcomes such as treatment success and survival of patients with breast cancer.

There is limited evidence on the predictive value of preoperative MRI in persons who are newly diagnosed with early stage breast cancer, and no consistent evidence that a pre-operative breast MRI confers a benefit to the patient by improving clinical outcomes or surgical procedures.  Lehman et al (2009) stated that use of breast MRI in the pre-operative evaluation of patients recently diagnosed with breast cancer has increased significantly over the past 10 years because of its well-documented high sensitivity for detecting otherwise occult breast cancer in the affected and contralateral breasts.  However, published research reports on the impact of this improved cancer detection are limited.  Equally important are growing concerns that the quality of breast MRI may vary significantly across practice sites, and therefore the published value of MRI may not be achieved for many patients.  These researchers described the peer-reviewed, published clinical research trials evaluating breast MRI in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer on which the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) practice guidelines on breast cancer were based.  The current NCCN guidelines (2011) recommend that breast MRI be considered for patients with a newly diagnosed breast cancer to evaluate the extent of cancer or presence of multi-focal or multi-centric cancer in the ipsilateral breast; and for screening of the contralateral breast cancer at the time of initial diagnosis (category 2B).

Lehman and colleagues (2007) conducted a study to examine if MRI could improve on clinical breast examination and mammography in detecting contralateral breast cancer soon after the initial diagnosis of unilateral breast cancer.  A total of 969 women with a recent diagnosis of unilateral breast cancer and no abnormalities on mammographic and clinical examination of the contralateral breast underwent breast MRI.  The diagnosis of MRI-detected cancer was confirmed by means of biopsy within 12 months after study entry.  The absence of breast cancer was determined by means of biopsy, the absence of positive findings on repeat imaging and clinical examination, or both at 1 year of follow-up.  MRI detected clinically and mammographically occult breast cancer in the contralateral breast in 30 of 969 women who were enrolled in the study (3.1 %).  The sensitivity of MRI in the contralateral breast was 91 %, and the specificity was 88 %.  The negative predictive value of MRI was 99 %.  A biopsy was performed on the basis of a positive MRI finding in 121 of the 969 women (12.5 %), 30 of whom had specimens that were positive for cancer (24.8 %); 18 of the 30 specimens were positive for invasive cancer.  The mean diameter of the invasive tumors detected was 10.9 mm.  The additional number of cancers detected was not influenced by breast density, menopausal status, or the histologic features of the primary tumor.  The authors concluded that MRI can detect cancer in the contralateral breast that is missed by mammography and clinical examination at the time of the initial breast-cancer diagnosis.

Bernard and associates (2010) evaluated the prevalence of synchronous, occult contralateral breast cancer detected by MRI but not by mammography or clinical breast examination in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer, including those aged 70 years or older.  These investigators reviewed MRI results for women with newly diagnosed breast cancer who underwent bilateral breast MRI after negative mammography and clinical examination.  The prevalence of pathologically confirmed contralateral carcinoma diagnosed solely by MRI was determined and analyzed in the context of age, breast density, family history, menopausal status, and primary-tumor characteristics.  Logistic regression was used to explore the association between contralateral carcinoma and potential patient risk factors.  A total of 425 women were evaluated, of whom 129 (30 %) were aged 70 years or older.  A contralateral biopsy was recommended and performed solely on the basis of MRI in 72 of the 425 women (17 %).  Sixteen of these 72 women (22 %) had pathologically confirmed carcinoma, including 7 in the older subgroup.  The prevalence of clinically and mammographically occult contralateral carcinoma detected by MRI was 3.8 % (16/425) overall and 5.4 % (7/129) in the group of older women.  When potential risk factors for contralateral breast cancer were evaluated, post-menopausal status was the only significant predictor of contralateral cancer detected by MRI (p = 0.016).  The authors concluded that contralateral breast screening with MRI should be considered in post-menopausal women with newly diagnosed breast cancer, even those aged 70 years or older at diagnosis.

On the other hand, Houssami and Hayes (2009) noted that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown equivalent survival for women with early stage breast cancer who are treated with breast-conservation therapy (local excision and radiotherapy) or mastectomy.  Decades of experience have shown that breast-conservation therapy provides excellent local control based on defined standards of care.  Magnetic resonance imaging has been introduced in pre-operative staging of the affected breast in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer because it detects additional foci of cancer that are occult on conventional imaging.  The median incremental (additional) detection for MRI has been estimated as 16 % in meta-analysis.  In the absence of consensus on the role of pre-operative MRI, these investigators reviewed data on its detection capability and its impact on treatment.  They outlined that the assumptions behind the adoption of MRI, namely that it will improve surgical planning and will lead to a reduction in re-excision surgery and in local recurrences, have not been substantiated by trials.  Evidence consistently shows that MRI changes surgical management, usually from breast conservation to more radical surgery; however, there is no evidence that it improves surgical care or prognosis.  Emerging data indicate that MRI does not reduce re-excision rates and that it causes FPs in terms of detection and unnecessary surgery; overall there is little high-quality evidence at present to support the routine use of pre-operative MRI.  The authors concluded that RCTs are needed to establish the clinical, psychosocial, and long-term effects of MRI and to show a related change in treatment from standard care in women newly affected by breast cancer.

