Literature DB >> 15083333

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

R Kaas1, R Kroger, J H C L Hendriks, A P E Besnard, W Koops, F A Pameijer, W Prevoo, C E Loo, S H Muller.   

Abstract

Breast cancers in gene mutation carriers may escape mammographic detection because of rapid growth and tumor expansion. Therefore, they may mimic benign lesions on the mammogram. Twenty-nine BRCA 1/2 mutation carriers under surveillance developed 31 breast cancers between 1994 and 2001 at a mean age of 44.2 years. Controls were 63 women with 67 breast cancers in the same period at a mean age of 53.8 years, also under surveillance because of a life time risk of at least 15%. In 26% of the carriers vs. 48% of the controls, mammography was the method that first suspected a malignancy. Seven radiologists performed a retrospective review of the original mammograms to establish technical assessment, with special attention for circumscribed lesions and estimated probability of malignancy. In the mutation carriers seven (23%) circumscribed non-calcified mammographic masses were found and three in the controls (4.5%) P=0.01. These masses were proven to be malignant. In both groups around 70% of these fast-growing circumscribed lesions were detected by the patients. The masses were situated in breasts with a good interpretable breast pattern. BRCA 1/2 mutation carriers had a significantly higher percentage of circumscribed non-calcified mammographic masses that proved to be malignant. These mammographic lesions in women at high risk should be described as at least Birads 0 and worked-up with ultrasound and needle biopsy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15083333     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-004-2307-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  16 in total

Review 1.  Initiation of population-based mammography screening in Dutch municipalities and effect on breast-cancer mortality: a systematic review.

Authors:  Suzie J Otto; Jacques Fracheboud; Caspar W N Looman; Mireille J M Broeders; Rob Boer; Jan H C L Hendriks; André L M Verbeek; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2003-04-26       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  American College of Radiology guidelines for breast cancer screening.

Authors:  S A Feig; C J D'Orsi; R E Hendrick; V P Jackson; D B Kopans; B Monsees; E A Sickles; C B Stelling; M Zinninger; P Wilcox-Buchalla
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 3.  Recommendations for follow-up care of individuals with an inherited predisposition to cancer. II. BRCA1 and BRCA2. Cancer Genetics Studies Consortium.

Authors:  W Burke; M Daly; J Garber; J Botkin; M J Kahn; P Lynch; A McTiernan; K Offit; J Perlman; G Petersen; E Thomson; C Varricchio
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1997-03-26       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Pathology of familial breast cancer: differences between breast cancers in carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and sporadic cases. Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium.

Authors: 
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1997-05-24       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  Magnetic resonance imaging and mammography in women with a hereditary risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  M J Stoutjesdijk; C Boetes; G J Jager; L Beex; P Bult; J H Hendriks; R J Laheij; L Massuger; L E van Die; T Wobbes; J O Barentsz
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2001-07-18       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  Effectiveness of breast cancer surveillance in BRCA1/2 gene mutation carriers and women with high familial risk.

Authors:  C T Brekelmans; C Seynaeve; C C Bartels; M M Tilanus-Linthorst; E J Meijers-Heijboer; C M Crepin; A A van Geel; M Menke; L C Verhoog; A van den Ouweland; I M Obdeijn; J G Klijn
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2001-02-15       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers.

Authors:  M T Mandelson; N Oestreicher; P L Porter; D White; C A Finder; S H Taplin; E White
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2000-07-05       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Beyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality.

Authors:  L Tabár; B Vitak; H H Chen; M F Yen; S W Duffy; R A Smith
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2001-05-01       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Multifactorial analysis of differences between sporadic breast cancers and cancers involving BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations.

Authors:  S R Lakhani; J Jacquemier; J P Sloane; B A Gusterson; T J Anderson; M J van de Vijver; L M Farid; D Venter; A Antoniou; A Storfer-Isser; E Smyth; C M Steel; N Haites; R J Scott; D Goldgar; S Neuhausen; P A Daly; W Ormiston; R McManus; S Scherneck; B A Ponder; D Ford; J Peto; D Stoppa-Lyonnet; Y J Bignon; J P Struewing; N K Spurr; D T Bishop; J G Klijn; P Devilee; C J Cornelisse; C Lasset; G Lenoir; R B Barkardottir; V Egilsson; U Hamann; J Chang-Claude; H Sobol; B Weber; M R Stratton; D F Easton
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1998-08-05       Impact factor: 13.506

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

Authors:  Madeleine Tilanus-Linthorst; Leon Verhoog; Inge-Marie Obdeijn; Karina Bartels; Marian Menke-Pluymers; Alexander Eggermont; Jan Klijn; Hanne Meijers-Heijboer; Theo van der Kwast; Cecile Brekelmans
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2002-11-01       Impact factor: 7.396

View more
  14 in total

1.  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

2.  Evaluation of breast involvement in relation to Cowden syndrome: a radiological and clinicopathological study of patients with PTEN germ-line mutations.

Authors:  Josep M Sabaté; Antonio Gómez; Sofía Torrubia; Carme Blancas; Gloria Sánchez; M C Alonso; E Lerma
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-10-06       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  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

4.  High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer: Associations between BRCA Mutation Status, CT Imaging Phenotypes, and Clinical Outcomes.

Authors:  Stephanie Nougaret; Yulia Lakhman; Mithat Gönen; Debra A Goldman; Maura Miccò; Melvin D'Anastasi; Sarah A Johnson; Krishna Juluru; Angela G Arnold; Ramon E Sosa; Robert A Soslow; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Hedvig Hricak; Noah D Kauff; Evis Sala
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-06-16       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Metaplastic carcinoma of the breast: Imaging and pathological features.

Authors:  Tiantian Bian; Qing Lin; Zengjie Wu; Chunxiao Cui; Chunhua Qi; Li Li; Xiaohui Su
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2016-09-22       Impact factor: 2.967

6.  Relationship between DCE-MRI morphological and functional features and histopathological characteristics of breast cancer.

Authors:  Filippo Montemurro; Laura Martincich; Ivana Sarotto; Ilaria Bertotto; Riccardo Ponzone; Lisa Cellini; Stefania Redana; Piero Sismondi; Massimo Aglietta; Daniele Regge
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-12-06       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 7.  Intensified surveillance for early detection of breast cancer in high-risk patients.

Authors:  Ulrich Bick
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 2.860

8.  The correlation of mammographic-and histologic patterns of breast cancers in BRCA1 gene mutation carriers, compared to age-matched sporadic controls.

Authors:  R Kaas; R Kroger; J L Peterse; A A M Hart; S H Muller
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-08-19       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 9.  [New information on high risk breast screening].

Authors:  C C Riedl; L Ponhold; R Gruber; K Pinker; T H Helbich
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 0.635

10.  Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results.

Authors:  Hendrik J Teertstra; Claudette E Loo; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Harm van Tinteren; Emiel J T Rutgers; Sara H Muller; Kenneth G A Gilhuijs
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-08-06       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.