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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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