Literature DB >> 15800894

Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging.

Constance D Lehman1, Jeffrey D Blume, Paul Weatherall, David Thickman, Nola Hylton, Ellen Warner, Etta Pisano, Stuart J Schnitt, Constantine Gatsonis, Mitchell Schnall, Gia A DeAngelis, Paul Stomper, Eric L Rosen, Michael O'Loughlin, Steven Harms, David A Bluemke.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The authors compared the performance of screening mammography versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in women at genetically high risk for breast cancer.
METHODS: The authors conducted an international prospective study of screening mammography and MRI in asymptomatic, genetically high-risk women age >/= 25 years. Women with a history of breast cancer were eligible for a contralateral screening if they had been diagnosed within 5 years or a bilateral screening if they had been diagnosed > 5 years previously. All examinations (MRI, mammography, and clinical breast examination [CBE]) were performed within 90 days of each other.
RESULTS: In total, 390 eligible women were enrolled by 13 sites, and 367 women completed all study examinations. Imaging evaluations recommended 38 biopsies, and 27 biopsies were performed, resulting in 4 cancers diagnosed for an overall 1.1% cancer yield (95% confidence interval [95%CI], 0.3-2.8%). MRI detected all four cancers, whereas mammography detected one cancer. The diagnostic yield of mammography was 0.3% (95%CI, 0.01-1.5%). The yield of cancer by MRI alone was 0.8% (95%CI, - 0.3-2.0%). The biopsy recommendation rates for MRI and mammography were 8.5% (95%CI, 5.8-11.8%) and 2.2% (95%CI, 0.1-4.3%).
CONCLUSIONS: Screening MRI in high-risk women was capable of detecting mammographically and clinically occult breast cancer. Screening MRI resulted in 22 of 367 of women (6%) who had negative mammogram and negative CBE examinations undergoing biopsy, resulting in 3 additional cancers detected. MRI also resulted in 19 (5%) false-positive outcomes, which resulted in benign biopsies. (c) 2005 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15800894     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.20971

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  88 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

2.  Frequency of malignancy seen in probably benign lesions at contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging: findings from ACRIN 6667.

Authors:  Susan P Weinstein; Lucy G Hanna; Constantine Gatsonis; Mitchell D Schnall; Mark A Rosen; Constance D Lehman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Estimation of percentage breast tissue density: comparison between digital mammography (2D full field digital mammography) and digital breast tomosynthesis according to different BI-RADS categories.

Authors:  A S Tagliafico; G Tagliafico; F Cavagnetto; M Calabrese; N Houssami
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2013-09-12       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Emerging Breast Imaging Technologies on the Horizon.

Authors:  Srinivasan Vedantham; Andrew Karellas
Journal:  Semin Ultrasound CT MR       Date:  2017-09-13       Impact factor: 1.875

Review 5.  Current and future use of positron emission tomography (PET) in breast cancer.

Authors:  David A Mankoff; William B Eubank
Journal:  J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 2.673

Review 6.  Digital mammography: what do we and what don't we know?

Authors:  Ulrich Bick; Felix Diekmann
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-02-14       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Breast imaging in the young: the role of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer screening, diagnosis and follow-up.

Authors:  Dorria Saleh Salem; Rasha Mohamed Kamal; Sahar Mahmoud Mansour; Lamiaa Adel Salah; Rasha Wessam
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 2.895

8.  Differences in breast density assessment using mammography, tomosynthesis and MRI and their implications for practice.

Authors:  A Tagliafico; G Tagliafico; N Houssami
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2013-10-28       Impact factor: 3.039

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.  Cancer: Destiny from density.

Authors:  Victoria L Seewaldt
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2012-10-25       Impact factor: 49.962

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.