Literature DB >> 25713430

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.

Christopher C Riedl1, Nikolaus Luft2, Clemens Bernhart2, Michael Weber2, Maria Bernathova2, Muy-Kheng M Tea2, Margaretha Rudas2, Christian F Singer2, Thomas H Helbich2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the breast cancer screening efficacy of mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a high-risk population and in various population subgroups. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a single-center, prospective, nonrandomized comparison study, BRCA mutation carriers and women with a high familial risk (> 20% lifetime risk) for breast cancer were offered screening with mammography, ultrasound, and MRI every 12 months. Diagnostic performance was compared between individual modalities and their combinations. Further comparisons were based on subpopulations dichotomized by screening rounds, mutation status, age, and breast density.
RESULTS: There were 559 women with 1,365 complete imaging rounds included in this study. The sensitivity of MRI (90.0%) was significantly higher (P < .001) than that of mammography (37.5%) and ultrasound (37.5%). Of 40 cancers, 18 (45.0%) were detected by MRI alone. Two cancers were found by mammography alone (a ductal carcinoma in situ [DCIS] with microinvasion and a DCIS with < 10-mm invasive areas). This did not lead to a significant increase of sensitivity compared with using MRI alone (P = .15). No cancers were detected by ultrasound alone. Similarly, of 14 DCISs, all were detected by MRI, whereas mammography and ultrasound each detected five DCISs (35.7%). Age, mutation status, and breast density had no influence on the sensitivity of MRI and did not affect the superiority of MRI over mammography and ultrasound.
CONCLUSION: MRI allows early detection of familial breast cancer regardless of patient age, breast density, or risk status. The added value of mammography is limited, and there is no added value of ultrasound in women undergoing MRI for screening.
© 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25713430      PMCID: PMC5526626          DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2014.56.8626

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  36 in total

1.  Illustrated breast MR lexicon.

Authors:  E A Morris
Journal:  Semin Roentgenol       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 0.800

2.  Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging.

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

3.  Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families. The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium.

Authors:  D Ford; D F Easton; M Stratton; S Narod; D Goldgar; P Devilee; D T Bishop; B Weber; G Lenoir; J Chang-Claude; H Sobol; M D Teare; J Struewing; A Arason; S Scherneck; J Peto; T R Rebbeck; P Tonin; S Neuhausen; R Barkardottir; J Eyfjord; H Lynch; B A Ponder; S A Gayther; M Zelada-Hedman
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 11.025

4.  Quantitative analysis of allele imbalance supports atypical ductal hyperplasia lesions as direct breast cancer precursors.

Authors:  P S Larson; A de las Morenas; S R Cerda; S R Bennett; L A Cupples; C L Rosenberg
Journal:  J Pathol       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 7.996

5.  Lesion miss rates and false-negative rates for 1115 consecutive cases of stereotactically guided needle-localized open breast biopsy with long-term follow-up.

Authors:  Christopher C Riedl; Georg Pfarl; Mazda Memarsadeghi; Teresa Wagner; Florian Fitzal; Margarete Rudas; Thomas H Helbich
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-10-19       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 6.  Molecular evolution of breast cancer.

Authors:  Peter T Simpson; Jorge S Reis-Filho; Theodora Gale; Sunil R Lakhani
Journal:  J Pathol       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 7.996

7.  Effectiveness of screening with annual magnetic resonance imaging and mammography: results of the initial screen from the ontario high risk breast screening program.

Authors:  Anna M Chiarelli; Maegan V Prummel; Derek Muradali; Vicky Majpruz; Meaghan Horgan; June C Carroll; Andrea Eisen; Wendy S Meschino; Rene S Shumak; Ellen Warner; Linda Rabeneck
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-06-16       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Interval breast cancers in the Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia: analysis and classification.

Authors:  H J Burhenne; L W Burhenne; F Goldberg; T G Hislop; A J Worth; P M Rebbeck; L Kan
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition.

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

10.  Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast improves detection of invasive cancer, preinvasive cancer, and premalignant lesions during surveillance of women at high risk for breast cancer.

