Literature DB >> 16791481

Factors affecting sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography and MRI in women with an inherited risk for breast cancer.

Mieke Kriege1, Cecile T M Brekelmans, Inge Marie Obdeijn, Carla Boetes, Harmine M Zonderland, Sara H Muller, Theo Kok, Radu A Manoliu, A Peter E Besnard, Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst, Caroline Seynaeve, Carina C M Bartels, Reini Kaas, Siebren Meijer, Jan C Oosterwijk, Nicoline Hoogerbrugge, Rob A E M Tollenaar, Emiel J T Rutgers, Harry J de Koning, Jan G M Klijn.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The MRISC study is a screening study, in which women with an increased risk of hereditary breast cancer are screened by a yearly mammography and MRI, and half-yearly clinical breast examination. The sensitivity found in this study was 40% for mammography and 71% for MRI and the specificity was 95 and 90%, respectively. In the current subsequent study we investigated whether these results are influenced by age, a BRCA1/2 mutation, menopausal status and breast density. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From November 1999 to October 2003, 1909 eligible women were screened and 50 breast cancers were detected. For the current analysis, data of 4134 screening rounds and 45 detected breast cancers were used. For both imaging modalities, screening parameters, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and uni- and multivariate odds ratios (ORs) were calculated. All analyses were separately performed for age at entry (< 40, 40-49, > or =50), mutation status, menopausal status and breast density.
RESULTS: Sensitivity of MRI was decreased in women with high breast density (adjusted OR 0.08). False-positive rates of both mammography (OR(adj) 1.67) and MRI (OR(adj) 1.21) were increased by high breast density, that of MRI by pre-menopausal status (OR(adj) 1.70), young age (OR(adj) 1.58 for women 40-49 years versus women > or =50 years) and decreased in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (OR(adj) 0.74). In all investigated subgroups the discriminating capacity (measured by the area under the ROC-curve) was higher for MRI than for mammography, with the largest differences for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (0.237), for women between 40 and 49 years (0.227) and for women with a low breast density (0.237).
CONCLUSIONS: This report supports the earlier recommendation that MRI should be a standard screening method for breast cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16791481     DOI: 10.1007/s10549-006-9230-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.872


  28 in total

1.  Baseline Surveillance in Li-Fraumeni Syndrome Using Whole-Body Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Mandy L Ballinger; Ana Best; Phuong L Mai; Payal P Khincha; Jennifer T Loud; June A Peters; Maria Isabel Achatz; Rubens Chojniak; Alexandre Balieiro da Costa; Karina Miranda Santiago; Judy Garber; Allison F O'Neill; Rosalind A Eeles; D Gareth Evans; Eveline Bleiker; Gabe S Sonke; Marielle Ruijs; Claudette Loo; Joshua Schiffman; Anne Naumer; Wendy Kohlmann; Louise C Strong; Jasmina Bojadzieva; David Malkin; Surya P Rednam; Elena M Stoffel; Erika Koeppe; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Thomas P Slavin; Bita Nehoray; Mark Robson; Michael Walsh; Lorenzo Manelli; Anita Villani; David M Thomas; Sharon A Savage
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2017-12-01       Impact factor: 31.777

2.  [Guideline for the prevention and early detection of breast and ovarian cancer in high risk patients, particularly in women from HBOC (hereditary breast and ovarian cancer) families].

Authors:  Christian F Singer; Muy-Kheng Tea; Gunda Pristauz; Michael Hubalek; Christine Rappaport; Christopher Riedl; Thomas Helbich
Journal:  Wien Klin Wochenschr       Date:  2012-05-28       Impact factor: 1.704

3.  Utilization of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer screening.

Authors:  D Lin; L Moy; D Axelrod; J Smith
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 3.677

Review 4.  Supplemental Screening for Breast Cancer in Women With Dense Breasts: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Joy Melnikow; Joshua J Fenton; Evelyn P Whitlock; Diana L Miglioretti; Meghan S Weyrich; Jamie H Thompson; Kunal Shah
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Feasibility analysis of early temporal kinetics as a surrogate marker for breast tumor type, grade, and aggressiveness.

Authors:  Laura Heacock; Alana A Lewin; Yiming Gao; James S Babb; Samantha L Heller; Amy N Melsaether; Neeti Bagadiya; Sungheon G Kim; Linda Moy
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2017-11-27       Impact factor: 4.813

6.  Updated Breast Cancer Surveillance Recommendations for Female Survivors of Childhood, Adolescent, and Young Adult Cancer From the International Guideline Harmonization Group.

Authors:  Renée L Mulder; Melissa M Hudson; Smita Bhatia; Wendy Landier; Gill Levitt; Louis S Constine; W Hamish Wallace; Flora E van Leeuwen; Cécile M Ronckers; Tara O Henderson; Chaya S Moskowitz; Danielle N Friedman; Andrea K Ng; Helen C Jenkinson; Charlotte Demoor-Goldschmidt; Roderick Skinner; Leontien C M Kremer; Kevin C Oeffinger
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-09-29       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Breast Density Notification Legislation and Breast Cancer Stage at Diagnosis: Early Evidence from the SEER Registry.

Authors:  Ilana Richman; Steven M Asch; Eran Bendavid; Jay Bhattacharya; Douglas K Owens
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2016-11-14       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Detected, yet not Diagnosed - Breast Cancer Screening with MRI Mammography in High-Risk Women.

Authors:  Joerg Heil; Elena Czink; Anne Schipp; Christof Sohn; Hans Junkermann; Michael Golatta
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2012-06-22       Impact factor: 2.860

9.  Breast MRI use uncommon among U.S. women.

Authors:  Jacqueline W Miller; Susan A Sabatino; Trevor D Thompson; Nancy Breen; Mary C White; A Blythe Ryerson; Stephen Taplin; Rachel Ballard-Barbash
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2012-11-15       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 10.  [Breast cancer imaging].

Authors:  M Funke; C Villena
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 0.635

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.