Anna M Chiarelli1,2, Kristina M Blackmore1, Derek Muradali1,3,4, Susan J Done5, Vicky Majpruz1, Ashini Weerasinghe1, Lucia Mirea2,6, Andrea Eisen7, Linda Rabeneck1,2,8, Ellen Warner7,8. 1. Prevention and Cancer Control, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 5. Laboratory Medicine Program, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 6. Phoenix Children's Hospital, Phoenix, AZ. 7. Division of Medical Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 8. Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Ontario Breast Screening Program expanded in July 2011 to screen high-risk women age 30-69 years with annual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and digital mammography. This study examined the benefits of screening with mammography and MRI by age and risk criteria. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included 8782 women age 30-69 years referred to the High Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program from July 2011 to June 2015, with final results to December 2016. Cancer detection rates, sensitivity, and specificity of MRI and mammography combined were compared with each modality individually within risk groups stratified by age using generalized estimating equation models. Prognostic features of screen-detected breast cancers were compared by modality using Fisher exact test. All P values are two-sided. RESULTS: Among 20 053 screening episodes, there were 280 screen-detected breast cancers (cancer detection rate = 14.0 per 1000, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 12.4 to 15.7). The sensitivity of mammography was statistically significantly lower than that of MRI plus mammography (40.8%, 95% CI = 29.3% to 53.5% vs 96.0%, 95% CI = 92.2% to 98.0%, P < .001). In mutation carriers age 30-39 years, sensitivity of the combination was comparable with MRI alone (100.0% vs 96.8%, 95% CI = 79.2% to 100.0%, P = .99) but with statistically significantly decreased specificity (78.0%, 95% CI = 74.7% to 80.9% vs 86.2%, 95% CI = 83.5% to 88.5%, P < .001). In women age 50-69 years, combining MRI and mammography statistically significantly increased sensitivity compared with MRI alone (96.3%, 95% CI = 90.6% to 98.6% vs 90.9%, 95% CI = 83.6% to 95.1%, P = .02), with a small but statistically significant decrease in specificity (84.2%, 95% CI = 83.1% to 85.2% vs 90.0%, 95% CI = 89.2% to 90.9%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Screening high risk women age 30-39 years with annual MRI only may be sufficient for cancer detection and should be evaluated further, particularly for mutation carriers. Among women age 50-69 years, detection is most effective when mammography is included with annual MRI.
BACKGROUND: The Ontario Breast Screening Program expanded in July 2011 to screen high-risk women age 30-69 years with annual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and digital mammography. This study examined the benefits of screening with mammography and MRI by age and risk criteria. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included 8782 women age 30-69 years referred to the High Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program from July 2011 to June 2015, with final results to December 2016. Cancer detection rates, sensitivity, and specificity of MRI and mammography combined were compared with each modality individually within risk groups stratified by age using generalized estimating equation models. Prognostic features of screen-detected breast cancers were compared by modality using Fisher exact test. All P values are two-sided. RESULTS: Among 20 053 screening episodes, there were 280 screen-detected breast cancers (cancer detection rate = 14.0 per 1000, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 12.4 to 15.7). The sensitivity of mammography was statistically significantly lower than that of MRI plus mammography (40.8%, 95% CI = 29.3% to 53.5% vs 96.0%, 95% CI = 92.2% to 98.0%, P < .001). In mutation carriers age 30-39 years, sensitivity of the combination was comparable with MRI alone (100.0% vs 96.8%, 95% CI = 79.2% to 100.0%, P = .99) but with statistically significantly decreased specificity (78.0%, 95% CI = 74.7% to 80.9% vs 86.2%, 95% CI = 83.5% to 88.5%, P < .001). In women age 50-69 years, combining MRI and mammography statistically significantly increased sensitivity compared with MRI alone (96.3%, 95% CI = 90.6% to 98.6% vs 90.9%, 95% CI = 83.6% to 95.1%, P = .02), with a small but statistically significant decrease in specificity (84.2%, 95% CI = 83.1% to 85.2% vs 90.0%, 95% CI = 89.2% to 90.9%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Screening high risk women age 30-39 years with annual MRI only may be sufficient for cancer detection and should be evaluated further, particularly for mutation carriers. Among women age 50-69 years, detection is most effective when mammography is included with annual MRI.
Authors: A Antoniou; P D P Pharoah; S Narod; H A Risch; J E Eyfjord; J L Hopper; N Loman; H Olsson; O Johannsson; A Borg; B Pasini; P Radice; S Manoukian; D M Eccles; N Tang; E Olah; H Anton-Culver; E Warner; J Lubinski; J Gronwald; B Gorski; H Tulinius; S Thorlacius; H Eerola; H Nevanlinna; K Syrjäkoski; O-P Kallioniemi; D Thompson; C Evans; J Peto; F Lalloo; D G Evans; D F Easton Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2003-04-03 Impact factor: 11.025
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: Ellen Warner; Hans Messersmith; Petrina Causer; Andrea Eisen; Rene Shumak; Donald Plewes Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-05-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Lois B Travis; Deirdre A Hill; Graça M Dores; Mary Gospodarowicz; Flora E van Leeuwen; Eric Holowaty; Bengt Glimelius; Michael Andersson; Tom Wiklund; Charles F Lynch; Mars B Van't Veer; Ingrid Glimelius; Hans Storm; Eero Pukkala; Marilyn Stovall; Rochelle Curtis; John D Boice; Ethel Gilbert Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-07-23 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Xuan-Anh Phi; Sepideh Saadatmand; Geertruida H De Bock; Ellen Warner; Francesco Sardanelli; Martin O Leach; Christopher C Riedl; Isabelle Trop; Maartje J Hooning; Rodica Mandel; Filippo Santoro; Gek Kwan-Lim; Thomas H Helbich; Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst; Edwin R van den Heuvel; Nehmat Houssami Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Andrea Eisen; Kristina M Blackmore; Wendy S Meschino; Derek Muradali; June C Carroll; Vicky Majpruz; Ellen Warner; Linda Rabeneck; Anna M Chiarelli Journal: Mol Genet Genomic Med Date: 2018-01-25 Impact factor: 2.183
Authors: Jennifer M Yeh; Kathryn P Lowry; Clyde B Schechter; Lisa R Diller; Oguzhan Alagoz; Gregory T Armstrong; John M Hampton; Wendy Leisenring; Qi Liu; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Diana L Miglioretti; Chaya S Moskowitz; Kevin C Oeffinger; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Natasha K Stout Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2020-07-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Kathryn P Lowry; H Amarens Geuzinge; Natasha K Stout; Oguzhan Alagoz; John Hampton; Karla Kerlikowske; Harry J de Koning; Diana L Miglioretti; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Clyde Schechter; Brian L Sprague; Anna N A Tosteson; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Donald Weaver; Martin J Yaffe; Jennifer M Yeh; Fergus J Couch; Chunling Hu; Peter Kraft; Eric C Polley; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Allison W Kurian; Mark E Robson Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 33.006
Authors: Janie M Lee; Kathryn P Lowry; Jessica E Cott Chubiz; J Shannon Swan; Tina Motazedi; Elkan F Halpern; Anna N A Tosteson; G Scott Gazelle; Karen Donelan Journal: Breast Date: 2020-02-13 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Anna M Chiarelli; Meghan J Walker; Gabriela Espino-Hernandez; Natasha Gray; Ayesha Salleh; Chamila Adhihetty; Julia Gao; Samantha Fienberg; Michelle A Rey; Linda Rabeneck Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2021-12-21
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