Literature DB >> 18458280

Systematic review: using magnetic resonance imaging to screen women at high risk for breast cancer.

Ellen Warner1, Hans Messersmith, Petrina Causer, Andrea Eisen, Rene Shumak, Donald Plewes.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A sensitive and acceptable screening regimen for women at high risk for breast cancer is essential. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast is highly sensitive for diagnosis of breast cancer but has variable specificity.
PURPOSE: To summarize the sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and posttest probability associated with adding MRI to annual mammography screening of women at very high risk for breast cancer. DATA SOURCES: English-language literature search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases from January 1995 to September 2007, supplemented by hand searches of pertinent articles. STUDY SELECTION: Prospective studies published after 1994 in which MRI and mammography (with or without additional tests) were used to screen women at very high risk for breast cancer. DATA EXTRACTION: Methods and potential biases of studies were assessed by 2 reviewers, and data were extracted and entered into 2 x 2 tables that compared American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) scores of MRI plus mammography, mammography alone, or MRI alone with results of breast tissue biopsies. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eleven relevant, prospective, nonrandomized studies that ranged from small single-center studies with only 1 round of patient screening to large multicenter studies with repeated rounds of annual screening were identified. Characteristics of women that varied across study samples included age range, history of breast cancer, and BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation status. Studies used dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI with axial or coronal plane images (European studies) or sagittal images (North American studies) that were usually interpreted without knowledge of mammography results. The summary negative likelihood ratio and the probability of a BI-RADS-suspicious lesion (given negative test findings and assuming a 2% pretest probability of disease) were 0.70 (95% CI, 0.59 to 0.82) and 1.4% (CI, 1.2% to 1.6%) for mammography alone and 0.14 (CI, 0.05 to 0.42) and 0.3% (CI, 0.1% to 0.8%) for the combination of MRI plus mammography, using a BI-RADS score of 4 or higher as the definition of positive. LIMITATIONS: Differences in patient population, center experience, and criteria for positive screening results led to between-study heterogeneity. Data on patients with nonfamilial high risk were limited, and no data were available on recurrence or survival.
CONCLUSION: Screening with both MRI and mammography might rule out cancerous lesions better than mammography alone in women who are known or likely to have an inherited predisposition to breast cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18458280     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-148-9-200805060-00007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  138 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.  Non-contrast enhanced MRI for evaluation of breast lesions: comparison of non-contrast enhanced high spectral and spatial resolution (HiSS) images versus contrast enhanced fat-suppressed images.

Authors:  Milica Medved; Xiaobing Fan; Hiroyuki Abe; Gillian M Newstead; Abbie M Wood; Akiko Shimauchi; Kirti Kulkarni; Marko K Ivancevic; Lorenzo L Pesce; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Gregory S Karczmar
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2011-10-01       Impact factor: 3.173

4.  [MRI screening of the breast after chest wall irradiation].

Authors:  E Wenkel
Journal:  Strahlenther Onkol       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 3.621

5.  Diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: a pilot study.

Authors:  Pascal A T Baltzer; Anja Schäfer; Matthias Dietzel; David Grässel; Mieczyslaw Gajda; Oumar Camara; Werner A Kaiser
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-07-29       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Using lifetime risk estimates to recommend magnetic resonance imaging screening for breast cancer survivors.

Authors:  Rinaa S Punglia; Michael J Hassett
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-08-09       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  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

Review 8.  Tracer kinetic modelling of tumour angiogenesis based on dynamic contrast-enhanced CT and MRI measurements.

Authors:  Gunnar Brix; Jürgen Griebel; Fabian Kiessling; Frederik Wenz
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 9.236

9.  A simple scoring system for breast MRI interpretation: does it compensate for reader experience?

Authors:  Maria Adele Marino; Paola Clauser; Ramona Woitek; Georg J Wengert; Panagiotis Kapetas; Maria Bernathova; Katja Pinker-Domenig; Thomas H Helbich; Klaus Preidler; Pascal A T Baltzer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-10-29       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Adaptable near-infrared spectroscopy fiber array for improved coupling to different breast sizes during clinical MRI.

Authors:  Michael A Mastanduno; Fadi El-Ghussein; Shudong Jiang; Roberta Diflorio-Alexander; Xu Junqing; Yin Hong; Brian W Pogue; Keith D Paulsen
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 3.173

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.