Furthermoer, Solin (2010) stated that for the woman with a newly diagnosed early stage breast cancer, the routine use of pre-operative breast MRI is not indicated beyond conventional breast imaging (i.e., mammography with correlation ultrasound as indicated).  There is no consistent evidence that a pre-operative breast MRI confers a benefit to the patient by improving clinical outcomes or surgical procedures.  In a meta-analysis of studies reporting on the use of pre-operative breast MRI for the patient with an established index cancer, multi-focal or multi-centric disease was found on breast MRI in 16 % of the patients, a rate substantially higher than the rate of local recurrence after breast conserving surgery plus definitive radiation treatment.  In the largest retrospective study of patients treated with breast conserving surgery plus radiation, no gain was found for adding a breast MRI to conventional breast imaging.  No randomized clinical trial has been designed to evaluate long-term clinical outcomes associated with adding a pre-operative breast MRI.  Adding pre-operative breast MRI can alter clinical management in ways that are potentially harmful to patients (e.g., increased ipsilateral mastectomies, increased contralateral prophylactic mastectomies, increased work-ups, and delay to definitive surgery).  The authors concluded that the routine use of pre-operative breast MRI is not warranted for the typical patient with a newly diagnosed early stage breast cancer.

There are no clinical studies of breast MRI in BRCA-positive men.  Neither the American Cancer Society guidelines nor the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend breast MRI screening for men.

Wurdinger et al (2005) evaluated the MRI appearance of phyllodes breast tumors and to differentiate them from fibro-adenomas.  MR images were obtained on a 1.5-T imager. T1- and T2-weighted sequences and dynamic 2D fast-field echo T1-weighted sequences were performed.  MR images of 23 patients with 24 phyllodes breast tumors (1 malignant, 23 benign) were analyzed with respect to morphology and contrast enhancement.  The tumors were compared with the MRI appearance of 81 fibro-adenomas of 75 patients.  Well-defined margins were seen in 87.5 % of the phyllodes tumors and 70.4 % of the fibro-adenomas, and a round or lobulated shape in 100 % and 90.1 %, respectively.  A heterogeneous internal structure was observed in 70.8 % of phyllodes tumors and in 49.4 % of fibro-adenomas.  Non-enhancing internal septations were found in 45.8 % of phyllodes tumors and 27.2 % of fibro-adenomas.  A significantly greater increase in signal was seen on T2-weighted images in the tissue surrounding phyllodes tumors (21 %) compared with fibro-adenomas (1.2 %).  Most of both lesions appeared with low signal intensity on T1- and T2-weighted images.  After the administration of contrast material, 33.3 % of phyllodes tumors and 22.2 % of fibro-adenomas showed a suspicious signal intensity-time course.  The authors concluded that phyllodes breast tumors and other fibro-adenomas can not be precisely differentiated on breast MRI.  Phyllodes tumors have benign morphologic features and contrast enhancement characteristics suggestive of malignancy in 33 % of cases.

Biondi et al (2009) stated that phyllodes tumors are unusual biphasic fibro-epithelial neoplasms of the breast, accounting for less than 1 % of all breast tumors and raising issues of diagnosis and therapeutic choice.  They can grow quickly and when the maximum diameter is greater than 10 cm, they are known as giant phyllodes tumors.  Ultrasound, mammography and fine needle aspiration are not effective.  A potentially useful diagnostic modality is MRI.  Core tissue biopsy or incisional biopsy represent the preferred means of pre-operative diagnosis.  Conservative treatment can be effective also in giant tumors depending upon the size of the tumor and the breast if a complete excision with an adequate margin of normal breast tissue can be achieved, so avoiding local recurrence often accompanied by worse histopathology.  The authors reported the case of a giant benign phyllode tumor of the breast treated with conservative surgery, quadrantectomy and oncoplasty.  No local recurrence at 4 years follow-up.

An UpToDate review on "Phyllodes tumors of the breast" (Grau et al, 2011) states that the role of MRI in the diagnosis and management of phyllodes tumors is not clear.  A retrospective study of 30 patients with biopsy confirmed phyllodes tumors showed that malignant phyllodes tumors are seen as well-circumscribed tumors with irregular walls, high signal intensity on T1-weighted images and low signal intensity on T2-weighted images.  Cystic change may be seen as well.  Interestingly, a rapid enhancement pattern is seen more commonly with benign rather than malignant phyllodes tumors, which is the opposite of the pattern seen with adenocarcinomas of the breast.  When the diagnosis of a phyllodes tumor has been made on core biopsy, breast MRI may prove helpful in determining the extent of disease and facilitating pre-operative planning.  However, the use of breast MRI in surgical planning for phyllodes tumors is controversial as there are very little data on its role in this setting as they are so rare.

