Literature DB >> 17244718

Multicenter comparative multimodality surveillance of women at genetic-familial high risk for breast cancer (HIBCRIT study): interim results.

Francesco Sardanelli1, Franca Podo, Giuliano D'Agnolo, Arduino Verdecchia, Mariano Santaquilani, Renato Musumeci, Giovanna Trecate, Siranoush Manoukian, Sandro Morassut, Clelia de Giacomi, Massimo Federico, Laura Cortesi, Stefano Corcione, Stefano Cirillo, Vincenzo Marra, Anna Cilotti, Cosimo Di Maggio, Alfonso Fausto, Lorenzo Preda, Chiara Zuiani, Alma Contegiacomo, Antonio Orlacchio, Massimo Calabrese, Lorenzo Bonomo, Ernesto Di Cesare, Maura Tonutti, Pietro Panizza, Alessandro Del Maschio.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To prospectively compare clinical breast examination (CBE), mammography, ultrasonography (US), and contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for screening women at genetic-familial high risk for breast cancer and report interim results, with pathologic findings as standard.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board of each center approved the research; informed written consent was obtained. CBE, mammography, US, and MR imaging were performed for yearly screening of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers, first-degree relatives of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers, or women enrolled because of a strong family history of breast or ovarian cancer (three or more events in first- or second-degree relatives in either maternal or paternal line; these included breast cancer in women younger than 60 years, ovarian cancer at any age, and male breast cancer at any age).
RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-eight women (mean age, 46 years +/- 12 [standard deviation]) were enrolled. Breast cancer was found in 11 of 278 women at first round and seven of 99 at second round (14 invasive, four intraductal; eight were <or=10 mm in diameter). Detection rate per year was 4.8% (18 of 377) overall; 4.3% (11 of 258) in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers and first-degree relatives of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers versus 5.9% (seven of 119) in women enrolled because of strong family history; and 5.3% (nine of 169) in women with previous personal breast and/or ovarian cancer versus 4.3% (nine of 208) in those without. In six (33%) of 18 patients, cancer was detected only with MR imaging. Sensitivity was as follows: CBE, 50% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 29%, 71%); mammography, 59% (95% CI: 36%, 78%); US, 65% (95% CI: 41%, 83%); and MR imaging, 94% (95% CI: 82%, 99%). Positive predictive value was as follows: CBE, 82% (95% CI: 52%, 95%); mammography, 77% (95% CI: 50%, 92%); US, 65% (95% CI: 41%, 83%); and MR imaging, 63% (95% CI: 43%, 79%).
CONCLUSION: Addition of MR imaging to the screening regimen for high-risk women may enable detection of otherwise unsuspected breast cancers. (c) RSNA, 2007.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17244718     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2423051965

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  74 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.  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

3.  Investigating the limit of detectability of a positron emission mammography device: a phantom study.

Authors:  Nicholas A Shkumat; Adam Springer; Christopher M Walker; Eric M Rohren; Wei T Yang; Beatriz E Adrada; Elsa Arribas; Selin Carkaci; Hubert H Chuang; Lumarie Santiago; Osama R Mawlawi
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Comparative effectiveness of screening and prevention strategies among BRCA1/2-affected mutation carriers.

Authors:  Victor R Grann; Priya R Patel; Judith S Jacobson; Ellen Warner; Daniel F Heitjan; Maxine Ashby-Thompson; Dawn L Hershman; Alfred I Neugut
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2010-07-20       Impact factor: 4.872

5.  Computer-Aided Diagnosis Scheme for Distinguishing Between Benign and Malignant Masses in Breast DCE-MRI.

Authors:  Emi Honda; Ryohei Nakayama; Hitoshi Koyama; Akiyoshi Yamashita
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 4.056

6.  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

7.  Indications for breast magnetic resonance imaging. Consensus document "Attualità in senologia", Florence 2007.

Authors:  F Sardanelli; G M Giuseppetti; G Canavese; L Cataliotti; S Corcione; E Cossu; M Federico; L Marotti; L Martincich; P Panizza; F Podo; M Rosselli Del Turco; C Zuiani; C Alfano; M Bazzocchi; P Belli; S Bianchi; A Cilotti; M Calabrese; L Carbonaro; L Cortesi; C Di Maggio; A Del Maschio; A Esseridou; A Fausto; M Gennaro; R Girometti; R Ienzi; A Luini; S Manoukian; S Morassutt; D Morrone; J Nori; A Orlacchio; F Pane; P Panzarola; R Ponzone; G Simonetti; P Torricelli; G Valeri
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2008-10-16       Impact factor: 3.469

8.  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

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

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.