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.
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.
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: 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
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
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
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
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: 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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