Furthermore, the NCCN Clinical Practice Guideline on breast cancer (2011) mentions the use of ultrasonography and mammography for the work-up of patients with phyllodes tumor; but does not mention the use of MRI in the management of these patients.

In a retrospective cohort study, Weber and colleagues (2012) examined the effect of pre-operative MRI on the reoperation rate in women with operable breast cancer. Women with operable breast cancer treated by a single surgeon between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2010 were included in this study; selective pre-operative MRI based on breast density and histologic findings were carried out.  Main outcome measures were reoperation rate and pathologically avoidable mastectomy at initial operation.  Of 313 patients in the study, 120 underwent pre-operative MRI.  Patients undergoing MRI were younger (mean age, 53.6 versus 59.5 years; p < 0.001), were more often of non-Hispanic white race/ethnicity (61.7 % versus 52.3 %, p < 0.05), and more likely had heterogeneously dense or very dense breasts (68.4 % versus 22.3 %, p < 0.001).  The incidence of lobular carcinoma (8.3 % in the MRI group versus 5.2 % in the no MRI group, p = 0.27) and the type of surgery performed (mastectomy versus partial mastectomy, p = 0.67) were similar in both groups.  The mean pathological size of the index tumor in the MR imaging group was larger than that in the no MRI group (2.02 versus 1.72 cm, p = 0.009), but the extent of disease was comparable (75.8 % in the MR imaging group versus 82.9 % in the no MRI group had pathologically localized disease, p = 0.26).  The reoperation rate was similar between the 2 groups (19.1 % in the MRI group versus 17.6 % in the no MRI group, p = 0.91) even when stratified by breast density (p = 0.76), pT2 tumor size (p = 0.35), or lobular carcinoma histologic findings (p = 0.26).  Pathologically avoidable mastectomy (multi-focal or multi-centric MRI and uni-focal histopathological findings) was observed in 12 of 47 patients (25.5 %) with pre-operative MRI who underwent mastectomy.  The authors concluded that the selective use of pre-operative MRI to decrease reoperation in women with breast cancer is not supported by these data.  In a considerable number of patients, MRI over-estimated the extent of disease.

Plana et al (2012) estimated the diagnostic accuracy of MRI in detecting additional lesions and contralateral cancer not identified using conventional imaging in primary breast cancer.  These investigators conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses to estimate diagnostic accuracy indices and the impact of MRI on surgical management.  A total of 50 articles were included (n = 10,811 women).  MRI detected additional disease in 20 % of women and in the contralateral breast in 5.5 %.  The summary PPV of ipsilateral additional disease was 67 % (95 % CI: 59 to 74 %).  For contralateral breast, the PPV was 37 % (95 % CI: 27 to 47 %).  For ipsilateral lesions, MRI devices greater than or equal to 1.5 Tesla (T) had higher PPV (75 %, 95 % CI: 64 to 83 %) than MRI with less than 1.5 T (59 %, 95 % CI: 53 to 71 %).  Similar results were found for contralateral cancer, PPV 40 % (95 % CI: 29 to 53 %) and 19 % (95 % CI: 8 to 39 %) for high- and low-field equipments, respectively.  True-positive MRI findings prompted conversion from wide local excision (WLE) to more extensive surgery in 12.8 % of women while in 6.3 % this conversion was inappropriate.  The authors concluded that MRI shows high diagnostic accuracy, but MRI findings should be pathologically verified because of the high FP rate.  They stated that future research on this emerging technology should focus on patient outcome as the primary end-point.

