Literature DB >> 21935911

Annual screening strategies in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers: a comparative effectiveness analysis.

Kathryn P Lowry1, 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.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although breast cancer screening with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is recommended for breast cancer-susceptibility gene (BRCA) mutation carriers, there is no current consensus on the optimal screening regimen.
METHODS: The authors used a computer simulation model to compare 6 annual screening strategies (film mammography [FM], digital mammography [DM], FM and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] or DM and MRI contemporaneously, and alternating FM/MRI or DM/MRI at 6-month intervals) beginning at ages 25 years, 30 years, 35 years, and 40 years, and 2 strategies of annual MRI with delayed alternating DM/FM versus clinical surveillance alone. Strategies were evaluated without and with mammography-induced breast cancer risk using 2 models of excess relative risk. Input parameters were obtained from the medical literature, publicly available databases, and calibration.
RESULTS: Without radiation risk effects, alternating DM/MRI starting at age 25 years provided the highest life expectancy (BRCA1, 72.52 years, BRCA2, 77.63 years). When radiation risk was included, a small proportion of diagnosed cancers was attributable to radiation exposure (BRCA1, <2%; BRCA2, <4%). With radiation risk, alternating DM/MRI at age 25 years or annual MRI at age 25 years/delayed alternating DM at age 30 years was the most effective, depending on the radiation risk model used. Alternating DM/MRI starting at age 25 years also produced the highest number of false-positive screens per woman (BRCA1, 4.5 BRCA2, 8.1).
CONCLUSIONS: Annual MRI at age 25 years/delayed alternating DM at age 30 years is probably the most effective screening strategy in BRCA mutation carriers. Screening benefits, associated risks, and personal acceptance of false-positive results should be considered in choosing the optimal screening strategy for individual women.
Copyright © 2011 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21935911      PMCID: PMC3245774          DOI: 10.1002/cncr.26424

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  26 in total

1.  American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography.

Authors:  Debbie Saslow; Carla Boetes; Wylie Burke; Steven Harms; Martin O Leach; Constance D Lehman; Elizabeth Morris; Etta Pisano; Mitchell Schnall; Stephen Sener; Robert A Smith; Ellen Warner; Martin Yaffe; Kimberly S Andrews; Christy A Russell
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2007 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 508.702

2.  Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST.

Authors:  Etta D Pisano; R Edward Hendrick; Martin J Yaffe; Janet K Baum; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Jean B Cormack; Lucy A Hanna; Emily F Conant; Laurie L Fajardo; Lawrence W Bassett; Carl J D'Orsi; Roberta A Jong; Murray Rebner; Anna N A Tosteson; Constantine A Gatsonis
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Multicenter comparative multimodality surveillance of women at genetic-familial high risk for breast cancer (HIBCRIT study): interim results.

Authors:  Francesco Sardanelli; Franca Podo; Giuliano D'Agnolo; Arduino Verdecchia; Mariano Santaquilani; Renato Musumeci; Giovanna Trecate; Siranoush Manoukian; Sandro Morassut; Clelia de Giacomi; Massimo Federico; Laura Cortesi; Stefano Corcione; Stefano Cirillo; Vincenzo Marra; Anna Cilotti; Cosimo Di Maggio; Alfonso Fausto; Lorenzo Preda; Chiara Zuiani; Alma Contegiacomo; Antonio Orlacchio; Massimo Calabrese; Lorenzo Bonomo; Ernesto Di Cesare; Maura Tonutti; Pietro Panizza; Alessandro Del Maschio
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2007-01-23       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Estimated risk of radiation-induced breast cancer from mammographic screening for young BRCA mutation carriers.

Authors:  Amy Berrington de Gonzalez; Christine D Berg; Kala Visvanathan; Mark Robson
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2009-01-27       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 5.  Systematic review: using magnetic resonance imaging to screen women at high risk for breast cancer.

