Literature DB >> 31161975

Surveillance Breast MRI and Mammography: Comparison in Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer.

Karen J Wernli1, Laura Ichikawa1, Karla Kerlikowske1, Diana S M Buist1, Susan D Brandzel1, Mary Bush1, Dianne Johnson1, Louise M Henderson1, Larissa Nekhlyudov1, Tracy Onega1, Brian L Sprague1, Janie M Lee1, Constance D Lehman1, Diana L Miglioretti1.   

Abstract

Background There is lack of consensus regarding the use of breast MRI for routine surveillance for second breast cancer events in women with a personal history of breast cancer. Purpose To compare performance of surveillance mammography with breast MRI. Materials and Methods This observational cohort study used prospectively collected data and included 13 266 women age 18 years and older (mean age, 60 years ± 13) with stage 0-III breast cancer who underwent 33 938 mammographic examinations and 2506 breast MRI examinations from 2005 to 2012 in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Women were categorized into two groups: mammography alone (n = 11 745) or breast MRI (n = 1521). Performance measures were calculated by using end-of-day assessment and occurrence of second breast cancer events within 1 year of imaging. Logistic regression was used to compare performance for breast MRI versus mammography alone, adjusting for women, examination, and primary breast cancer characteristics. Analysis was conducted on a per-examination basis. Results Breast MRI was associated with younger age at diagnosis, chemotherapy, and higher education and income. Raw performance measures for breast MRI versus mammography were as follows, respectively: cancer detection rates, 10.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.7, 14.8) versus 8.2 (95% CI: 7.3, 9.2) per 1000 examinations; sensitivity, 61.4% (27 of 44; 95% CI: 46.5%, 76.2%) versus 70.3% (279 of 397; 95% CI: 65.8%, 74.8%); and biopsy rate, 10.1% (253 of 2506; 95% CI: 8.9%, 11.3%) versus 4.0% (1343 of 33 938; 95% CI: 3.7%, 4.2%). In multivariable models, breast MRI was associated with higher biopsy rate (odds ratio [OR], 2.2; 95% CI: 1.9, 2.7; P < .001) and cancer detection rate (OR, 1.7; 95% CI: 1.1, 2.7; P = .03) than mammography alone. However, there were no differences in sensitivity (OR, 1.1; 95% CI: 0.4, 2.9; P = .84) or interval cancer rate (OR, 1.1; 95% CI: 0.6, 2.2; P = .70). Conclusion Comparison of the performance of surveillance breast MRI with mammography must account for patient characteristics. Whereas breast MRI leads to higher biopsy and cancer detection rates, there were no significant differences in sensitivity or interval cancers compared with mammography. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Newell in this issue.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31161975      PMCID: PMC6694722          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2019182475

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   29.146


  30 in total

1.  Marginal modeling of multilevel binary data with time-varying covariates.

Authors:  Diana L Miglioretti; Patrick J Heagerty
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 5.899

2.  Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database.

Authors:  R Ballard-Barbash; S H Taplin; B C Yankaskas; V L Ernster; R D Rosenberg; P A Carney; W E Barlow; B M Geller; K Kerlikowske; B K Edwards; C F Lynch; N Urban; C A Chrvala; C R Key; S P Poplack; J K Worden; L G Kessler
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  The Role of Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Assessment and Surgical Treatment of Interval and Screen-Detected Breast Cancer in Older Women.

Authors:  Martha E Goodrich; Julie Weiss; Tracy Onega; Steve L Balch; Diana S M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Louise M Henderson; Rebecca A Hubbard
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2016-08-23       Impact factor: 2.431

4.  Early detection of second breast cancers improves prognosis in breast cancer survivors.

Authors:  N Houssami; S Ciatto; F Martinelli; R Bonardi; S W Duffy
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2009-03-17       Impact factor: 32.976

5.  Variability in interpretive performance at screening mammography and radiologists' characteristics associated with accuracy.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Sara L Jackson; Linn Abraham; Diana L Miglioretti; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske; Tracy Onega; Robert D Rosenberg; Edward A Sickles; Diana S M Buist
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-10-28       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 6.  American Cancer Society/American Society of Clinical Oncology Breast Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline.