Prevos et al (2012) examined if MRI can identify pre-treatment differences or monitor early response in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy.  PubMed, Cochrane library, Medline and Embase databases were searched for publications until January 1, 2012.  After primary selection, studies were selected based on pre-defined inclusion/exclusion criteria.  Two reviewers assessed study contents using an extraction form.  In 15 studies, which were mainly under-powered and of heterogeneous study design, 31 different parameters were studied.  Most frequently studied parameters were tumor diameter or volume, K(trans), K(ep), V(e), and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC).  Other parameters were analyzed in only 2 or less studies.  Tumor diameter, volume, and kinetic parameters did not show any pre-treatment differences between responders and non-responders.  In 2 studies, pre-treatment differences in ADC were observed between study groups.  At early response monitoring significant and non-significant changes for all parameters were observed for most of the imaging parameters.  The authors concluded that evidence on distinguishing responders and non-responders to neoadjuvant chemotherapy using pre-treatment MRI, as well as using MRI for early response monitoring, is weak and based on under-powered study results and heterogeneous study design.  Thus, the value of breast MRI for response evaluation has not yet been established.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology’s clinical practice guideline update on “Breast cancer follow-up and management after primary treatment” (Khatcheressian et al, 2013) provided recommendations on the follow-up and management of patients with breast cancer who have completed primary therapy with curative intent.  A systematic review of the literature published from March 2006 through March 2012 was completed using Medline and the Cochrane Collaboration Library.  An Update Committee reviewed the evidence to determine whether the recommendations were in need of updating.  There were 14 new publications that met inclusion criteria: 9 systematic reviews (3 included meta-analyses) and 5 RCTs.  After its review and analysis of the evidence, the Update Committee concluded that no revisions to the existing ASCO recommendations were warranted.  Regular history, physical examination, and mammography are recommended for breast cancer follow-up.  Physical examinations should be performed every 3 to 6 months for the first 3 years, every 6 to 12 months for years 4 and 5, and annually thereafter.  For women who have undergone breast-conserving surgery, a post-treatment mammogram should be obtained 1 year after the initial mammogram and at least 6 months after completion of radiation therapy.  Thereafter, unless otherwise indicated, a yearly mammographic evaluation should be performed.  The use of complete blood counts, chemistry panels, bone scans, chest radiographs, liver ultrasounds, pelvic ultrasounds, computed tomography scans, [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography scans, MRI, and/or tumor markers (carcinoembryonic antigen, CA 15-3, and CA 27.29) is not recommended for routine follow-up in an otherwise asymptomatic patient with no specific findings on clinical examination.

Appendix

Breast Cancer Staging:

Information about breast cancer staging is available from the National Cancer Institute at the following website: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/treatment/breast/HealthProfessional/page3.

Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Models:

Software for each of the breast cancer models referenced the American Cancer Society guidelines (Saslow et al, 2007) is available via the internet:

Breast cancer risk can also be estimated online using the Gail Model Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool available from the National Cancer Institute's website: http://www.cancer.gov/bcrisktool/.

 
CPT Codes / HCPCS Codes / ICD-9 Codes
CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:
19085
19086
19287
19288
77058
77059
CPT codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
+ 0159T
Other CPT codes related to the CPB:
19100 - 19103
19120 - 19126
19300 - 19307
19357 - 19369
76645
77051 - 77057
88245 - 88269
88271 - 88275
Modifier 0A
Modifier 0B
HCPCS codes covered if selection criteria are met:
C8903 Magnetic resonance imaging with contrast, breast; unilateral
C8904 Magnetic resonance imaging without contrast, breast; unilateral
C8905 Magnetic resonance imaging without contrast followed by with contrast, breast; unilateral
C8906 Magnetic resonance imaging with contrast, breast; bilateral
C8907 Magnetic resonance imaging without contrast, breast; bilateral
C8908 Magnetic resonance imaging without contrast followed by with contrast, breast; bilateral
Other HCPCS codes related to the CPB:
G0202 - G0206 Mammography
L8600 Implantable breast prosthesis, silicone or equal
S3854 Gene expression profiling panel for use in the management of breast cancer treatment
ICD-9 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
174.0 - 175.9 Malignant neoplasm of breast
196.3 Secondary and unspecified malignant neoplasm of lymph nodes of axilla and upper limb
198.81 Secondary malignant neoplasm of breast
233.0 Carcinoma in situ of breast
759.6 Other hamartoses, not elsewhere classified [Cowden syndrome]
793.80, 793.89 Unspecified and other nonspecific abnormal findings on radiological and other examination of breast
996.54 Mechanical complications due to breast prosthesis
996.79 Other complications of internal (biological) (synthetic) prosthetic device, implant, and graft
V10.3 Personal history of malignant neoplasm of breast
V10.43 Personal history of malignant neoplasm of ovary
V15.3 Personal history of irradiation [to chest]
V16.3 Family history of malignant neoplasm of breast
V16.41 Family history of malignant neoplasm of ovary
V45.71 Acquired absence of breast and nipple
V50.41 Prophylactic breast removal
V50.42 Prophylactic ovary removal
V76.10 Special screening for malignant neoplasm breast, unspecified
V76.19 Other screening breast examination
V84.01 Genetic susceptibility to malignant neoplasm of breast [not covered for BRCA-positive men]
V84.02 Genetic susceptibility to malignant neoplasm of ovary
ICD-9 codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
217 Benign neoplasm of breast
238.3 Neoplasm of uncertain behavior of breast
610.0 Solitary cyst of breast
610.1 Diffuse cystic mastopathy
610.2 Fibroadenosis of breast
610.8 Other specified benign mammary displasia
611.9 Unspecified breast disorder
793.81 Mammographic microcalcification
799.9 Other unknown and unspecified cause of morbidity or mortality
Other ICD-9 codes related to the CPB:
610.3 - 611.9 Disorders of breast
V15.89 Other specified personal history presenting hazards to health
V43.82 Organ or tissue replaced by other means, breast
V45.83 Breast implant removal status
V58.11 Encounter for antineoplastic chemotherapy
V67.2 Follow-up examination following chemotherapy
V76.11 Screening mammogram for high-risk patient
V76.12 Other screening mammogram
V86.0 Estrogen receptor positive status [ER+]
V87.41 Personal history of antineoplastic chemotherapy