Authors:  Christopher C Riedl; Lothar Ponhold; Daniel Flöry; Michael Weber; Regina Kroiss; Teresa Wagner; Michael Fuchsjäger; Thomas H Helbich
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2007-10-15       Impact factor: 12.531

View more
  65 in total

1.  A simple scoring system for breast MRI interpretation: does it compensate for reader experience?

Authors:  Maria Adele Marino; Paola Clauser; Ramona Woitek; Georg J Wengert; Panagiotis Kapetas; Maria Bernathova; Katja Pinker-Domenig; Thomas H Helbich; Klaus Preidler; Pascal A T Baltzer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-10-29       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Utilization of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer screening.

Authors:  D Lin; L Moy; D Axelrod; J Smith
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 3.677

3.  Performance Measures of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Plus Mammography in the High Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program.

Authors:  Anna M Chiarelli; Kristina M Blackmore; Derek Muradali; Susan J Done; Vicky Majpruz; Ashini Weerasinghe; Lucia Mirea; Andrea Eisen; Linda Rabeneck; Ellen Warner
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2020-02-01       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  MRI-based quantification of residual fibroglandular tissue of the breast after conservative mastectomies.

Authors:  Ramona Woitek; Georg Pfeiler; Alex Farr; Panagiotis Kapetas; Julia Furtner; Maria Bernathova; Veronika Schöpf; Paola Clauser; Maria A Marino; Katja Pinker; Pascal A Baltzer; Thomas H Helbich
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2018-04-26       Impact factor: 3.528

5.  Diffusion-Weighted Imaging With Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Mapping for Breast Cancer Detection as a Stand-Alone Parameter: Comparison With Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced and Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Authors:  Katja Pinker; Linda Moy; Elizabeth J Sutton; Ritse M Mann; Michael Weber; Sunitha B Thakur; Maxine S Jochelson; Zsuzsanna Bago-Horvath; Elizabeth A Morris; Pascal At Baltzer; Thomas H Helbich
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 6.016

6.  Breast Cancer Screening in High-Risk Women: Is MRI Alone Enough?

Authors:  Carolina Rossi Saccarelli; Almir G V Bitencourt; Elizabeth A Morris
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2020-02-01       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Breast cancer detection and tumor characteristics in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers.

Authors:  Julia Krammer; Katja Pinker-Domenig; Mark E Robson; Mithat Gönen; Blanca Bernard-Davila; Elizabeth A Morris; Debra A Mangino; Maxine S Jochelson
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2017-03-25       Impact factor: 4.872

8.  Updated Breast Cancer Surveillance Recommendations for Female Survivors of Childhood, Adolescent, and Young Adult Cancer From the International Guideline Harmonization Group.

Authors:  Renée L Mulder; Melissa M Hudson; Smita Bhatia; Wendy Landier; Gill Levitt; Louis S Constine; W Hamish Wallace; Flora E van Leeuwen; Cécile M Ronckers; Tara O Henderson; Chaya S Moskowitz; Danielle N Friedman; Andrea K Ng; Helen C Jenkinson; Charlotte Demoor-Goldschmidt; Roderick Skinner; Leontien C M Kremer; Kevin C Oeffinger
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-09-29       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Utility of Diffusion-weighted Imaging to Decrease Unnecessary Biopsies Prompted by Breast MRI: A Trial of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (A6702).

Authors:  Habib Rahbar; Zheng Zhang; Thomas L Chenevert; Justin Romanoff; Averi E Kitsch; Lucy G Hanna; Sara M Harvey; Linda Moy; Wendy B DeMartini; Basak Dogan; Wei T Yang; Lilian C Wang; Bonnie N Joe; Karen Y Oh; Colleen H Neal; Elizabeth S McDonald; Mitchell D Schnall; Constance D Lehman; Christopher E Comstock; Savannah C Partridge
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2019-01-15       Impact factor: 12.531

Review 10.  Ultrasound as an Adjunct to Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening: A Health Technology Assessment.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2016-07-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.