Elon J Granader1, Ben Dwamena, Ruth C Carlos. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, 1500 E. Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48335-0030, USA.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate breast cancer screening with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in high-risk populations, including women with the BRCA mutation, using an evidence-based approach. METHODS: The MEDLINE, PubMed, EBM Reviews, ACP Journal Club, Cochrane Database MEDSEARCH, and SCOPUS databases were accessed and searched for articles up to August 2007. Articles were collected using the following terms and medical subject headings (MeSH) that applied to the focused clinical question: "BRCA1" and "BRCA2" with "mammography," "MRI," "prevention," "screening," and "surveillance." References from retrieved articles were also used to identify relevant papers. Abstracts were screened and relevant papers retrieved. Retrieved papers were graded for quality. Summary performance measures were obtained by random effects modeling of study-specific performance estimates and standard errors derived from the multiple 2 x 2 tables. Additionally, studies meeting the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine level 2b quality were reviewed. RESULTS: In women with an increased risk without the BRCA gene, cancer detection rates by MRI were 0.011 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.003-0.019), by mammography 0.005 (95% CI 0.002-0.008), and by a combination of both, 0.012 (95% CI 0.004-0.020). False-positive rates by MRI, mammography, or a combination of both were 0.10 (95% CI 0.03-0.18), 0.05 (95% CI 0.03-0.06), and 0.14 (95% CI 0.04-0.24). In BRCA positive women, cancer detection rates by MRI were 0.027 (95% CI 0.015-0.040), by mammography 0.010 (95% CI 0.005-0.016), and by a combination of both 0.031 (95% CI 0.018-0.045). False-positive rates by MRI, mammography, or a combination of both were 0.10 (95% CI 0.01-0.19), 0.05 (95% CI 0.03-0.07), and 0.14 (95% CI 0.04-0.24), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The data support an essential role for screening MRI in women with an increased risk for breast cancer.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate breast cancer screening with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in high-risk populations, including women with the BRCA mutation, using an evidence-based approach. METHODS: The MEDLINE, PubMed, EBM Reviews, ACP Journal Club, Cochrane Database MEDSEARCH, and SCOPUS databases were accessed and searched for articles up to August 2007. Articles were collected using the following terms and medical subject headings (MeSH) that applied to the focused clinical question: "BRCA1" and "BRCA2" with "mammography," "MRI," "prevention," "screening," and "surveillance." References from retrieved articles were also used to identify relevant papers. Abstracts were screened and relevant papers retrieved. Retrieved papers were graded for quality. Summary performance measures were obtained by random effects modeling of study-specific performance estimates and standard errors derived from the multiple 2 x 2 tables. Additionally, studies meeting the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine level 2b quality were reviewed. RESULTS: In women with an increased risk without the BRCA gene, cancer detection rates by MRI were 0.011 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.003-0.019), by mammography 0.005 (95% CI 0.002-0.008), and by a combination of both, 0.012 (95% CI 0.004-0.020). False-positive rates by MRI, mammography, or a combination of both were 0.10 (95% CI 0.03-0.18), 0.05 (95% CI 0.03-0.06), and 0.14 (95% CI 0.04-0.24). In BRCA positive women, cancer detection rates by MRI were 0.027 (95% CI 0.015-0.040), by mammography 0.010 (95% CI 0.005-0.016), and by a combination of both 0.031 (95% CI 0.018-0.045). False-positive rates by MRI, mammography, or a combination of both were 0.10 (95% CI 0.01-0.19), 0.05 (95% CI 0.03-0.07), and 0.14 (95% CI 0.04-0.24), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The data support an essential role for screening MRI in women with an increased risk for breast cancer.
Authors: Anna M Chiarelli; Kristina M Blackmore; Derek Muradali; Susan J Done; Vicky Majpruz; Ashini Weerasinghe; Lucia Mirea; Andrea Eisen; Linda Rabeneck; Ellen Warner Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-02-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Cheryl Lin; Meredith Becker Buxton; Dan Moore; Helen Krontiras; Lisa Carey; Angela DeMichele; Leslie Montgomery; Debasish Tripathy; Constance Lehman; Minetta Liu; Olufunmilayo Olapade; Christina Yau; Donald Berry; Laura J Esserman Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2011-07-28 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: S U Dhar; H P Cooper; T Wang; B Parks; S A Staggs; S Hilsenbeck; S E Plon Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2011-04-05 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Matthew Castelo; Zachary Brown; Josephine A D'Abbondanza; Nastasia V Wasilewski; Andrea Eisen; Derek Muradali; Bettina E Hansen; Eva Grunfeld; Adena S Scheer Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-07-02 Impact factor: 4.872