Literature DB >> 28221097

Supplemental Breast MR Imaging Screening of Women with Average Risk of Breast Cancer.

Christiane K Kuhl1, Kevin Strobel1, Heribert Bieling1, Claudia Leutner1, Hans H Schild1, Simone Schrading1.   

Abstract

Purpose To investigate the utility and accuracy of breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging as a supplemental screening tool in women at average risk for breast cancer and to investigate the types of cancer detected with MR imaging screening. Materials and Methods This prospective observational study was conducted at two academic breast centers in women aged 40-70 years without breast cancer-associated risk factors (lifetime risk <15%). Between January 2005 and December 2013, women with at least minimal residual breast tissue (American College of Radiology categories A-D) and normal conventional imaging findings (screening mammography with or without screening ultrasonography [US]) were invited to undergo supplemental MR imaging screening. Outcome measures were supplemental cancer detection rates, interval cancer rates, and biologic profiles of MR imaging-detected additional cancers, as well as specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) of MR imaging screening. Tissue diagnoses or 2 years of follow-up were used to establish the reference standard. Results A total of 2120 women were recruited and underwent 3861 screening MR imaging studies, covering an observation period of 7007 women-years. Breast MR imaging depicted 60 additional breast cancers (ductal carcinoma in situ, n = 20; invasive carcinoma, n = 40) for an overall supplemental cancer detection rate of 15.5 per 1000 cases (95% confidence interval [CI]: 11.9, 20.0). Forty-eight additional cancers were detected with MR imaging at initial screening (supplemental cancer detection rate, 22.6 per 1000 cases). During the 1741 subsequent screening rounds, 12 of 13 incident cancers were found with MR imaging alone (supplemental cancer detection rate, 6.9 per 1000 cases). One cancer was diagnosed with all three methods (mammography, US, and MR imaging), and none were diagnosed with mammography only or US only. Cancers diagnosed with MR imaging were small (median, 8 mm), node negative in 93.4% of cases, and dedifferentiated (high-grade cancer) in 41.7% of cases at prevalence screening and 46.0% of cases at incidence screening. No interval cancers were observed. MR imaging screening offered high specificity (97.1%; 95% CI: 96.5, 97.6) and high PPV (35.7%; 95% CI: 28.9, 43.1). Conclusion In women at average risk for breast cancer, MR imaging screening improves early diagnosis of prognostically relevant breast cancer. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28221097     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2016161444

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


  50 in total

1.  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

2.  Toward 7T breast MRI clinical study: safety assessment using simulation of heterogeneous breast models in RF exposure.

Authors:  Xin Li; Joseph V Rispoli
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2018-09-14       Impact factor: 4.668

Review 3.  The impact of mandatory mammographic breast density notification on supplemental screening practice in the United States: a systematic review.

Authors:  Meagan Brennan; Brooke Nickel; Shuangqin Huang; Nehmat Houssami
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2021-03-28       Impact factor: 4.872

4.  Diffusion-weighted breast imaging.

Authors:  K Deike-Hofmann; T Kuder; F König; D Paech; C Dreher; S Delorme; H-P Schlemmer; S Bickelhaupt
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 0.635

Review 5.  Applications of Advanced Breast Imaging Modalities.

Authors:  Arwa A Alzaghal; Pamela J DiPiro
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2018-05-29       Impact factor: 5.075

6.  Association of State Dense Breast Notification Laws With Supplemental Testing and Cancer Detection After Screening Mammography.

Authors:  Susan H Busch; Jessica R Hoag; Jenerius A Aminawung; Xiao Xu; Ilana B Richman; Pamela R Soulos; Kelly A Kyanko; Cary P Gross
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2019-03-21       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 7.  Redefining the sensitivity of screening mammography: A review.

Authors:  Alan B Hollingsworth
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2019-02-02       Impact factor: 2.565

Review 8.  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

9.  Should abbreviated breast MRI be compliant with American College of Radiology requirements for MRI accreditation?

Authors:  Marion E Scoggins; Banu K Arun; Rosalind P Candelaria; Mark J Dryden; Wei Wei; Jong Bum Son; Jingfei Ma; Basak E Dogan
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2020-07-02       Impact factor: 2.546

10.  Local and whole-body staging in patients with primary breast cancer: a comparison of one-step to two-step staging utilizing 18F-FDG-PET/MRI.

Authors:  Julian Kirchner; Johannes Grueneisen; Ole Martin; Mark Oehmigen; Harald H Quick; Ann-Kathrin Bittner; Oliver Hoffmann; Marc Ingenwerth; Onofrio Antonio Catalano; Philipp Heusch; Christian Buchbender; Michael Forsting; Gerald Antoch; Ken Herrmann; Lale Umutlu
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2018-07-28       Impact factor: 9.236

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.