Literature DB >> 14731703

Protocol for a national multi-centre study of magnetic resonance imaging screening in women at genetic risk of breast cancer.

J Brown1, A Coulthard, A K Dixon, J M Dixon, D F Easton, R A Eeles, D G Evans, F G Gilbert, C Hayes, J P Jenkins, M O Leach, S M Moss, A P Padhani, L J Pointon, B A Ponder, J P Sloane, L W Turnbull, L G Walker, R M Warren, W Watson.   

Abstract

The protocol of the national multicentre study of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) as a method of screening for breast cancer in women at genetic risk is described. The sensitivity and specificity of contrast-enhanced MRI will be compared with two-view X-ray mammography in a comparative trial. Approximately 500 women below the age of 50 at high genetic risk of breast cancer will be recruited per year for 3 years, with annual MRI and X-ray examination continuing for up to 5 years. A symptomatic cohort will be measured in the initial phase of the study to ensure consistent reporting between centres. The MRI examination will comprise an initial high-sensitivity screening measurement, followed by a high-specificity measurement in equivocal cases. Retrospective analysis will identify the most specific indicators of malignancy. Sensitivity and specificity, together with diagnostic performance, diagnostic impact and therapeutic impact will be assessed with reference to pathology, follow-up and changes in diagnostic certainty and therapeutic decisions. The psychological impact of screening in this high-risk group will be ascertained.

Entities:  

Year:  2000        PMID: 14731703     DOI: 10.1054/brst.2000.0136

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast        ISSN: 0960-9776            Impact factor:   4.380


  5 in total

1.  How Many of the Biopsy Decisions Taken at Inexperienced Breast Radiology Units Were Correct?

Authors:  Özlem Demircioğlu; Meral Uluer; Erkin Arıbal
Journal:  J Breast Health       Date:  2017-01-01

2.  Dynamic Contrast Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Oncology: Theory, Data Acquisition, Analysis, and Examples.

Authors:  Thomas E Yankeelov; John C Gore
Journal:  Curr Med Imaging Rev       Date:  2009-05-01

3.  Psychological impact and acceptability of magnetic resonance imaging and X-ray mammography: the MARIBS Study.

Authors:  J Hutton; L G Walker; F J Gilbert; D G Evans; R Eeles; G E Kwan-Lim; D Thompson; L J Pointon; D M Sharp; M O Leach
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2011-02-15       Impact factor: 7.640

4.  Cost-effectiveness of screening with contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging vs X-ray mammography of women at a high familial risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  I Griebsch; J Brown; C Boggis; A Dixon; M Dixon; D Easton; R Eeles; D G Evans; F J Gilbert; J Hawnaur; P Kessar; S R Lakhani; S M Moss; A Nerurkar; A R Padhani; L J Pointon; J Potterton; D Thompson; L W Turnbull; L G Walker; R Warren; M O Leach
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2006-10-09       Impact factor: 7.640

Review 5.  Should women under 50 be screened for breast cancer?

Authors:  S Moss
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2004-08-02       Impact factor: 7.640

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.