Authors:  Carolyn D Runowicz; Corinne R Leach; N Lynn Henry; Karen S Henry; Heather T Mackey; Rebecca L Cowens-Alvarado; Rachel S Cannady; Mandi L Pratt-Chapman; Stephen B Edge; Linda A Jacobs; Arti Hurria; Lawrence B Marks; Samuel J LaMonte; Ellen Warner; Gary H Lyman; Patricia A Ganz
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-12-07       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Disparities in the use of screening magnetic resonance imaging of the breast in community practice by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.

Authors:  Jennifer S Haas; Deirdre A Hill; Robert D Wellman; Rebecca A Hubbard; Christoph I Lee; Karen J Wernli; Natasha K Stout; Anna N A Tosteson; Louise M Henderson; Jennifer A Alford-Teaster; Tracy L Onega
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2015-12-28       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Patterns of breast magnetic resonance imaging use in community practice.

Authors:  Karen J Wernli; Wendy B DeMartini; Laura Ichikawa; Constance D Lehman; Tracy Onega; Karla Kerlikowske; Louise M Henderson; Berta M Geller; Mike Hofmann; Bonnie C Yankaskas
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 21.873

9.  Human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 and estrogen receptor expression, a demonstration project using the residual tissue repository of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program.

Authors:  W F Anderson; S Luo; N Chatterjee; P S Rosenberg; R K Matsuno; M T Goodman; B Y Hernandez; M Reichman; M P Dolled-Filhart; R M O'Regan; M Garcia-Closas; C M Perou; I Jatoi; R W Cartun; M E Sherman
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2008-02-07       Impact factor: 4.872

10.  Breast Cancer Screening With Mammography Plus Ultrasonography or Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Women 50 Years or Younger at Diagnosis and Treated With Breast Conservation Therapy.

Authors:  Nariya Cho; Wonshik Han; Boo-Kyung Han; Min Sun Bae; Eun Sook Ko; Seok Jin Nam; Eun Young Chae; Jong Won Lee; Sung Hun Kim; Bong Joo Kang; Byung Joo Song; Eun-Kyung Kim; Hee Jung Moon; Seung Il Kim; Sun Mi Kim; Eunyoung Kang; Yunhee Choi; Hak Hee Kim; Woo Kyung Moon
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2017-11-01       Impact factor: 31.777

View more
  9 in total

1.  Facility Variability in Examination Indication Among Women With Prior Breast Cancer: Implications and the Need for Standardization.

Authors:  Diana S M Buist; Laura Ichikawa; Karen J Wernli; Christoph I Lee; Louise M Henderson; Karla Kerlikowske; Erin J A Bowles; Diana L Miglioretti; Jennifer Specht; Garth H Rauscher; Brian L Sprague; Tracy Onega; Janie M Lee
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2020-01-28       Impact factor: 5.532

2.  The emerging role of contrast-enhanced mammography.

Authors:  Andrea Cozzi; Simone Schiaffino; Francesco Sardanelli
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2019-12

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.  Screening MRI in Women at Intermediate Breast Cancer Risk: An Update of the Recent Literature.

Authors:  Manisha Bahl
Journal:  J Breast Imaging       Date:  2022-05-08

5.  Comparison of diagnostic values of two magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocols for diagnosis of breast lesions.

Authors:  Maryam Farghadani; Jalil Khataei; Mahnaz Fosouli; Maryam Riahinezhad
Journal:  Int J Physiol Pathophysiol Pharmacol       Date:  2022-06-15

6.  High Uniformity and Enhancement Au@AgNS 3D Substrates for the Diagnosis of Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Zhengxia Yang; Hai-Sheng Su; En-Ming You; Siying Liu; Zihang Li; Yun Zhang
Journal:  ACS Omega       Date:  2022-04-24

7.  Digital Mammography and Breast Tomosynthesis Performance in Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer, 2007-2016.

Authors:  Janie M Lee; Laura E Ichikawa; Karen J Wernli; Erin Bowles; Jennifer M Specht; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti; Kathryn P Lowry; Anna N A Tosteson; Natasha K Stout; Nehmat Houssami; Tracy Onega; Diana S M Buist
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2021-05-18       Impact factor: 29.146

8.  MRI surveillance for women with a personal history of breast cancer: comparison between abbreviated and full diagnostic protocol.

Authors:  Ko Woon Park; Sol Bee Han; Boo-Kyung Han; Eun Sook Ko; Ji Soo Choi; Sun Jung Rhee; Eun Young Ko
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2020-01-16       Impact factor: 3.039

9.  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 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.