Literature DB >> 15282350

Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition.

Mieke Kriege1, Cecile T M Brekelmans, Carla Boetes, Peter E Besnard, Harmine M Zonderland, Inge Marie Obdeijn, Radu A Manoliu, Theo Kok, Hans Peterse, Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst, Sara H Muller, Sybren Meijer, Jan C Oosterwijk, Louk V A M Beex, Rob A E M Tollenaar, Harry J de Koning, Emiel J T Rutgers, Jan G M Klijn.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The value of regular surveillance for breast cancer in women with a genetic or familial predisposition to breast cancer is currently unproven. We compared the efficacy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with that of mammography for screening in this group of high-risk women.
METHODS: Women who had a cumulative lifetime risk of breast cancer of 15 percent or more were screened every six months with a clinical breast examination and once a year by mammography and MRI, with independent readings. The characteristics of the cancers that were detected were compared with the characteristics of those in two different age-matched control groups.
RESULTS: We screened 1909 eligible women, including 358 carriers of germ-line mutations. Within a median follow-up period of 2.9 years, 51 tumors (44 invasive cancers, 6 ductal carcinomas in situ, and 1 lymphoma) and 1 lobular carcinoma in situ were detected. The sensitivity of clinical breast examination, mammography, and MRI for detecting invasive breast cancer was 17.9 percent, 33.3 percent, and 79.5 percent, respectively, and the specificity was 98.1 percent, 95.0 percent, and 89.8 percent, respectively. The overall discriminating capacity of MRI was significantly better than that of mammography (P<0.05). The proportion of invasive tumors that were 10 mm or less in diameter was significantly greater in our surveillance group (43.2 percent) than in either control group (14.0 percent [P<0.001] and 12.5 percent [P=0.04], respectively). The combined incidence of positive axillary nodes and micrometastases in invasive cancers in our study was 21.4 percent, as compared with 52.4 percent (P<0.001) and 56.4 percent (P=0.001) in the two control groups.
CONCLUSIONS: MRI appears to be more sensitive than mammography in detecting tumors in women with an inherited susceptibility to breast cancer. Copyright 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15282350     DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa031759

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  N Engl J Med        ISSN: 0028-4793            Impact factor:   91.245


  347 in total

1.  Breast MRI at 3.0 T in a high-risk familial breast cancer screening cohort: comparison with 1.5 T screening studies.

Authors:  M D Pickles; L W Turnbull
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-12-13       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 2.  Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: new genes, new treatments, new concepts.

Authors:  Alfons Meindl; Nina Ditsch; Karin Kast; Kerstin Rhiem; Rita K Schmutzler
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2011-05-13       Impact factor: 5.594

3.  The added value of quantitative multi-voxel MR spectroscopy in breast magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  M D Dorrius; R M Pijnappel; M C van der Weide Jansen; L Jansen; P Kappert; M Oudkerk; P E Sijens
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-11-11       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Annual screening strategies in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers: a comparative effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Kathryn P Lowry; Janie M Lee; Chung Y Kong; Pamela M McMahon; Michael E Gilmore; Jessica E Cott Chubiz; Etta D Pisano; Constantine Gatsonis; Paula D Ryan; Elissa M Ozanne; G Scott Gazelle
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2011-09-20       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Utilization of breast cancer screening with magnetic resonance imaging in community practice.

Authors:  Deirdre A Hill; Jennifer S Haas; Robert Wellman; Rebecca A Hubbard; Christoph I Lee; Jennifer Alford-Teaster; Karen J Wernli; Louise M Henderson; Natasha K Stout; Anna N A Tosteson; Karla Kerlikowske; Tracy Onega
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2017-12-06       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Nonmalignant breast lesions: ADCs of benign and high-risk subtypes assessed as false-positive at dynamic enhanced MR imaging.

Authors:  Sana Parsian; Habib Rahbar; Kimberly H Allison; Wendy B Demartini; Matthew L Olson; Constance D Lehman; Savannah C Partridge
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-10-02       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Utility of Diffusion-weighted Imaging to Decrease Unnecessary Biopsies Prompted by Breast MRI: A Trial of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (A6702).

Authors:  Habib Rahbar; Zheng Zhang; Thomas L Chenevert; Justin Romanoff; Averi E Kitsch; Lucy G Hanna; Sara M Harvey; Linda Moy; Wendy B DeMartini; Basak Dogan; Wei T Yang; Lilian C Wang; Bonnie N Joe; Karen Y Oh; Colleen H Neal; Elizabeth S McDonald; Mitchell D Schnall; Constance D Lehman; Christopher E Comstock; Savannah C Partridge
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2019-01-15       Impact factor: 12.531

Review 8.  Management updates for women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.

Authors:  Rachel Nusbaum; Claudine Isaacs
Journal:  Mol Diagn Ther       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 4.074

Review 9.  Breast cancer imaging: a perspective for the next decade.

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

10.  American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement: the role of the oncologist in cancer prevention and risk assessment.

Authors:  Robin T Zon; Elizabeth Goss; Victor G Vogel; Rowan T Chlebowski; Ismail Jatoi; Mark E Robson; Dana S Wollins; Judy E Garber; Powel Brown; Barnett S Kramer
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-12-15       Impact factor: 44.544

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.