BACKGROUND: MRI has been demonstrated to be the most sensitive imaging method for detecting breast cancer in women at high risk, allowing depiction of cancers that are occult on mammography, ultrasound and clinical breast examination. This high sensitivity is tempered by imperfect specificity due to overlap in the features of benign and malignant lesions. CASE: We present the case of a young BRCA2 mutation carrier whose breast cancer could have been diagnosed 2 years earlier; this is a rare case of a false-negative finding in MRI. DISCUSSION: We discuss morphological, physiological and psychological reasons for underestimation of MRI sets, especially in young women. CONCLUSION: We conclude that double reading in MR screening for breast cancer in high-risk women, as conducted for mammography screening, could be considered.
BACKGROUND: MRI has been demonstrated to be the most sensitive imaging method for detecting breast cancer in women at high risk, allowing depiction of cancers that are occult on mammography, ultrasound and clinical breast examination. This high sensitivity is tempered by imperfect specificity due to overlap in the features of benign and malignant lesions. CASE: We present the case of a young BRCA2 mutation carrier whose breast cancer could have been diagnosed 2 years earlier; this is a rare case of a false-negative finding in MRI. DISCUSSION: We discuss morphological, physiological and psychological reasons for underestimation of MRI sets, especially in young women. CONCLUSION: We conclude that double reading in MR screening for breast cancer in high-risk women, as conducted for mammography screening, could be considered.
Authors: Mieke Kriege; Cecile T M Brekelmans; Inge Marie Obdeijn; Carla Boetes; Harmine M Zonderland; Sara H Muller; Theo Kok; Radu A Manoliu; A Peter E Besnard; Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst; Caroline Seynaeve; Carina C M Bartels; Reini Kaas; Siebren Meijer; Jan C Oosterwijk; Nicoline Hoogerbrugge; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Emiel J T Rutgers; Harry J de Koning; Jan G M Klijn Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2006-06-22 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: P L Fitzgibbons; D L Page; D Weaver; A D Thor; D C Allred; G M Clark; S G Ruby; F O'Malley; J F Simpson; J L Connolly; D F Hayes; S B Edge; A Lichter; S J Schnitt Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 5.534
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: Wendie A Berg; Lorena Gutierrez; Moriel S NessAiver; W Bradford Carter; Mythreyi Bhargavan; Rebecca S Lewis; Olga B Ioffe Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-10-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Inge-Marie A Obdeijn; Claudette E Loo; Adriana J Rijnsburger; Martin N J M Wasser; Elisabeth Bergers; Theo Kok; Jan G M Klijn; Carla Boetes Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 4.872
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
Authors: L E M Duijm; M W J Louwman; J H Groenewoud; L V van de Poll-Franse; J Fracheboud; J W Coebergh Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-03-03 Impact factor: 7.640