Literature DB >> 31063080

Performance of Screening Breast MRI across Women with Different Elevated Breast Cancer Risk Indications.

Dorothy A Sippo1, Kristine S Burk1, Sarah F Mercaldo1, Geoffrey M Rutledge1, Christine Edmonds1, Zoe Guan1, Kevin S Hughes1, Constance D Lehman1.   

Abstract

Background Screening breast MRI is recommended for women with BRCA mutation or a history of chest radiation, but guidelines are equivocal for MRI screening of women with a personal history of breast cancer or high-risk lesion. Purpose To evaluate screening breast MRI performance across women with different elevated breast cancer risk indications. Materials and Methods All screening breast MRI examinations performed between 2011 and 2014 underwent retrospective medical record review. Indications for screening were as follows: BRCA mutation carrier or history of chest radiation (BRCA/RT group), family history of breast cancer (FH group), personal history of breast cancer (PH group), and history of high-risk lesion (HRL group). Screening performance metrics were calculated and compared among indications by using logistic regression adjusted for age, available prior MRI, mammographic density, examination year, and multiple risk factors. Results There were 5170 screening examinations in 2637 women (mean age, 52 years; range, 23-86 years); 67 breast cancers were detected. The cancer detection rate (CDR) was highest in the BRCA/RT group (26 per 1000 examinations; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 16, 43 per 1000 examinations), intermediate for those in the PH and HRL groups (12 per 1000 examinations [95% CI: 9, 17 per 1000 examinations] and 15 per 1000 examinations [95% CI: 7, 32 per 1000 examinations], respectively), and lowest for those in the FH group (8 per 1000 examinations; 95% CI: 4, 14 per 1000 examinations). No difference in CDR was evident for the PH or HRL group compared with the BRCA/RT group (P = .14 and .18, respectively). The CDR was lower for the FH group compared with the BRCA/RT group (P = .02). No difference was evident in positive predictive value for biopsies performed (PPV3) for the BRCA/RT group (41%; 95% CI: 26%, 56%) compared with the PH (41%; 95% CI: 31%, 52%; P = .63) or HRL (36%, 95% CI: 17%, 60%; P = .37) groups. PPV3 was lower for the FH group (14%; 95% CI: 8%, 25%; P = .048). Conclusion Screening breast MRI should be considered for women with a personal history of breast cancer or high-risk lesion. Worse screening MRI performance in patients with a family history of breast cancer suggests that better risk assessment strategies may benefit these women. © RSNA, 2019.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31063080     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2019181136

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


  13 in total

1.  Breast cancer screening: in the era of personalized medicine, age is just a number.

Authors:  Andrea Cozzi; Simone Schiaffino; Paolo Giorgi Rossi; Francesco Sardanelli
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2020-12

Review 2.  [Diagnosis of breast diseases in a certified breast center].

Authors:  Markus Müller-Schimpfle; Nicole Herröder; Petra Hödl
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2021-01-06       Impact factor: 0.635

Review 3.  Surveillance for second breast cancer events in women with a personal history of breast cancer using breast MRI: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Cameron B Haas; Larissa Nekhlyudov; Janie M Lee; Sara H Javid; Mary Bush; Dianne Johnson; Timothy Gleason; Cary Kaufman; Jennifer Specht; Sean Stitham; Karen J Wernli
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2020-04-17       Impact factor: 4.872

Review 4.  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

5.  Using deep learning to safely exclude lesions with only ultrafast breast MRI to shorten acquisition and reading time.

Authors:  Xueping Jing; Mirjam Wielema; Ludo J Cornelissen; Margo van Gent; Willie M Iwema; Sunyi Zheng; Paul E Sijens; Matthijs Oudkerk; Monique D Dorrius; Peter M A van Ooijen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2022-05-26       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 6.  Image-based screening for men at high risk for breast cancer: Benefits and drawbacks.

Authors:  Ryan W Woods; Lonie R Salkowski; Mai Elezaby; Elizabeth S Burnside; Roberta M Strigel; Amy M Fowler
Journal:  Clin Imaging       Date:  2019-11-28       Impact factor: 1.605

7.  Performance of a clinical and imaging-based multivariate model as decision support tool to help save unnecessary surgeries for high-risk breast lesions.

Authors:  Dogan S Polat; Jennifer G Schopp; Firouzeh Arjmandi; Jessica Porembka; Venetia Sarode; Deborah Farr; Yin Xi; Basak E Dogan
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2020-10-03       Impact factor: 4.872

8.  Trends in screening breast magnetic resonance imaging use among US women, 2006 to 2016.

Authors:  Karen J Wernli; Katherine A Callaway; Louise M Henderson; Karla Kerlikowske; Janie M Lee; Dennis Ross-Degnan; Jamie K Wallace; J Frank Wharam; Fang Zhang; Natasha K Stout
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2020-09-28       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  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

10.  Three-dimensional MR Elastography Depicts Liver Inflammation, Fibrosis, and Portal Hypertension in Chronic Hepatitis B or C.

Authors:  Yu Shi; Ya-Fei Qi; Gong-Yu Lan; Qijun Wu; Bing Ma; Xian-Yi Zhang; Ruo-Yun Ji; Yu-Jia Ma; Yang Hong
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2021-08-10       Impact factor: 29.146

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.