The above policy is based on the following references:
  1. Chung KC, Greenfield ML, Walters M. Decision-analysis methodology in the work-up of women with suspected silicone breast implant rupture. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998;102(3):689-695.
  2. Goodman CM, Cohen V, Thornby J, et al. The life span of silicone gel breast implants and a comparison of mammography, ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance imaging in detecting implant rupture: A meta-analysis. Ann Plast Surg. 1998;41(6):577-586.
  3. Friedrich M. MRI of the breast: State of the art. Eur Radiol. 1998;8(5):707-725.
  4. Middleton MS. Magnetic resonance evaluation of breast implants and soft-tissue silicone. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 1998;9(2):92-137.
  5. Muuller RD, Barkhausen J, Sauerwein W, Langer R. Assessment of local recurrence after breast-conserving therapy with MRI. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1998;22(3):408-412.
  6. Kramer S, Schulz-Wendtland R, Hagedorn K, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of local recurrences in breast cancer. Anticancer Res. 1998;18(3C):2159-2161.
  7. Kramer S, Schulz-Wendtland R, Hagedorn K, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging and its role in the diagnosis of multicentric breast cancer. Anticancer Res. 1998;18(3C):2163-2164.
  8. Sittek H, Perlet C, Untch M, et al. Dynamic MR-mammography in invasive lobular breast cancer. Rontgenpraxis. 1998;51(7):235-242.
  9. Fischer U, Kopka L, Grabbe E. Magnetic resonance guided localization and biopsy of suspicious breast lesions. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 1998;9(1):44-59.
  10. Harms SE. Breast magnetic resonance imaging. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 1998;19(1):104-120.
  11. Sardanelli F, Melani E, Ottonello C, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast in characterizing positive or uncertain mammographic findings. Cancer Detect Prev. 1998;22(1):39-42.
  12. Davis PL, McCarty KS Jr. Magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 1998;9(1):60-75.
  13. Umschaden HW, Haselbach H. MR mammography: Current status and indications. Acta Med Austriaca. 1997;24(2):39-45.
  14. Morris EA, Schwartz LH, Dershaw DD, et al. MR imaging of the breast in patients with occult primary breast carcinoma. Radiology. 1997;205(2):437-440.
  15. Brenner RJ, Rothman BJ. Detection of primary breast cancer in women with known adenocarcinoma metastatic to the axilla: Use of MRI after negative clinical and mammographic examination. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1997;7(6):1153-1158.
  16. Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Obdeijn AI, Bontenbal M, et al. MRI in patients with axillary metastases of occult breast carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1997;44(2):179-182.
  17. Potterton AJ, Coulthard A. Value of magnetic resonance imaging of the breast as a screening tool remains uncertain. BMJ. 1997;314(7079):521.
  18. Davis PL, McCarty KS Jr. Sensitivity of enhanced MRI for the detection of breast cancer: New, multicentric, residual, and recurrent. Eur Radiol. 1997;7(Suppl 5):289-298.
  19. Orel SG. High-resolution MR imaging of the breast. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 1996;17(5):476-493.
  20. Rodenko GN, Harms SE, Pruneda JM, et al. MR imaging in the management before surgery of lobular carcinoma of the breast: Correlation with pathology. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;167(6):1415-1419.
  21. Harms SE. MRI in breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 1996;25(6):193-215.
  22. Cohen EK, Leonhardt CM, Shumak RS, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in potential postsurgical recurrence of breast cancer: Pitfalls and limitations. Can Assoc Radiol J. 1996;47(3):171-176.
  23. Hrung JM, Sonnad SS, Schwartz JS, Langlotz CP. Accuracy of MR imaging in the work-up of suspicious breast lesions: A diagnostic meta-analysis. Acad Radiol. 1999;6(7): 387-397.
  24. HGSA Administrators. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Medicare Part B Medical Policy Bulletin No. X-2H. Camp Hill, PA: HGSA Administrators; January 15, 2001. Available at: http://www.lmrp.net/lmrp/carrier/a00865/x-2h.htm. Accessed July 12, 2001.
  25. Ikeda DM, Baker DR, Daniel BL. Magnetic resonance imaging of breast cancer: Clinical indications and breast MRI reporting system. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2000;12(6):975-983.
  26. Goscin CP, Berman CG, Clark RA. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast. Cancer Control. 2001;8(5):399-406.
  27. Kinkel K, Vlastos G. MR imaging: Breast cancer staging and screening. Semin Surg Oncol. 2001;20(3):187-196.
  28. National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine, National Cancer Policy Board, Committee on the Early Detection of Breast Cancer. Mammography and Beyond: Developing Technologies for the Early Detection of Breast Cancer. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.
  29. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Diagnosis and management of specific breast abnormalities. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment 33. Rockville, MD: AHRQ; 2001.
