T Schlossbauer1, K Hellerhoff, M Reiser. 1. Institut für Klinische Radiologe, Klinikum Grosshadern der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München. thomas.schlossbauer@med.uni-muenchen.de
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to give an overview on early detection of breast cancer in patients with an increased risk of breast cancer. Sensitivities and diagnostic accuracies of breast MRI, mammography and ultrasound were compared. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic literature search of the past 3 years was performed. Studies which compared breast imaging modalities and used image-guided biopsy results as standard of reference were included. Patients included had to have had an increased lifetime risk for breast cancer (>15%). RESULTS: Regarding sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy, breast MRI performed best in comparison to the other modalities within this collective of patients. Sensitivities ranged from 71-100%, 0-78%, and 13-65%, for MRI, mammography, and ultrasound, respectively CONCLUSION: Breast MRI is a well established tool for screening in patients at high risk for developing breast cancer and is a valuable supplement to mammography and ultrasound within this selected cohort of patients.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to give an overview on early detection of breast cancer in patients with an increased risk of breast cancer. Sensitivities and diagnostic accuracies of breast MRI, mammography and ultrasound were compared. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic literature search of the past 3 years was performed. Studies which compared breast imaging modalities and used image-guided biopsy results as standard of reference were included. Patients included had to have had an increased lifetime risk for breast cancer (>15%). RESULTS: Regarding sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy, breast MRI performed best in comparison to the other modalities within this collective of patients. Sensitivities ranged from 71-100%, 0-78%, and 13-65%, for MRI, mammography, and ultrasound, respectively CONCLUSION: Breast MRI is a well established tool for screening in patients at high risk for developing breast cancer and is a valuable supplement to mammography and ultrasound within this selected cohort of patients.
Authors: Constance D Lehman; Jeffrey D Blume; Paul Weatherall; David Thickman; Nola Hylton; Ellen Warner; Etta Pisano; Stuart J Schnitt; Constantine Gatsonis; Mitchell Schnall; Gia A DeAngelis; Paul Stomper; Eric L Rosen; Michael O'Loughlin; Steven Harms; David A Bluemke Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-05-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Elizabeth A Morris; Laura Liberman; Douglas J Ballon; Mark Robson; Andrea F Abramson; Alexandra Heerdt; D David Dershaw Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Mieke Kriege; Cecile T M Brekelmans; Carla Boetes; Peter E Besnard; Harmine M Zonderland; Inge Marie Obdeijn; Radu A Manoliu; Theo Kok; Hans Peterse; Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst; Sara H Muller; Sybren Meijer; Jan C Oosterwijk; Louk V A M Beex; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Harry J de Koning; Emiel J T Rutgers; Jan G M Klijn Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-07-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ellen Warner; Donald B Plewes; Kimberley A Hill; Petrina A Causer; Judit T Zubovits; Roberta A Jong; Margaret R Cutrara; Gerrit DeBoer; Martin J Yaffe; Sandra J Messner; Wendy S Meschino; Cameron A Piron; Steven A Narod Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-09-15 Impact factor: 56.272