Authors:  Ellen Warner; Hans Messersmith; Petrina Causer; Andrea Eisen; Rene Shumak; Donald Plewes
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-05-06       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 6.  Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Heidi D Nelson; Kari Tyne; Arpana Naik; Christina Bougatsos; Benjamin K Chan; Linda Humphrey
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Comparison of acquisition parameters and breast dose in digital mammography and screen-film mammography in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial.

Authors:  R Edward Hendrick; Etta D Pisano; Alice Averbukh; Catherine Moran; Eric A Berns; Martin J Yaffe; Benjamin Herman; Suddhasatta Acharyya; Constantine Gatsonis
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Breast cancer screening in BRCA1 mutation carriers: effectiveness of MR imaging--Markov Monte Carlo decision analysis.

Authors:  Janie M Lee; Daniel B Kopans; Pamela M McMahon; Elkan F Halpern; Paula D Ryan; Milton C Weinstein; G Scott Gazelle
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Meta-analysis of risk reduction estimates associated with risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers.

Authors:  Timothy R Rebbeck; Noah D Kauff; Susan M Domchek
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2009-01-13       Impact factor: 13.506

View more
  23 in total

1.  Differences between screen-detected and interval breast cancers among BRCA mutation carriers.

Authors:  Melissa Pilewskie; Emily C Zabor; Elizabeth Gilbert; Michelle Stempel; Oriana Petruolo; Debra Mangino; Mark Robson; Maxine S Jochelson
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2019-01-23       Impact factor: 4.872

2.  Breast care.

Authors: 
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 2.860

Review 3.  Imaging-based screening: understanding the controversies.

Authors:  Diana L Lam; Pari V Pandharipande; Janie M Lee; Constance D Lehman; Christoph I Lee
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Performance of Dual-Energy Contrast-enhanced Digital Mammography for Screening Women at Increased Risk of Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Janice S Sung; Lizza Lebron; Delia Keating; Donna D'Alessio; Christopher E Comstock; Carol H Lee; Malcolm C Pike; Miranda Ayhan; Chaya S Moskowitz; Elizabeth A Morris; Maxine S Jochelson
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-08-27       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  A simulation model to predict the impact of prophylactic surgery and screening on the life expectancy of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

Authors:  Bronislava M Sigal; Diego F Munoz; Allison W Kurian; Sylvia K Plevritis
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2012-05-03       Impact factor: 4.254

6.  Prevalence of germline mutations in cancer predisposition genes in patients with pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Robert C Grant; Iris Selander; Ashton A Connor; Shamini Selvarajah; Ayelet Borgida; Laurent Briollais; Gloria M Petersen; Jordan Lerner-Ellis; Spring Holter; Steven Gallinger
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2014-12-02       Impact factor: 22.682

Review 7.  Genetics of breast cancer: a topic in evolution.

Authors:  S Shiovitz; L A Korde
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2015-01-20       Impact factor: 32.976

8.  Oncologic Safety of Prophylactic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy in a Population With BRCA Mutations: A Multi-institutional Study.

Authors:  James W Jakub; Anne Warren Peled; Richard J Gray; Rachel A Greenup; John V Kiluk; Virgilio Sacchini; Sarah A McLaughlin; Julia C Tchou; Robert A Vierkant; Amy C Degnim; Shawna Willey
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 14.766

9.  Breast Cancers Detected at Screening MR Imaging and Mammography in Patients at High Risk: Method of Detection Reflects Tumor Histopathologic Results.

Authors:  Janice S Sung; Sarah Stamler; Jennifer Brooks; Jennifer Kaplan; Tammy Huang; D David Dershaw; Carol H Lee; Elizabeth A Morris; Christopher E Comstock
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2016-04-20       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Cost-effectiveness of alternating magnetic resonance imaging and digital mammography screening in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers.

Authors:  Jessica E Cott Chubiz; Janie M Lee; Michael E Gilmore; Chung Y Kong; Kathryn P Lowry; Elkan F Halpern; Pamela M McMahon; Paula D Ryan; G Scott Gazelle
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2012-11-26       Impact factor: 6.860

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.