Janie M Lee1, Elkan F Halpern, Elizabeth A Rafferty, G Scott Gazelle. 1. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Institute for Technology Assessment, 101 Merrimac Street, 10(th) Floor, Boston, MA 02114, USA. jlee45@partners.org
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly being added to mammography for screening asymptomatic women at increased risk of breast cancer. Because the direction and extent of correlation between mammography and MRI could potentially result in over- or underestimation of the diagnostic gain related to using MRI as an adjunct to mammographic screening, we performed an analysis to evaluate the extent of correlation between mammography and MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the published literature to identify multimodality breast cancer screening studies reporting the sensitivity of mammography and MRI, alone and in combination, for breast cancer diagnosis. After calculating the expected sensitivity of combined mammography and MRI under conditions of test independence (no correlation), we compared the calculated and observed sensitivities for combined mammography and MRI. We then calculated correlation coefficients for mammography and MRI. RESULTS: Seven studies of multimodality screening in women at increased risk of developing breast cancer were included for analysis. Of these studies, the correlation between film mammography and MRI was positive in three studies, negative in two studies, and not identified in two studies. The calculated correlation coefficients ranged from -0.38 to 0.18. In six of seven studies, the 95% confidence interval for the correlation coefficient included 0.0, indicating no significant correlation. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from published trials of multimodality breast cancer screening identified no statistically significant correlation between film mammography and MRI. Using both tests for breast cancer screening is likely to improve the early detection of breast cancer in women at increased risk.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly being added to mammography for screening asymptomatic women at increased risk of breast cancer. Because the direction and extent of correlation between mammography and MRI could potentially result in over- or underestimation of the diagnostic gain related to using MRI as an adjunct to mammographic screening, we performed an analysis to evaluate the extent of correlation between mammography and MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the published literature to identify multimodality breast cancer screening studies reporting the sensitivity of mammography and MRI, alone and in combination, for breast cancer diagnosis. After calculating the expected sensitivity of combined mammography and MRI under conditions of test independence (no correlation), we compared the calculated and observed sensitivities for combined mammography and MRI. We then calculated correlation coefficients for mammography and MRI. RESULTS: Seven studies of multimodality screening in women at increased risk of developing breast cancer were included for analysis. Of these studies, the correlation between film mammography and MRI was positive in three studies, negative in two studies, and not identified in two studies. The calculated correlation coefficients ranged from -0.38 to 0.18. In six of seven studies, the 95% confidence interval for the correlation coefficient included 0.0, indicating no significant correlation. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from published trials of multimodality breast cancer screening identified no statistically significant correlation between film mammography and MRI. Using both tests for breast cancer screening is likely to improve the early detection of breast cancer in women at increased risk.
Authors: H Meijers-Heijboer; B van Geel; W L van Putten; S C Henzen-Logmans; C Seynaeve; M B Menke-Pluymers; C C Bartels; L C Verhoog; A M van den Ouweland; M F Niermeijer; C T Brekelmans; J G Klijn Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-07-19 Impact factor: 91.245
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: C T Brekelmans; C Seynaeve; C C Bartels; M M Tilanus-Linthorst; E J Meijers-Heijboer; C M Crepin; A A van Geel; M Menke; L C Verhoog; A van den Ouweland; I M Obdeijn; J G Klijn Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-02-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M O Leach; C R M Boggis; A K Dixon; D F Easton; R A Eeles; D G R Evans; F J Gilbert; I Griebsch; R J C Hoff; P Kessar; S R Lakhani; S M Moss; A Nerurkar; A R Padhani; L J Pointon; D Thompson; R M L Warren Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 May 21-27 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ian K Komenaka; Beth-Ann Ditkoff; Kathie-Ann Joseph; Donna Russo; Prakash Gorroochurn; Marie Ward; Elizabeth Horowitz; Mahmoud B El-Tamer; Freya R Schnabel Journal: Cancer Date: 2004-05-15 Impact factor: 6.860
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: 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
Authors: Konstantinos P Sidiropoulos; Spiros A Kostopoulos; Dimitris T Glotsos; Emmanouil I Athanasiadis; Nikos D Dimitropoulos; John T Stonham; Dionisis A Cavouras Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2013-01-25 Impact factor: 2.924