M D Pickles1, L W Turnbull. 1. Centre for Magnetic Resonance Investigations, Division of Cancer, Postgraduate Medical Institute at Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull Royal Infirmary, Hull, UK. m.pickles@hull.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The sensitivity of X-ray mammography for the detection of breast malignancy in younger females is lower than that of breast MRI; consequently, guidelines recommend annual MRI for patients with a significantly elevated lifetime risk. The improved signal-to-noise ratio obtainable at 3.0 T should result in data superior to those obtainable at 1.5 T. However, breast imaging on higher field strength systems poses specific problems. As a result, caution has been urged in the implementation of breast MRI at 3.0 T. The aim of this study was to determine if it is appropriate to use 3.0 T MRI in the screening of patients by comparing the summary statistics achieved by this 3.0 T MRI programme against the published results of 1.5 T screening studies. METHODS: Over a 20-month period, 291 patients referred with an elevated familial risk of breast cancer were examined at 3.0 T. Resulting images were scored based on the Royal College of Radiologists Breast Group imaging classification. The reference standard was a combination of histology and follow-up imaging. RESULTS: Follow-up data were available in 267 patients. Analysis revealed positive and negative post-test probabilities of 28% [95% confidence intervals (CI); range, 10-60%] and 1% (95% CI; range, 0-2%), respectively. These results compared favourably against those of a recent meta-analysis [25.3% (95% CI; range, 18.4-33.8%) and 0.4% (95% CI; range, 0.2-0.9%), respectively]. CONCLUSION: Given the similar summary statistics between this work and the 1.5 T results, it would appear that screening of high-risk patients at 3.0 T has potential. Further studies should be undertaken to verify this result.
OBJECTIVES: The sensitivity of X-ray mammography for the detection of breast malignancy in younger females is lower than that of breast MRI; consequently, guidelines recommend annual MRI for patients with a significantly elevated lifetime risk. The improved signal-to-noise ratio obtainable at 3.0 T should result in data superior to those obtainable at 1.5 T. However, breast imaging on higher field strength systems poses specific problems. As a result, caution has been urged in the implementation of breast MRI at 3.0 T. The aim of this study was to determine if it is appropriate to use 3.0 T MRI in the screening of patients by comparing the summary statistics achieved by this 3.0 T MRI programme against the published results of 1.5 T screening studies. METHODS: Over a 20-month period, 291 patients referred with an elevated familial risk of breast cancer were examined at 3.0 T. Resulting images were scored based on the Royal College of Radiologists Breast Group imaging classification. The reference standard was a combination of histology and follow-up imaging. RESULTS: Follow-up data were available in 267 patients. Analysis revealed positive and negative post-test probabilities of 28% [95% confidence intervals (CI); range, 10-60%] and 1% (95% CI; range, 0-2%), respectively. These results compared favourably against those of a recent meta-analysis [25.3% (95% CI; range, 18.4-33.8%) and 0.4% (95% CI; range, 0.2-0.9%), respectively]. CONCLUSION: Given the similar summary statistics between this work and the 1.5 T results, it would appear that screening of high-risk patients at 3.0 T has potential. Further studies should be undertaken to verify this result.
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
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
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: 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: 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: Ellen Warner; Donald B Plewes; Kimberley A Hill; Petrina A Causer; Judit T Zubovits; Roberta A Jong; Margaret R Cutrara; Gerrit DeBoer; Martin J Yaffe; Sandra J Messner; Wendy S Meschino; Cameron A Piron; Steven A Narod Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-09-15 Impact factor: 56.272