  30. Morris EA. Screening for breast cancer with MRI. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2003;24(1):45-54.
  31. Hollingsworth AB, Stough RG. The emerging role of breast magnetic resonance imaging. J Okla State Med Assoc. 2003;96(7):299-307.
  32. National Cancer Institute (NCI). Breast Cancer (PDQ®): Treatment. Health Professional Version. Bethesda, MD: NCI; updated May 19, 2004. Available at: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/adulttreatment. Accessed October 1, 2004.
  33. Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement (ICSI). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the detection of breast abnormalities. Technology Assessment No. 081. Bloomington, MN: ICSI; December 2003. Available at: http://www.icsi.org. Accessed March 17, 2004.
  34. Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement (ICSI). Diagnosis of breast disease. ICSI Healthcare Guidelines. Bloomington, MN: ICSI; November 2003. Available at: http://www.icsi.org. Accessed March 17, 2004.
  35. BlueCross BlueShield Association (BCBSA), Technology Evaluation Center (TEC). Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: Differential diagnosis of a breast lesion to avoid biopsy. TEC Assessment Program. Chicago, IL: BCBSA; February 2002; 16(15). Available at: http://www.bcbs.com/tec/vol16/16_15.html. Accessed March 5, 2004.
  36. BlueCross BlueShield Association (BCBSA), Technology Evaluation Center (TEC). Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast in screening women considered to be at high genetic risk of breast cancer. TEC Assessment Program. Chicago, IL: BCBSA; December 2003; 18(15). Available at: http://www.bcbs.com/tec/vol18/18_15.html. Accessed March 5, 2004.
  37. BlueCross BlueShield Association (BCBSA), Technology Evaluation Center (TEC). Breast MRI for detection or diagnosis of primary or recurrent breast cancer. TEC Assessment Program. Chicago, IL: BCBSA; April 2004;19(1). Available at: http://www.bcbs.com/tec/vol19/19_01.html. Accessed February 15, 2006.
  38. BlueCross BlueShield Association (BCBSA), Technology Evaluation Center (TEC). Breast MRI for management of patients with locally advanced breast cancer who are being referred for neoadjuvant chemotherapy. TEC Assessment Program. Chicago, IL: BCBSA; September 2004; 19(7). Available at: http://www.bcbs.com/tec/vol19/19_07.html. Accessed September 17, 2004.
  39. BlueCross BlueShield Association (BCBSA), Technology Evaluation Center (TEC). Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast for preoperative evaluation in patients with localized breast cancer. TEC Assessment Program. Chicago, IL: BCBSA; September 2004; 19(8). Available at: http://www.bcbs.com/tec/vol19/19_08.html. Accessed September 17, 2004.
  40. Smith RA, Saslow D, Sawyer KA, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: Update 2003. CA Cancer J Clin. 2003;53(3):141-169.
  41. American College of Radiology. Standards for the management of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast (DCIS). CA Cancer J Clin. 2002;52(5):256-276.
  42. American College of Radiology. Standards for breast conservation therapy in the management of invasive breast carcinoma. CA Cancer J Clin. 2002;52(5):277-300.
  43. Harvey JA, Bassett L, Birdwell RL, et al.; Expert Panel on Women's Imaging - Breast Work Group. Stage 1 breast carcinoma. ACR Appropriateness Criteria. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology (ACR); 2006.
  44. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Breast cancer screening. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 42. Washington, DC: ACOG; April 2003.
  45. American Society of Breast Disease (ASBD). The use of magnetic resonance imaging of the breast (MRIB) for screening of women at high risk of breast cancer. ASBD Policy Statement. Dallas, TX: ASBD; June 28, 2004. Available at: http://www.asbd.org/images/ASBD_Policy_Statement_MRIB_for_High-Risk_Women.pdf. Accessed February 7, 2008.
  46. Feig SA. MRI in the context of other breast imaging procedures. ASBD Breast Healthcare Update. 2006 Summer;(3):1-8. Available at: http://www.asbd.org/images/ASBD_BreastHealth_Upd_v3.pdf. Accessed February 7, 2008. 
  47. Framarin A. Evaluation of techniques for detecting breast implant rupture. AETMIS 02-01 RE. Montreal, QC: Agence d'Evaluation des Technologies et des Modes d'Intervention en Sante (AETMIS); 2002: 45.
  48. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). Guidance for saline, silicone gel, and alternative breast implants; Guidance for industry and FDA. Rockville, MD: FDA; February 11, 2003. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/ode/guidance/1239.html. Accessed February 15, 2005.
  49. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). FDA Breast Implant Consumer Handbook - 2004. Rockville, MD: FDA; updated June 8, 2004. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/breastimplants/indexbip.html. Accessed February 18, 2005.
  50. Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, e al. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(5):427-437.
