RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: In 2007, the American Cancer Society (ACS) recommended that women at elevated risk of breast cancer be screened with breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as an adjunct to mammography. This study estimates the proportion of women presenting for screening mammography who are at elevated lifetime risk of breast cancer as determined by the Gail model. This study provides preliminary information for a proposed follow-up study, including the proportion of women who completed the recommended MRI at the same clinic that had conducted the risk assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study is an observational prospective cohort of 64,659 women presenting for mammographic screening at a single high-volume clinic. If a woman reported a first-degree maternal relative with breast cancer and had at least 20% lifetime risk on the Gail model, the radiologist's report included a recommendation that the primary care physician refer the woman for breast MRI screening. Records were examined to determine if women completed the recommended MRI at the clinic within one year of the initial risk assessment. RESULTS: Of 64,659 women, 1,246 (1.9%) had a lifetime risk of breast cancer of 20% or greater, and 436 (0.7 %) had a lifetime risk of breast cancer 25% or greater. Of the women at elevated risk, 173 (13.9%) completed the recommended breast MRI screening at the clinic within a year. CONCLUSION: The effectiveness of matching screening intensity to risk on cancer detection, biopsy rate, and cost should be evaluated by studying multiple clinics and multiple risk assessment tools.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: In 2007, the American Cancer Society (ACS) recommended that women at elevated risk of breast cancer be screened with breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as an adjunct to mammography. This study estimates the proportion of women presenting for screening mammography who are at elevated lifetime risk of breast cancer as determined by the Gail model. This study provides preliminary information for a proposed follow-up study, including the proportion of women who completed the recommended MRI at the same clinic that had conducted the risk assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study is an observational prospective cohort of 64,659 women presenting for mammographic screening at a single high-volume clinic. If a woman reported a first-degree maternal relative with breast cancer and had at least 20% lifetime risk on the Gail model, the radiologist's report included a recommendation that the primary care physician refer the woman for breast MRI screening. Records were examined to determine if women completed the recommended MRI at the clinic within one year of the initial risk assessment. RESULTS: Of 64,659 women, 1,246 (1.9%) had a lifetime risk of breast cancer of 20% or greater, and 436 (0.7 %) had a lifetime risk of breast cancer 25% or greater. Of the women at elevated risk, 173 (13.9%) completed the recommended breast MRI screening at the clinic within a year. CONCLUSION: The effectiveness of matching screening intensity to risk on cancer detection, biopsy rate, and cost should be evaluated by studying multiple clinics and multiple risk assessment tools.
Authors: Nancy Breen; Kathleen A Cronin; Helen I Meissner; Stephen H Taplin; Florence K Tangka; Jasmin A Tiro; Timothy S McNeel Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-06-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: M H Gail; L A Brinton; D P Byar; D K Corle; S B Green; C Schairer; J J Mulvihill Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1989-12-20 Impact factor: 13.506
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
Authors: Colleen D Murphy; Janie M Lee; Brian Drohan; David M Euhus; Daniel B Kopans; Michele A Gadd; Elizabeth A Rafferty; Michelle C Specht; Barbara L Smith; Kevin S Hughes Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-12-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: John T Brinton; Lora D Barke; Mary E Freivogel; Tiffany C Talley; Michelle D Lexin; Alicia L Drew; Rachel B Beam; Deborah H Glueck Journal: Health Commun Date: 2017-02-03
Authors: Kenyon C Bolton; John L Mace; Pamela M Vacek; Sally D Herschorn; Ted A James; Jeffrey A Tice; Karla Kerlikowske; Berta M Geller; Donald L Weaver; Brian L Sprague Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-06-23 Impact factor: 13.506
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
Authors: Jeffrey A Tice; Ellen S O'Meara; Donald L Weaver; Celine Vachon; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2013-06-06 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Mary C White; Ashwini Soman; Clarice R Weinberg; Juan L Rodriguez; Susan A Sabatino; Lucy A Peipins; Lisa DeRoo; Hazel B Nichols; M Elizabeth Hodgson; Dale P Sandler Journal: Breast J Date: 2018-05-20 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Jennifer S Haas; Deirdre A Hill; Robert D Wellman; Rebecca A Hubbard; Christoph I Lee; Karen J Wernli; Natasha K Stout; Anna N A Tosteson; Louise M Henderson; Jennifer A Alford-Teaster; Tracy L Onega Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-12-28 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Randy Miles; Fei Wan; Tracy L Onega; Amanda Lenderink-Carpenter; Ellen S O'Meara; Weiwei Zhu; Louise M Henderson; Jennifer S Haas; Deirdre A Hill; Anna N A Tosteson; Karen J Wernli; Jennifer Alford-Teaster; Janie M Lee; Constance D Lehman; Christoph I Lee Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2018-01-17 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Karen J Wernli; Wendy B DeMartini; Laura Ichikawa; Constance D Lehman; Tracy Onega; Karla Kerlikowske; Louise M Henderson; Berta M Geller; Mike Hofmann; Bonnie C Yankaskas Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Banu K Arun; Susan K Peterson; Lilian E Sweeney; Rachel D Bluebond; Rebecca S S Tidwell; Sukh Makhnoon; Anne C Kushwaha Journal: Cancer Date: 2021-08-23 Impact factor: 6.860