Literature DB >> 28527397

MRI surveillance for women with dense breasts and a previous breast cancer and/or high risk lesion.

Michelle Nadler1, Hyder Al-Attar2, Ellen Warner3, Anne L Martel4, Sharmila Balasingham5, Liying Zhang6, Joseph H Lipton7, Belinda Curpen8.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The role of surveillance breast MRI for women with mammographically dense breasts, a personal history of breast cancer (BC), atypical hyperplasia (AH), or lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) is unclear. We estimated the performance of annual surveillance MRI in women with a combination of these risk factors.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of the clinical, radiological, and pathological parameters of women who received annual concurrent surveillance breast MRI and mammography between 04/2013 and 12/2015 and fulfilled all of the following criteria: 1) age <70; 2) prior diagnosis of AH, LCIS or BC; 3) heterogeneously or extremely dense breast(s); and 4) did not qualify for our provincial breast MRI high risk screening program.
RESULTS: This study included 198 patients (266 MRI exams). MRI detected 15 cancers: 11 invasive stage I and 4 in-situ. All but 1 were mammographically occult and there were no interval cancers. The cancer detection rate (CDR) and false positive (FP) rate were 6.1% and 21% for round one and 4.7% and 12.5% for round two, respectively. Not being on anti-estrogen therapy and having a 1st degree relative with BC significantly increased the likelihood of tumor detection.
CONCLUSIONS: The CDR and FP rate of surveillance MRI in this study were comparable to those reported for women with BRCA mutations. The addition of annual MRI to mammography should be considered for surveillance of women with a combination of these risk factors, particularly if they have a family history of BC and are not on anti-estrogen therapy.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Atypical hyperplasia; BIRADS; Breast cancer; Cancer detection rate; DCIS; MRI; Mammographically dense breasts; Mammographically occult; Surveillance

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28527397     DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2017.04.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast        ISSN: 0960-9776            Impact factor:   4.380


  3 in total

Review 1.  Digital Analysis in Breast Imaging.

Authors:  Giovanna Negrão de Figueiredo; Michael Ingrisch; Eva Maria Fallenberg
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2019-06-04       Impact factor: 2.860

2.  Diagnostic Value of Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography versus Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Preoperative Evaluation of Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Eun Young Kim; Inyoung Youn; Kwan Ho Lee; Ji-Sup Yun; Yong Lai Park; Chan Heun Park; Juhee Moon; Seon Hyeong Choi; Yoon Jung Choi; Soo-Youn Ham; Shin Ho Kook
Journal:  J Breast Cancer       Date:  2018-12-26       Impact factor: 3.588

3.  Nonpalpable breast masses: One-year ultrasound follow-up and morbidity outcomes in Shanghai.

Authors:  Hongmei Wen; Tao Xu; Qinhua Huang; Chumiao Zhang; Qi Zhang; Haiyan Chen
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-12-11       Impact factor: 1.817

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.