Literature DB >> 27097237

Breast Cancers Detected at Screening MR Imaging and Mammography in Patients at High Risk: Method of Detection Reflects Tumor Histopathologic Results.

Janice S Sung1, Sarah Stamler1, Jennifer Brooks1, Jennifer Kaplan1, Tammy Huang1, D David Dershaw1, Carol H Lee1, Elizabeth A Morris1, Christopher E Comstock1.   

Abstract

Purpose To compare the clinical, imaging, and histopathologic features of breast cancers detected at screening magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, screening mammography, and those detected between screening examinations (interval cancers) in women at high risk. Materials and Methods This retrospective institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant review of 7519 women at high risk for breast cancer who underwent screening with MR imaging and mammography between January 2005 and December 2010 was performed to determine the number of screening-detected and interval cancers diagnosed. The need for informed consent was waived. Medical records were reviewed for age, risk factors (family or personal history of breast cancer, BRCA mutation status, history of high-risk lesion or mantle radiation), tumor histopathologic results, and time between diagnosis of interval cancer and most recent screening examination. The χ(2) test and logistic regression methods were used to compare the features of screening MR imaging, screening mammography, and interval cancers. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to calculate P values. Results A total of 18 064 screening MR imaging examinations and 26 866 screening mammographic examinations were performed. Two hundred twenty-two cancers were diagnosed in 219 women, 167 (75%) at MR imaging, 43 (19%) at mammography, and 12 (5%) interval cancers. Median age at diagnosis was 52 years. No risk factors were associated with screening MR imaging, screening mammography, or interval cancer (P > .06). Cancers found at screening MR imaging were more likely to be invasive cancer (118 of 167 [71%]; P < .0001). Of the 43 cancers found at screening mammography, 38 (88%) manifested as calcifications and 28 (65%) were ductal carcinoma in situ. Interval cancers were associated with nodal involvement (P = .005) and the triple-negative subtype (P = .03). Conclusion In women at high risk for breast cancer who underwent screening with mammography and MR imaging, invasive cancers were more likely to be detected at MR imaging, whereas most cancers detected at screening mammography were ductal carcinoma in situ. Interval cancers were found infrequently and were more likely to be node positive and of the triple-negative subtype. (©) RSNA, 2016.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27097237      PMCID: PMC5006733          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2016151419

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  33 in total

1.  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

2.  Local recurrence after conservative surgery and radiation therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ: Possible importance of family history.

Authors:  H Hiramatsu; B A Bornstein; A Recht; S J Schnitt; J K Baum; J L Connolly; R B Duda; A J Guidi; C M Kaelin; E B Silver; J R Harris
Journal:  Cancer J Sci Am       Date:  1995 May-Jun

3.  Biologic characteristics of interval and screen-detected breast cancers.

Authors:  F D Gilliland; N Joste; P M Stauber; W C Hunt; R Rosenberg; G Redlich; C R Key
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2000-05-03       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Outcome of preventive surgery and screening for breast and ovarian cancer in BRCA mutation carriers.

Authors:  Lauren Scheuer; Noah Kauff; Mark Robson; Bridget Kelly; Richard Barakat; Jaya Satagopan; Nathan Ellis; Martee Hensley; Jeff Boyd; Patrick Borgen; Larry Norton; Kenneth Offit
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2002-03-01       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Age at diagnosis predicts local recurrence in women treated with breast-conserving surgery and postoperative radiation therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ: a population-based outcomes analysis.

Authors:  I Kong; S A Narod; C Taylor; L Paszat; R Saskin; S Nofech-Moses; D Thiruchelvam; W Hanna; J P Pignol; S Sengupta; L Elavathil; P A Jani; S J Done; S Metcalfe; E Rakovitch
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 3.677

Review 6.  Systematic review: using magnetic resonance imaging to screen women at high risk for breast cancer.

Authors:  Ellen Warner; Hans Messersmith; Petrina Causer; Andrea Eisen; Rene Shumak; Donald Plewes
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2008-05-06       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Linda L Humphrey; Mark Helfand; Benjamin K S Chan; Steven H Woolf
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-09-03       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  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

9.  A BRCA1/2 mutation, high breast density and prominent pushing margins of a tumor independently contribute to a frequent false-negative mammography.

Authors:  Madeleine Tilanus-Linthorst; Leon Verhoog; Inge-Marie Obdeijn; Karina Bartels; Marian Menke-Pluymers; Alexander Eggermont; Jan Klijn; Hanne Meijers-Heijboer; Theo van der Kwast; Cecile Brekelmans
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2002-11-01       Impact factor: 7.396

10.  Long-term impact of young age at diagnosis on treatment outcome and patterns of failure in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ treated with breast-conserving therapy.

Authors:  Frank A Vicini; Simona Shaitelman; John Ben Wilkinson; Chirag Shah; Hong Ye; Larry L Kestin; Neal S Goldstein; Peter Y Chen; Alvaro A Martinez
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2013 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.431

View more
  33 in total

1.  Differences between screen-detected and interval breast cancers among BRCA mutation carriers.

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

2.  Feasibility analysis of early temporal kinetics as a surrogate marker for breast tumor type, grade, and aggressiveness.

Authors:  Laura Heacock; Alana A Lewin; Yiming Gao; James S Babb; Samantha L Heller; Amy N Melsaether; Neeti Bagadiya; Sungheon G Kim; Linda Moy
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2017-11-27       Impact factor: 4.813

Review 3.  Abbreviated MR Imaging for Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Laura Heacock; Alana A Lewin; Hildegard K Toth; Linda Moy; Beatriu Reig
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2020-11-02       Impact factor: 2.303

4.  MRI appearance of invasive subcentimetre breast carcinoma: benign characteristics are common.

Authors:  Matthias Meissnitzer; D David Dershaw; Kimberly Feigin; Blanca Bernard-Davila; Filipe Barra; Elizabeth A Morris
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-05-25       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 5.  Breast cancer screening for women at high risk: review of current guidelines from leading specialty societies.

Authors:  Natsuko Onishi; Masako Kataoka
Journal:  Breast Cancer       Date:  2020-09-21       Impact factor: 4.239

6.  Trends in breast cancer mortality by stage at diagnosis among young women in the United States.

Authors:  Fangjian Guo; Yong-Fang Kuo; Ya Chen Tina Shih; Sharon H Giordano; Abbey B Berenson
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2018-09-06       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Can mammogram readers swiftly and effectively learn to interpret first post-contrast acquisition subtracted (FAST) MRI, a type of abbreviated breast MRI?: a single centre data-interpretation study.

Authors:  Lyn I Jones; Rebecca Geach; Sam A Harding; Christopher Foy; Victoria Taylor; Andrea Marshall; Sian Taylor-Phillips; Janet A Dunn
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-10-03       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 8.  Screening Algorithms in Dense Breasts: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg; Elizabeth A Rafferty; Sarah M Friedewald; Carrie B Hruska; Habib Rahbar
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2020-12-23       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Differential diagnosis of plasma cell mastitis and invasive ductal carcinoma using multiparametric MRI.

Authors:  Rong Chen; Baoquan Hu; Yulong Zhang; Caibao Liu; Lianhua Zhao; Yan Jiang; Yan Xu
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2020-04

10.  Forewarned Is Forearmed: Can Better Patient Counseling Increase MRI Utilization in High-Risk Women?

Authors:  Amy E Cyr; Ranjna Sharma
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2020-08-09       Impact factor: 5.344

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.