Literature DB >> 21251121

Improvement in DCIS detection rates by MRI over time in a high-risk breast screening study.

Ellen Warner1, Petrina A Causer, John W-N Wong, Frances C Wright, Roberta A Jong, Kimberley A Hill, Sandra J Messner, Martin J Yaffe, Steven A Narod, Donald B Plewes.   

Abstract

Although magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is much more sensitive than mammography for detecting early invasive breast cancer, in many high-risk screening studies MRI was less sensitive than mammography for detecting ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). We reviewed our experience detecting DCIS in our single center study of annual MRI, mammography, ultrasound and clinical breast examination (CBE) for screening very high-risk women. All cases of DCIS±microinvasion and invasive cancer were compared in two time frames: before (period A) and after (period B) July 2001-when we acquired expertise in the detection of DCIS with MRI-with respect to patient demographics, method of detection, and rates of detection of invasive cancer and DCIS. In period A there were 15 cases (3.1% of 486 screens) in 223 women, of which 2 (13%) were DCIS-one with microinvasion-neither detected by MRI. In period B there were 29 cases (3.3% of 877 screens) in 391 women, of which 10 (34%) were DCIS±microinvasion (p=0.04), all 10 detected by MRI but only one by mammography. No DCIS cases were detected by ultrasound or CBE. Specificity was lower in period B than in period A but acceptable. The ability to detect DCIS with screening MRI improves significantly with experience. MRI-guided biopsy capability is essential for a high-risk screening program. In experienced centers the increased sensitivity of MRI relative to mammography is at least as high for DCIS as it is for invasive breast cancer.
© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21251121     DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4741.2010.01018.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast J        ISSN: 1075-122X            Impact factor:   2.431


  11 in total

1.  Repeatability of quantitative MRI measurements in normal breast tissue.

Authors:  Sheye O Aliu; Ella F Jones; Ania Azziz; John Kornak; Lisa J Wilmes; David C Newitt; Sachiko A Suzuki; Catherine Klifa; Jessica Gibbs; Evelyn C Proctor; Bonnie N Joe; Nola M Hylton
Journal:  Transl Oncol       Date:  2014-02-01       Impact factor: 4.243

Review 2.  Intensified surveillance for early detection of breast cancer in high-risk patients.

Authors:  Ulrich Bick
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 2.860

3.  Triple-modality screening trial for familial breast cancer underlines the importance of magnetic resonance imaging and questions the role of mammography and ultrasound regardless of patient mutation status, age, and breast density.

Authors:  Christopher C Riedl; Nikolaus Luft; Clemens Bernhart; Michael Weber; Maria Bernathova; Muy-Kheng M Tea; Margaretha Rudas; Christian F Singer; Thomas H Helbich
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-02-23       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  Modeling Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS): An Overview of CISNET Model Approaches.

Authors:  Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Jeroen J van den Broek; Xiaoxue Li; Harald Weedon-Fekjær; Clyde B Schechter; Oguzhan Alagoz; Xuelin Huang; Donald L Weaver; Elizabeth S Burnside; Rinaa S Punglia; Harry J de Koning; Sandra J Lee
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  Breast dynamic contrast-enhanced examinations with fat suppression: are contrast-agent uptake curves affected by magnetic field inhomogeneity?

Authors:  Maria A Schmidt; M Borri; E Scurr; G Ertas; G Payne; E O'Flynn; N Desouza; M O Leach
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-12-16       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Ductal carcinoma in situ: recent advances and future prospects.

Authors:  Kelly Lambert; Neill Patani; Kefah Mokbel
Journal:  Int J Surg Oncol       Date:  2012-05-17

7.  Contribution of mammography to MRI screening in BRCA mutation carriers by BRCA status and age: individual patient data meta-analysis.

Authors:  Xuan-Anh Phi; Sepideh Saadatmand; Geertruida H De Bock; Ellen Warner; Francesco Sardanelli; Martin O Leach; Christopher C Riedl; Isabelle Trop; Maartje J Hooning; Rodica Mandel; Filippo Santoro; Gek Kwan-Lim; Thomas H Helbich; Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst; Edwin R van den Heuvel; Nehmat Houssami
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2016-02-23       Impact factor: 7.640

8.  DNA methylation as clinically useful biomarkers-light at the end of the tunnel.

Authors:  Victor V Levenson; Anatoliy A Melnikov
Journal:  Pharmaceuticals (Basel)       Date:  2012-01-18

9.  Screening breast magnetic resonance imaging in women with hormone replacement therapy.

Authors:  Feng Zhang; Qingjing Feng; Zhiyong Zhang; Yanjun Hu; Zhifeng Zhang
Journal:  Eur J Med Res       Date:  2018-10-20       Impact factor: 2.175

10.  High rate of occult cancer found in prophylactic mastectomy specimens despite thorough presurgical assessment with MRI and ultrasound: findings from the Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Registration 2016 in Japan.

Authors:  Hideko Yamauchi; Megumi Okawa; Shiro Yokoyama; Chizuko Nakagawa; Reiko Yoshida; Koyu Suzuki; Seigo Nakamura; Masami Arai
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2018-09-10       Impact factor: 4.872

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.