Literature DB >> 12353239

A BRCA1/2 mutation, high breast density and prominent pushing margins of a tumor independently contribute to a frequent false-negative mammography.

Madeleine Tilanus-Linthorst1, Leon Verhoog, Inge-Marie Obdeijn, Karina Bartels, Marian Menke-Pluymers, Alexander Eggermont, Jan Klijn, Hanne Meijers-Heijboer, Theo van der Kwast, Cecile Brekelmans.   

Abstract

Female BRCA1/2 mutation carriers develop in up to 50% breast cancer (BC) before age 50 years. We investigated whether the specific histologic features of BRCA1/2-associated breast cancer influence imaging. We correlated the mammographic results with the histology of 34 BC in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and 34 sporadic cancers in patients, matched for age and year of diagnosis. Mammography was significantly more frequently false-negative in carriers than controls (62% vs. 29% p = 0.01), despite comparable tumor size (mean solidus in circle 1.51 vs. 1.75) and breast density (high 41% vs. 53%). The image in carriers was significantly less as spiculated mass (6 vs. 18 p = 0.01). Cancers of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers had frequently higher mitotic counts (p < 0.0001) and prominent pushing margins around the tumor (p = 0.08) (p = 0.05 for 32 BRCA1). We also observed that prominent "pushing margins" correlated significantly with a false-negative mammography (p = 0.005) and with a mammographic image of a smooth, not a spiculated, mass (p = 0.01). False-negative mammography correlated independently with: BRCA1/2 mutation (p = 0.02), prominent pushing margins (p = 0.03) and high breast density (p = 0.01). MRI was carried out in 12 carriers, had 100% sensitivity and detected 5 cancers, still occult at physical examination and mammography. A BRCA1/2 mutation and high breast density at mammography contribute independently to false-negative mammography results. In mutation carriers any mammographic mass must be regarded with suspicion. Pushing margins of the tumor partly explain these results. For early BC detection in mutation carriers additional methods like MRI may be needed. This may not be necessary in other young women with breast symptoms. Copyright 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12353239     DOI: 10.1002/ijc.10666

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Cancer        ISSN: 0020-7136            Impact factor:   7.396


  36 in total

Review 1.  Clinical and epidemiological issues in mammographic density.

Authors:  Valentina Assi; Jane Warwick; Jack Cuzick; Stephen W Duffy
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-12-06       Impact factor: 66.675

2.  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

Review 3.  Breast cancer screening: an evidence-based update.

Authors:  Mackenzie S Fuller; Christoph I Lee; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Med Clin North Am       Date:  2015-03-05       Impact factor: 5.456

4.  Correlation between Ultrasound Findings of Tumor Margin and Clinicopathological Findings in Patients with Invasive Ductal Carcinoma of the Breast.

Authors:  Naoko Sannomiya; Yuiko Hattori; Naoyuki Ueda; Akira Kamida; Yuki Koyanagi; Haruki Nagira; Saeko Ikunishi; Kenta Shimabayashi; Yuki Hashimoto; Aya Murata; Kengo Sato; Yumi Hirooka; Keiko Hosoya; Kiyosuke Ishiguro; Yoko Murata; Yasuaki Hirooka
Journal:  Yonago Acta Med       Date:  2016-06-29       Impact factor: 1.641

5.  BRCA1/2 test results impact risk management attitudes, intentions, and uptake.

Authors:  Suzanne C O'Neill; Heiddis B Valdimarsdottir; Tiffani A Demarco; Beth N Peshkin; Kristi D Graves; Karen Brown; Karen E Hurley; Claudine Isaacs; Sharon Hecker; Marc D Schwartz
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2010-04-10       Impact factor: 4.872

6.  Comparison of visibility of circumscribed masses on Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) and 2D mammography: are circumscribed masses better visualized and assured of being benign on DBT?

Authors:  Kazuaki Nakashima; Takayoshi Uematsu; Takahiro Itoh; Kaoru Takahashi; Seiichirou Nishimura; Tomomi Hayashi; Takashi Sugino
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-05-28       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Opinions of women with high inherited breast cancer risk about prophylactic mastectomy: an initial evaluation from a screening trial including magnetic resonance imaging and ductal lavage.

Authors:  Allison W Kurian; Anne-Renee Hartman; Meredith A Mills; James M Ford; Bruce L Daniel; Sylvia K Plevritis
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 3.377

8.  The significance of circumscribed malignant mammographic masses in the surveillance of BRCA 1/2 gene mutation carriers.

Authors:  R Kaas; R Kroger; J H C L Hendriks; A P E Besnard; W Koops; F A Pameijer; W Prevoo; C E Loo; S H Muller
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2004-04-09       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Sonographic correlations with the new molecular classification of invasive breast cancer.

Authors:  I T H Au-Yong; A J Evans; S Taneja; E A Rakha; A R Green; C Paish; I O Ellis
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-05-14       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Randomized trial of a decision aid for BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers: impact on measures of decision making and satisfaction.

Authors:  Marc D Schwartz; Heiddis B Valdimarsdottir; Tiffani A DeMarco; Beth N Peshkin; William Lawrence; Jessica Rispoli; Karen Brown; Claudine Isaacs; Suzanne O'Neill; Rebecca Shelby; Sherry C Grumet; Margaret M McGovern; Sarah Garnett; Heather Bremer; Suzanne Leaman; Kathryn O'Mara; Sarah Kelleher; Kathryn Komaridis
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 4.267

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.