Literature DB >> 15367553

Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination.

Ellen Warner1, Donald B Plewes, Kimberley A Hill, Petrina A Causer, Judit T Zubovits, Roberta A Jong, Margaret R Cutrara, Gerrit DeBoer, Martin J Yaffe, Sandra J Messner, Wendy S Meschino, Cameron A Piron, Steven A Narod.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Current recommendations for women who have a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation are to undergo breast surveillance from age 25 years onward with mammography annually and clinical breast examination (CBE) every 6 months; however, many tumors are detected at a relatively advanced stage. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound may improve the ability to detect breast cancer at an early stage.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the sensitivity and specificity of 4 methods of breast cancer surveillance (mammography, ultrasound, MRI, and CBE) in women with hereditary susceptibility to breast cancer due to a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A surveillance study of 236 Canadian women aged 25 to 65 years with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations who underwent 1 to 3 annual screening examinations, consisting of MRI, mammography, and ultrasound at a single tertiary care teaching hospital between November 3, 1997, and March 31, 2003. On the day of imaging and at 6-month intervals, CBE was performed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity and specificity of each of the 4 surveillance modalities, and sensitivity of all 4 screening modalities vs mammography and CBE.
RESULTS: Each imaging modality was read independently by a radiologist and scored on a 5-point Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System scale. All lesions with a score of 4 or 5 (suspicious or highly suspicious for malignancy) were biopsied. There were 22 cancers detected (16 invasive and 6 ductal carcinoma in situ). Of these, 17 (77%) were detected by MRI vs 8 (36%) by mammography, 7 (33%) by ultrasound, and 2 (9.1%) by CBE. The sensitivity and specificity (based on biopsy rates) were 77% and 95.4% for MRI, 36% and 99.8% for mammography, 33% and 96% for ultrasound, and 9.1% and 99.3% for CBE, respectively. There was 1 interval cancer. All 4 screening modalities combined had a sensitivity of 95% vs 45% for mammography and CBE combined.
CONCLUSIONS: In BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, MRI is more sensitive for detecting breast cancers than mammography, ultrasound, or CBE alone. Whether surveillance regimens that include MRI will reduce mortality from breast cancer in high-risk women requires further investigation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15367553     DOI: 10.1001/jama.292.11.1317

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  245 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

Review 3.  Genetics for the general internist.

Authors:  Christina M Laukaitis
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2011-11-11       Impact factor: 4.965

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.  An interactive system for computer-aided diagnosis of breast masses.

Authors:  Xingwei Wang; Lihua Li; Wei Liu; Weidong Xu; Dror Lederman; Bin Zheng
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 4.056

6.  [Functional and molecular imaging of breast tumors].

Authors:  K Pinker; P Brader; G Karanikas; K El-Rabadi; W Bogner; S Gruber; M Reisegger; S Trattnig; T H Helbich
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 0.635

7.  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

Review 8.  Genetic risk assessments in individuals at high risk for inherited breast cancer in the breast oncology care setting.

Authors:  Tuya Pal; Susan T Vadaparampil
Journal:  Cancer Control       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 3.302

9.  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

Review 10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.