PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast in the surveillance of women at high risk for breast cancer. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In this prospective comparison study, women at high risk for breast cancer were offered annual surveillance examinations, consisting of mammography, ultrasound, and MRI, at a single tertiary care breast center. The sensitivity and specificity of each modality was based on the histopathologic evaluation of suspicious findings from all modalities plus the detected interval cancers. RESULTS: Three hundred and twenty-seven women underwent 672 complete imaging rounds. Of a total of 28 detected cancers, 14 were detected by mammography, 12 by ultrasound, and 24 by MRI, which resulted in sensitivities of 50%, 42.9%, and 85.7%, respectively (P < 0.01). MRI detected not only significantly more invasive but also significantly more preinvasive cancers (ductal carcinoma in situ). Mammography, ultrasound, and MRI led to 25, 26, and 101 false-positive findings, which resulted in specificities of 98%, 98%, and 92%, respectively (P < 0.05). Thirty-five (35%) of these false-positive findings were atypical ductal hyperplasias, lesions considered to be of premalignant character. Nine (26%) of those were detected by mammography, 2 (6%) with ultrasound, and 32 (91%) with MRI (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Our results show that MRI of the breast improves the detection of invasive cancers, preinvasive cancers, and premalignant lesions in a high-risk population and should therefore become an integral part of breast cancer surveillance in these patients.
PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast in the surveillance of women at high risk for breast cancer. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In this prospective comparison study, women at high risk for breast cancer were offered annual surveillance examinations, consisting of mammography, ultrasound, and MRI, at a single tertiary care breast center. The sensitivity and specificity of each modality was based on the histopathologic evaluation of suspicious findings from all modalities plus the detected interval cancers. RESULTS: Three hundred and twenty-seven women underwent 672 complete imaging rounds. Of a total of 28 detected cancers, 14 were detected by mammography, 12 by ultrasound, and 24 by MRI, which resulted in sensitivities of 50%, 42.9%, and 85.7%, respectively (P < 0.01). MRI detected not only significantly more invasive but also significantly more preinvasive cancers (ductal carcinoma in situ). Mammography, ultrasound, and MRI led to 25, 26, and 101 false-positive findings, which resulted in specificities of 98%, 98%, and 92%, respectively (P < 0.05). Thirty-five (35%) of these false-positive findings were atypical ductal hyperplasias, lesions considered to be of premalignant character. Nine (26%) of those were detected by mammography, 2 (6%) with ultrasound, and 32 (91%) with MRI (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Our results show that MRI of the breast improves the detection of invasive cancers, preinvasive cancers, and premalignant lesions in a high-risk population and should therefore become an integral part of breast cancer surveillance in these patients.
Authors: M H Yilmaz; F Kilic; G E Icten; F Aydogan; V Ozben; M Halac; D C Olgun; E Gazioglu; V Celik; C Uras; Z A Altug Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: K Pinker; P Brader; G Karanikas; K El-Rabadi; W Bogner; S Gruber; M Reisegger; S Trattnig; T H Helbich Journal: Radiologe Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 0.635
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: Edward R Sauter; Wade Davis; Wenyi Qin; Sarah Scanlon; Brian Mooney; Karen Bromert; William R Folk Journal: Biomark Med Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 2.851
Authors: Katja Pinker; Linda Moy; Elizabeth J Sutton; Ritse M Mann; Michael Weber; Sunitha B Thakur; Maxine S Jochelson; Zsuzsanna Bago-Horvath; Elizabeth A Morris; Pascal At Baltzer; Thomas H Helbich Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Katja Pinker; Wolfgang Bogner; Stephan Gruber; Peter Brader; Siegfried Trattnig; Georgios Karanikas; Thomas H Helbich Journal: Breast Care (Basel) Date: 2011-04-29 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: K Pinker; H Bickel; T H Helbich; S Gruber; P Dubsky; U Pluschnig; M Rudas; Z Bago-Horvath; M Weber; S Trattnig; W Bogner Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-03-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Fahrettin Kılıç; Abdulkadir Eren; Necmettin Tunç; Mehmet Velidedeoğlu; Selim Bakan; Fatih Aydoğan; Varol Çelik; Ertuğrul Gazioğlu; Mehmet Halit Yılmaz Journal: J Breast Health Date: 2016-01-01