Literature DB >> 17317184

Sensitivity of MRI versus conventional screening in the diagnosis of BRCA-associated breast cancer in a national prospective series.

Anne I Hagen1, Kjell Arne Kvistad, Lovise Maehle, Marit Muri Holmen, Hildegunn Aase, Bodil Styr, Anita Vabø, Jaran Apold, Per Skaane, Pål Møller.   

Abstract

We wanted to compare the sensitivities of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and the conventional screening programme consisting of mammography (XRM) +/- ultrasound for early diagnosis of breast cancer in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. BRCA1/2 mutation carriers were examined prospectively by both breast MRI and XRM +/- ultrasound. Eight hundred and sixty-seven MRI examinations were carried out in 445 BRCA1 and 46 BRCA2 mutation carriers. A total of 25 cancers were observed, five (20%) as interval cancers. At the time of diagnosis, sensitivity to detect cancer was 19/22=86% for MRI and 12/24=50% for XRM. Twenty-one were examined by both methods at the time of diagnosis. In the19 BRCA1 mutation carriers among them, MRI had a sensitivity of 1/3(33%) to diagnose DCIS and 15/16 (94%) among the invasive cancers. For XRM the sensitivities were 1/3(33%) for DCIS, 3/7(42%) for pT1b, 3/6(50%) for pT1c, and 3/3/100%) for pT2. In the two BRCA2 mutation carriers, both were demonstrated by breast MRI, neither was detected by XRM. Breast MRI had increased sensitivity compared to XRM to diagnose all cancers staged less than pT2.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17317184     DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2007.01.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast        ISSN: 0960-9776            Impact factor:   4.380


  25 in total

1.  Eligibility for magnetic resonance imaging screening in the United Kingdom: effect of strict selection criteria and anonymous DNA testing on breast cancer incidence in the MARIBS Study.

Authors:  D Gareth R Evans; Fiona Lennard; Linda J Pointon; Susan J Ramus; Simon A Gayther; Nayanta Sodha; Gek E Kwan-Lim; Martin O Leach; Ruth Warren; Deborah Thompson; Douglas F Easton; Rosalind Eeles
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2009-06-30       Impact factor: 4.254

2.  Imaging studies for the early detection of breast cancer.

Authors:  Sylvia H Heywang-Köbrunner; Ingrid Schreer; Walter Heindel; Alexander Katalinic
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2008-08-04       Impact factor: 5.594

3.  Online tool to guide decisions for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

Authors:  Allison W Kurian; Diego F Munoz; Peter Rust; Elizabeth A Schackmann; Michael Smith; Lauren Clarke; Meredith A Mills; Sylvia K Plevritis
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-01-09       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  High penetrances of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations confirmed in a prospective series.

Authors:  Pål Møller; Lovise Mæhle; Lars F Engebretsen; Trond Ludvigsen; Christoffer Jonsrud; Jaran Apold; Anita Vabø; Neal Clark
Journal:  Hered Cancer Clin Pract       Date:  2010-01-19       Impact factor: 2.857

5.  Cancer screening with digital mammography for women at average risk for breast cancer, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for women at high risk: an evidence-based analysis.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2010-03-01

Review 6.  Evaluating the correlation between film mammography and MRI for screening women with increased breast cancer risk.

Authors:  Janie M Lee; Elkan F Halpern; Elizabeth A Rafferty; G Scott Gazelle
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2009-07-25       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 7.  Challenging and complex decisions in the management of the BRCA mutation carrier.

Authors:  Daniela L Stan; Lynne T Shuster; Myra J Wick; Casey L Swanson; Sandhya Pruthi; Jamie N Bakkum-Gamez
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2013-08-29       Impact factor: 2.681

8.  Feasibility evaluation of an online tool to guide decisions for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Schackmann; Diego F Munoz; Meredith A Mills; Sylvia K Plevritis; Allison W Kurian
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 2.375

9.  Breast dynamic contrast-enhanced examinations with fat suppression: are contrast-agent uptake curves affected by magnetic field inhomogeneity?

Authors:  Maria A Schmidt; M Borri; E Scurr; G Ertas; G Payne; E O'Flynn; N Desouza; M O Leach
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-12-16       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Breast density as indicator for the use of mammography or MRI to screen women with familial risk for breast cancer (FaMRIsc): a multicentre randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Sepideh Saadatmand; Emiel J T Rutgers; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Hermien M Zonderland; Margreet G E M Ausems; Kristien B M I Keymeulen; Margreet S Schlooz-Vries; Linetta B Koppert; Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Caroline Seynaeve; Cees Verhoef; Jan C Oosterwijk; Inge-Marie Obdeijn; Harry J de Koning; Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2012-10-02       Impact factor: 4.430

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.