Differential Access to Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging Compared with Mammography and Ultrasound.

Abstract

Introduction: For high-risk women, breast magnetic resonance (MR) is the preferred supplemental imaging option, but spatial access differences may exacerbate disparities in breast care.

Methods: This was a cross-sectional study examining distance between ZIP codes and the nearest breast imaging facility (MR, mammography, ultrasound) using 2023 data from the Food and Drug Administration and the American College of Radiology. Linear regression was used to assess distance differences controlling for Area Deprivation Index (ADI), urbanicity, and population size. Analyses were conducted in 2024.

Results: Among the 29,629 ZIP codes with an ADI and known urbanicity, unadjusted mean distance to breast MR was 23.2±25.1 miles (SD) compared with 8.2±8.3 for mammography and 22.2±25.0 for ultrasound. Hence, the average distance to breast MR facilities was 2.8 times further than to mammography facilities. ADI and urbanicity were associated with increased distance to the nearest breast imaging facility. The additional miles associated with the least advantaged areas compared with most advantaged areas was 12.2 (95%CI: 11.3, 13.2) for MR, 11.5 miles (95%CI: 10.6, 12.3) for ultrasound, and 2.4 (95%CI: 2.1, 2.7) for mammography. Compared with metropolitan areas, the additional miles to breast MR facilities was 23.2 (95%CI: 22.5, 24.0) for small/rural areas.

Conclusions: Spatial access is substantially better for mammography sites compared with breast MR or ultrasound sites. Given these findings, consideration of options to mitigate the impact of differential access should be considered. For example, mammography sites could offer contrast-enhanced mammography. Future research should examine the feasibility and effectiveness of this and other options.