Literature DB >> 11481359

Comparison of breast magnetic resonance imaging, mammography, and ultrasound for surveillance of women at high risk for hereditary breast cancer.

E Warner1, D B Plewes, R S Shumak, G C Catzavelos, L S Di Prospero, M J Yaffe, V Goel, E Ramsay, P L Chart, D E Cole, G A Taylor, M Cutrara, T H Samuels, J P Murphy, J M Murphy, S A Narod.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Recommended surveillance for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers includes regular mammography and clinical breast examination, although the effectiveness of these screening techniques in mutation carriers has not been established. The purpose of the present study was to compare breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with ultrasound, mammography, and physical examination in women at high risk for hereditary breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 196 women, aged 26 to 59 years, with proven BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations or strong family histories of breast or ovarian cancer underwent mammography, ultrasound, MRI, and clinical breast examination on a single day. A biopsy was performed when any of the four investigations was judged to be suspicious for malignancy.
RESULTS: Six invasive breast cancers and one noninvasive breast cancer were detected among the 196 high-risk women. Five of the invasive cancers occurred in mutation carriers, and the sixth occurred in a woman with a previous history of breast cancer. The prevalence of invasive or noninvasive breast cancer in the 96 mutation carriers was 6.2%. All six invasive cancers were detected by MRI, all were 1.0 cm or less in diameter, and all were node-negative. In contrast, only three invasive cancers were detected by ultrasound, two by mammography, and two by physical examination. The addition of MRI to the more commonly available triad of mammography, ultrasound, and breast examination identified two additional invasive breast cancers that would otherwise have been missed.
CONCLUSION: Breast MRI may be superior to mammography and ultrasound for the screening of women at high risk for hereditary breast cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11481359     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.15.3524

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  79 in total

Review 1.  Novel agents for chemoprevention, screening methods, and sampling issues.

Authors:  Mary Jo Fackler; Ella Evron; Seema A Khan; Saraswati Sukumar
Journal:  J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 2.673

2.  Leading the way in breast cancer screening and prevention.

Authors:  Katrina Armstrong
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 3.  Pearls and pitfalls in breast MRI.

Authors:  I Millet; E Pages; D Hoa; S Merigeaud; F Curros Doyon; X Prat; P Taourel
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-11-29       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Frequency of malignancy seen in probably benign lesions at contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging: findings from ACRIN 6667.

Authors:  Susan P Weinstein; Lucy G Hanna; Constantine Gatsonis; Mitchell D Schnall; Mark A Rosen; Constance D Lehman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Cost-effectiveness of breast MR imaging and screen-film mammography for screening BRCA1 gene mutation carriers.

Authors:  Janie M Lee; Pamela M McMahon; Chung Y Kong; Daniel B Kopans; Paula D Ryan; Elissa M Ozanne; Elkan F Halpern; G Scott Gazelle
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Screening behavior in women at increased familial risk for breast cancer.

Authors:  Yoland C Antill; John Reynolds; Mary Anne Young; Judy A Kirk; Katherine M Tucker; Tarli L Bogtstra; Shirley S Wong; Tracy E Dudding; Juliana L Di Iulio; Kelly-Anne Phillips
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2006-07-07       Impact factor: 2.375

7.  Near-Infrared Visual Differentiation in Normal and Abnormal Breast Using Hemoglobin Concentrations.

Authors:  Parinaz Mehnati; Sirous Khorram; Mohammad Sadegh Zakerhamidi; Farhood Fahima
Journal:  J Lasers Med Sci       Date:  2017-12-26

Review 8.  Breast cancer imaging: a perspective for the next decade.

Authors:  Andrew Karellas; Srinivasan Vedantham
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 4.071

Review 9.  Screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Katrina Armstrong; Constance D Lehman; Suzanne W Fletcher
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2005-03-09       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Self administered screening for hereditary cancers in conjunction with mammography and ultrasound.

Authors:  Charles H McDonnell; David J Seidenwurm; Diana E McDonnell; Kristie A Bobolis
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 2.375

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.