Browsing by Author "Westphal, Steven M."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Breast calcifications following electrical defibrillation: An unusual mammographic appearance
    (Radiology Case Reports U of Washington, 2010) Westphal, Steven M.; Jani, Manish; Badve, Sunil; Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, IU School of Medicine
    We present a case of a 57-year-old woman with a past medical history of end-stage renal disease and a recent history of electrical defibrillation who arrived for her annual mammogram with no breast-related complaints. The mammogram showed interval development of unusual clusters of heterogeneous calcifications. The patient underwent stereotactic core-needle biopsy for definitive diagnosis. The pathologic evaluation revealed fibrosis, abnormal adipocytes, and calcifications with no evidence of malignancy. The constellation of findings was consistent with fat necrosis and fibrosis related to tissue damage sustained during the recent defibrillation.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Prospective multicenter assessment of patient preferences for properties of gadolinium-based contrast media and their potential socioeconomic impact in a screening breast MRI setting
    (Springer, 2021-12) Woolen, Sean A.; Troost, Jonathan P.; Khalatbari, Shokoufeh; Pujara, Akshat C.; McDonald, Jennifer S.; McDonald, Robert J.; Shankar, Prasad; Lewin, Alana A.; Melsaether, Amy N.; Westphal, Steven M.; Patterson, Katherine H.; Nettles, Ashley; Welby, John P.; Patel, Parth Pradip; Kiros, Neud; Piccoli, Lisa; Davenport, Matthew S.; Radiology and Imaging Sciences, School of Medicine
    Objective: It is unknown how patients prioritize gadolinium-based contrast media (GBCM) benefits (detection sensitivity) and risks (reactions, gadolinium retention, cost). The purpose of this study is to measure preferences for properties of GBCM in women at intermediate or high risk of breast cancer undergoing annual screening MRI. Methods: An institutional reviewed board-approved prospective discrete choice conjoint survey was administered to patients at intermediate or high risk for breast cancer undergoing screening MRI at 4 institutions (July 2018-March 2020). Participants were given 15 tasks and asked to choose which of two hypothetical GBCM they would prefer. GBCMs varied by the following attributes: sensitivity for cancer detection (80-95%), intracranial gadolinium retention (1-100 molecules per 100 million administered), severe allergic-like reaction rate (1-19 per 100,000 administrations), mild allergic-like reaction rate (10-1000 per 100,000 administrations), out-of-pocket cost ($25-$100). Attribute levels were based on published values of existing GBCMs. Hierarchical Bayesian analysis was used to derive attribute "importance." Preference shares were determined by simulation. Results: Response (87% [247/284]) and completion (96% [236/247]) rates were excellent. Sensitivity (importance = 44.3%, 95% confidence interval = 42.0-46.7%) was valued more than GBCM-related risks (mild allergic-like reaction risk (19.5%, 17.9-21.1%), severe allergic-like reaction risk (17.0%, 15.8-18.1%), intracranial gadolinium retention (11.6%, 10.5-12.7%), out-of-pocket expense (7.5%, 6.8-8.3%)). Lower income participants placed more importance on cost and less on sensitivity (p < 0.01). A simulator is provided that models GBCM preference shares by GBCM attributes and competition. Conclusions: Patients at intermediate or high risk for breast cancer undergoing MRI screening prioritize cancer detection over GBCM-related risks, and prioritize reaction risks over gadolinium retention. Key points: • Among women undergoing annual breast MRI screening, cancer detection sensitivity (attribute "importance," 44.3%) was valued more than GBCM-related risks (mild allergic reaction risk 19.5%, severe allergic reaction risk 17.0%, intracranial gadolinium retention 11.6%, out-of-pocket expense 7.5%). • Prospective four-center patient preference data have been incorporated into a GBCM choice simulator that allows users to input GBCM properties and calculate patient preference shares for competitor GBCMs. • Lower-income women placed more importance on out-of-pocket cost and less importance on cancer detection (p < 0.01) when prioritizing GBCM properties.