  51. Holmich LR, Vejborg IM, Conrad C, et al. Untreated silicone breast implant rupture. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;114(1):204-214; discussion 215-216.
  52. Bluemke DA, Gatsonis CA, Chen MH, Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast prior to biopsy. JAMA. 2004;292(22):2735-2742.
  53. Morrow M. Magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer: One step forward, two steps back? JAMA. 2004;292(22):2779-2780.
  54. Scaranelo AM, Marques AF, Smialowski EB, Lederman HM. Evaluation of the rupture of silicone breast implants by mammography, ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in asymptomatic patients: Correlation with surgical findings. Sao Paulo Med J. 2004;122(2):41-47.
  55. Tice JA. MRI of the breast for preoperative evaluation in patients with localized breast cancer. Technology Assessment. San Francisco, CA: California Technology Assessment Forum; February 12, 2003. Available at: http://ctaf.org/ass/viewfull.ctaf?id=3287534155. Accessed March 4, 2005.
  56. Mundy L, Merlin T, Braunack-Mayer A, Hiller JE. MRI screening for breast cancer: Screening for breast cancer with MRI in genetically high-risk women. Horizon Scanning Prioritising Summary - Volume 3. Adelaide, SA: Adelaide Health Technology Assessment (AHTA) on behalf of National Horizon Scanning Unit (HealthPACT and MSAC); 2004.
  57. Brown P. Risk assessment: Controversies and management of moderate-to high-risk individuals. Breast J. 2005;11(Suppl 1):S11-S19.
  58. Elmore JG, Armstrong K, Lehman CD, Fletcher SW. Screening for breast cancer. JAMA. 2005;293(10):1245-1256.
  59. Gundry KR. The application of breast MRI in staging and screening for breast cancer. Oncology (Williston Park). 2005;19(2):159-169; discussion 170, 173-174, 177.
  60. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, et al. Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(33):8469-8476.
  61. Bartella L, Morris EA. Advances in breast imaging: Magnetic resonance imaging. Curr Oncol Rep. 2006;8(1):7-13.
  62. BlueCross BlueShield Association (BCBSA), Technology Evaluation Center (TEC). Computer-aided detection of malignancy with magnetic resonance imaging of the breast. TEC Assessment Program. Chicago, IL: BCBSA; June 2006;21(4). Available at: http://www.bcbs.com/tec/vol21/21_04.html. Accessed July 24, 2006.
  63. Demaerel P, Hermans R, Verstraete K, et al. HTA of magnetic resonance imaging. KCE Reports Vol. 37C. Brussels, Belgium: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE); July 17, 2005.
  64. Schnall MD, Blume J, Bluemke DA, et al. MRI detection of distinct incidental cancer in women with primary cancer studied in IBMC 6883. J Surg Oncol. 2005;92(1):32-38.
  65. Lehman CD. Screening MRI for women at high risk for breast cancer. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2006;27(4):333-338.
  66. Le-Petross HT. Breast MRI as a screening tool: The appropriate role. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2006;4(5):523-526.
  67. Van Goethem M, Tjalma W, Schelfout K, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2006;32(9):901-910.
  68. Malich A, Fischer DR, Bottcher J. CAD for mammography: The technique, results, current role and further developments. Eur Radiol. 2006;16(7):1449-1460.
  69. Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57:75-89.
  70. American Cancer Society (ACS). American Cancer Society issues recommendation on MRI for breast cancer screening. Press Release. Atlanta, GA: ACS; March 28, 2007. Available at: http://www.cancer.org. Accessed April 10, 2007.
  71. Bruening W, Launders J, Pinkney N, et al. Effectiveness of noninvasive diagnostic tests for breast abnormalities. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 2. Prepared by the ECRI Evidence-Based Practice Center for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). AHRQ Publication No. 06-EHC005-EF. Rockville, MD: AHRQ; February 2006. Available at: http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/repFiles/BrCADx%20Final%20Report.pdf. Accessed May 27, 2007.
  72. Hölmich LR, Fryzek JP, Kjøller K, et al. The diagnosis of silicone breast-implant rupture: Clinical findings compared with findings at magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Plast Surg. 2005;54(6):583-589.
  73. Hölmich LR, Vejborg I, Conrad C, et al. The diagnosis of breast implant rupture: MRI findings compared with findings at explantation. Eur J Radiol. 2005;53(2):213-225.
  74. Allergan Inc. INAMED silicone gel-filled breast implants. Smooth & BIOCELL texture. Directions for Use. DFU Inamed Rev. Santa Barbara, CA: Allergan; November 3, 2006. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf2/P020056c.pdf. Accessed January 4, 2008.
  75. Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC). Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Assessment Report. MSAC Application 1098. Canberra, ACT: MSAC; November 2006.
  76. Davidson E, Hancock S. Surveillance of women at high risk of breast cancer: A tech brief. NZHTA Technical Brief Series. Christchurch, New Zealand: New Zealand Health Technology Assessment (NZHTA); 2007;6(1).
