Julia Krammer1, Katja Pinker-Domenig2,3, Mark E Robson4, Mithat Gönen5, Blanca Bernard-Davila5, Elizabeth A Morris6, Debra A Mangino7, Maxine S Jochelson8. 1. Institute of Clinical Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 2. Division of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 3. Molecular Imaging and Therapy Service, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA. 4. Clinical Genetics Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA. 5. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA. 6. Breast Imaging Service, Breast Imaging Section, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA. 7. Risk Assessment, Imaging, Surveillance & Education (RISE) Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA. 8. Breast Imaging Service, Breast Imaging Section, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA. jochelsm@mskcc.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe imaging findings, detection rates, and tumor characteristics of breast cancers in a large series of patients with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations to potentially streamline screening strategies. METHODS: An IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant retrospective analysis of 496 BRCA mutation carriers diagnosed with breast carcinoma from 1999 to 2013 was performed. Institutional database and electronic medical records were reviewed for mammography and MRI imaging. Patient and tumor characteristics including age at diagnosis, tumor histology, grade, receptor, and nodal status were recorded. RESULTS: Tumors in BRCA1 mutation carriers were associated exhibited significantly higher nuclear and histological grade compared to BRCA2 (p < 0.001). Triple-negative tumors were more frequent in BRCA1 mutation carriers, whereas hormone receptor-positive tumors were more frequent in BRCA2 mutation carriers (p < 0.001). BRCA2 mutation carriers more frequently presented with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) alone 14% (35/246) and cancers more frequently exhibiting calcifications (p < 0.001). Mammography detected fewer cancers in BRCA1 mutation carriers compared to BRCA2 (p = 0.04): 81% (186/231) BRCA1 versus 89% (212/237) BRCA2. MRI detected 99% cancers in each group. Mammography detected cancer in two patients with false-negative MRI (1 invasive cancer, 1 DCIS). Detection rates on both mammography and MRI did not significantly differ for women over 40 years and women below 40 years. CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancers in BRCA1 mutation carriers are associated with more aggressive tumor characteristics compared to BRCA2 and are less well seen on mammography. Mammography rarely identified cancers not visible on MRI. Thus, the omission of mammography in BRCA1 mutation carriers screened with MRI can be considered.
PURPOSE: To describe imaging findings, detection rates, and tumor characteristics of breast cancers in a large series of patients with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations to potentially streamline screening strategies. METHODS: An IRB-approved, HIPAA-compliant retrospective analysis of 496 BRCA mutation carriers diagnosed with breast carcinoma from 1999 to 2013 was performed. Institutional database and electronic medical records were reviewed for mammography and MRI imaging. Patient and tumor characteristics including age at diagnosis, tumor histology, grade, receptor, and nodal status were recorded. RESULTS:Tumors in BRCA1 mutation carriers were associated exhibited significantly higher nuclear and histological grade compared to BRCA2 (p < 0.001). Triple-negative tumors were more frequent in BRCA1 mutation carriers, whereas hormone receptor-positive tumors were more frequent in BRCA2 mutation carriers (p < 0.001). BRCA2 mutation carriers more frequently presented with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) alone 14% (35/246) and cancers more frequently exhibiting calcifications (p < 0.001). Mammography detected fewer cancers in BRCA1 mutation carriers compared to BRCA2 (p = 0.04): 81% (186/231) BRCA1 versus 89% (212/237) BRCA2. MRI detected 99% cancers in each group. Mammography detected cancer in two patients with false-negative MRI (1 invasive cancer, 1 DCIS). Detection rates on both mammography and MRI did not significantly differ for women over 40 years and women below 40 years. CONCLUSIONS:Breast cancers in BRCA1 mutation carriers are associated with more aggressive tumor characteristics compared to BRCA2 and are less well seen on mammography. Mammography rarely identified cancers not visible on MRI. Thus, the omission of mammography in BRCA1 mutation carriers screened with MRI can be considered.
Entities:
Keywords:
BRCA mutation; Breast MRI; Breast cancer; Mammogram
Authors: Huong T Le-Petross; Gary J Whitman; Deanne P Atchley; Ying Yuan; Angelica Gutierrez-Barrera; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Jennifer K Litton; Banu K Arun Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-03-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Dorina M van der Kolk; Geertruida H de Bock; Beike K Leegte; Michael Schaapveld; Marian J E Mourits; Jakob de Vries; Annemieke H van der Hout; Jan C Oosterwijk Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2010-03-04 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Christopher C Riedl; Nikolaus Luft; Clemens Bernhart; Michael Weber; Maria Bernathova; Muy-Kheng M Tea; Margaretha Rudas; Christian F Singer; Thomas H Helbich Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-02-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Banu Arun; Kristen J Vogel; Adriana Lopez; Mike Hernandez; Deann Atchley; Kristine R Broglio; Christopher I Amos; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Henry Kuerer; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Constance T Albarracin Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2009-01-27
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: Deann P Atchley; Constance T Albarracin; Adriana Lopez; Vicente Valero; Christopher I Amos; Ana Maria Gonzalez-Angulo; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Banu K Arun Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-09-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Petrina A Causer; Roberta A Jong; Ellen Warner; Kimberley Hill; John W Wong; Belinda N Curpen; Donald B Plewes Journal: Radiographics Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: D Gareth Evans; Andrew Shenton; Emma Woodward; Fiona Lalloo; Anthony Howell; Eamonn R Maher Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2008-05-30 Impact factor: 4.430
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: Lee Galmor; Rinat Bernstein-Molho; Miri Sklair-Levy; Dana Madoursky-Feldman; Dov Zippel; Yael Laitman; Eitan Friedman Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-09-30 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Anne T Knisely; Martha E Stewart; Christine Garcia; Martha H Thomas; Susan C Modesitt; Kari L Ring Journal: Gynecol Oncol Rep Date: 2020-05-22
Authors: Terri Patricia McVeigh; Raghav Sundar; Nikolaos Diamantis; Stan B Kaye; Udai Banerji; Juanita S Lopez; Johann de Bono; Winette T A van der Graaf; Angela J George Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2018-03-31 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: S Vreemann; A Gubern-Merida; S Lardenoije; P Bult; N Karssemeijer; K Pinker; R M Mann Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 4.872