  77. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Bieling HB, et al. MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: A prospective observational study. Lancet. 2007;370(9586):485-492.
  78. Dunfield L, Severn M. Effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening for women at high risk of breast cancer. Technology Report. HTA Issue 93. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH); October 2007. Available at: http://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/I3010_MRI-Breast-Cancer_tr_e.pdf. Accessed January 31, 2008.
  79. Warner E, Messersmith H, Causer P, et al. Systematic review: Using magnetic resonance imaging to screen women at high risk for breast cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(9):671-679.
  80. Houssami N, Ciatto S, Macaskill P, et al. 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(19):3248-3258.
  81. Patani N, Mokbel K. The utility of MRI for the screening and staging of breast cancer. Int J Clin Pract. 2008;62(3):450-453.
  82. Lehman CD, Gatsonis C, Kuhl CK, et al; ACRIN Trial 6667 Investigators Group. MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(13):1295-1303.
  83. Lehman CD, DeMartini W, Anderson BO, Edge SB. Indications for breast MRI in the patient with newly diagnosed breast cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2009;7(2):193-201.
  84. Houssami N, Hayes DF. Review of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in breast cancer: Should MRI be performed on all women with newly diagnosed, early stage breast cancer? CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59(5):290-302.
  85. Turnbull LW, Brown SR, Olivier C, et al; COMICE Trial Group. Multicentre randomised controlled trial examining the cost-effectiveness of contrast-enhanced high field magnetic resonance imaging in women with primary breast cancer scheduled for wide local excision (COMICE). Health Technol Assess. 2010;14(1):1-182.
  86. Bernard JR Jr, Vallow LA, DePeri ER, et al. In newly diagnosed breast cancer, screening MRI of the contralateral breast detects mammographically occult cancer, even in elderly women: The mayo clinic in Florida experience. Breast J. 2010;16(2):118-126.
  87. Solin LJ. Counterview: Pre-operative breast MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) is not recommended for all patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer. Breast. 2010;19(1):7-9.
  88. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Breast cancer. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology v.1.2011. Fort Washington, PA: NCCN; 2011. Available at: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/breast.pdf. Accessed January 28, 2011.
  89. Wurdinger S, Herzog AB, Fischer DR, et al. Differentiation of phyllodes breast tumors from fibroadenomas on MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;185(5):1317-1321.
  90. Biondi A, Di Giuntao M, Motta S, et al. Benign phylloides tumor of the breast. Considerations on a clinical case. Ann Ital Chir. 2009;80(6):471-474.
  91. Grau AM, Chakravarthy AB, Chugh R. Phyllodes tumors of the breast. UpToDate, Inc. Waltham, MA. Last updated October 20, 2011.
  92. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Breast cancer. Version 2.2011. NCCN: Fort Washington, PA. March 25, 2011.
  93. Weber JJ, Bellin LS, Milbourn DE, et al. Selective preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in women with breast cancer: No reduction in the reoperation rate. Arch Surg. 2012;147(9):834-839.
  94. Plana MN, Carreira C, Muriel A, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in the preoperative assessment of patients with primary breast cancer: Systematic review of diagnostic accuracy and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(1):26-38.
  95. Prevos R, Smidt ML, Tjan-Heijnen VC, et al. Pre-treatment differences and early response monitoring of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients using magnetic resonance imaging: A systematic review. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(12):2607-2616.
  96. Freitas V, Scaranelo A, Menezes R, et al. Added cancer yield of breast magnetic resonance imaging screening in women with a prior history of chest radiation therapy. Cancer. 2013;119(3):495-503.
  97. Khatcheressian JL, Hurley P, Bantug E, et al; American Society of Clinical Oncology. Breast cancer follow-up and management after primary treatment: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(7):961-965.


email this page   


Copyright Aetna Inc. All rights reserved. Clinical Policy Bulletins are developed by Aetna to assist in administering plan benefits and constitute neither offers of coverage nor medical advice. This Clinical Policy Bulletin contains only a partial, general description of plan or program benefits and does not constitute a contract. Aetna does not provide health care services and, therefore, cannot guarantee any results or outcomes. Participating providers are independent contractors in private practice and are neither employees nor agents of Aetna or its affiliates. Treating providers are solely responsible for medical advice and treatment of members. This Clinical Policy Bulletin may be updated and therefore is subject to change.
Aetna
Back to top