Literature DB >> 32096852

Comparison of Abbreviated Breast MRI vs Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Detection Among Women With Dense Breasts Undergoing Screening.

Christopher E Comstock1, Constantine Gatsonis2, Gillian M Newstead3, Bradley S Snyder4, Ilana F Gareen5, Jennifer T Bergin6, Habib Rahbar7, Janice S Sung1, Christina Jacobs8, Jennifer A Harvey9,10, Mary H Nicholson11, Robert C Ward12, Jacqueline Holt13, Andrew Prather14, Kathy D Miller15, Mitchell D Schnall16, Christiane K Kuhl17.   

Abstract

Importance: Improved screening methods for women with dense breasts are needed because of their increased risk of breast cancer and of failed early diagnosis by screening mammography. Objective: To compare the screening performance of abbreviated breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in women with dense breasts. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study with longitudinal follow-up at 48 academic, community hospital, and private practice sites in the United States and Germany, conducted between December 2016 and November 2017 among average-risk women aged 40 to 75 years with heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breasts undergoing routine screening. Follow-up ascertainment of cancer diagnoses was complete through September 12, 2019. Exposures: All women underwent screening by both DBT and abbreviated breast MRI, performed in randomized order and read independently to avoid interpretation bias. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the invasive cancer detection rate. Secondary outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, additional imaging recommendation rate, and positive predictive value (PPV) of biopsy, using invasive cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) to define a positive reference standard. All outcomes are reported at the participant level. Pathology of core or surgical biopsy was the reference standard for cancer detection rate and PPV; interval cancers reported until the next annual screen were included in the reference standard for sensitivity and specificity.
Results: Among 1516 enrolled women, 1444 (median age, 54 [range, 40-75] years) completed both examinations and were included in the analysis. The reference standard was positive for invasive cancer with or without DCIS in 17 women and for DCIS alone in another 6. No interval cancers were observed during follow-up. Abbreviated breast MRI detected all 17 women with invasive cancer and 5 of 6 women with DCIS. Digital breast tomosynthesis detected 7 of 17 women with invasive cancer and 2 of 6 women with DCIS. The invasive cancer detection rate was 11.8 (95% CI, 7.4-18.8) per 1000 women for abbreviated breast MRI vs 4.8 (95% CI, 2.4-10.0) per 1000 women for DBT, a difference of 7 (95% CI, 2.2-11.6) per 1000 women (exact McNemar P = .002). For detection of invasive cancer and DCIS, sensitivity was 95.7% (95% CI, 79.0%-99.2%) with abbreviated breast MRI vs 39.1% (95% CI, 22.2%-59.2%) with DBT (P = .001) and specificity was 86.7% (95% CI, 84.8%-88.4%) vs 97.4% (95% CI, 96.5%-98.1%), respectively (P < .001). The additional imaging recommendation rate was 7.5% (95% CI, 6.2%-9.0%) with abbreviated breast MRI vs 10.1% (95% CI, 8.7%-11.8%) with DBT (P = .02) and the PPV was 19.6% (95% CI, 13.2%-28.2%) vs 31.0% (95% CI, 17.0%-49.7%), respectively (P = .15). Conclusions and Relevance: Among women with dense breasts undergoing screening, abbreviated breast MRI, compared with DBT, was associated with a significantly higher rate of invasive breast cancer detection. Further research is needed to better understand the relationship between screening methods and clinical outcome. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02933489.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32096852      PMCID: PMC7276668          DOI: 10.1001/jama.2020.0572

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   157.335


  37 in total

1.  Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer.

Authors:  Norman F Boyd; Helen Guo; Lisa J Martin; Limei Sun; Jennifer Stone; Eve Fishell; Roberta A Jong; Greg Hislop; Anna Chiarelli; Salomon Minkin; Martin J Yaffe
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-01-18       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography.

Authors:  Debbie Saslow; Carla Boetes; Wylie Burke; Steven Harms; Martin O Leach; Constance D Lehman; Elizabeth Morris; Etta Pisano; Mitchell Schnall; Stephen Sener; Robert A Smith; Ellen Warner; Martin Yaffe; Kimberly S Andrews; Christy A Russell
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2007 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 508.702

3.  Abbreviated breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): first postcontrast subtracted images and maximum-intensity projection-a novel approach to breast cancer screening with MRI.

Authors:  Christiane K Kuhl; Simone Schrading; Kevin Strobel; Hans H Schild; Ralf-Dieter Hilgers; Heribert B Bieling
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-06-23       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  New Federal Requirements to Inform Patients About Breast Density: Will They Help Patients?

Authors:  Nancy L Keating; Lydia E Pace
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2019-06-18       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 5.  Cancer screening in the United States, 2018: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening.

Authors:  Robert A Smith; Kimberly S Andrews; Durado Brooks; Stacey A Fedewa; Deana Manassaram-Baptiste; Debbie Saslow; Otis W Brawley; Richard C Wender
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2018-05-30       Impact factor: 508.702

6.  Initial versus subsequent screening mammography: comparison of findings and their prognostic significance.

Authors:  S D Frankel; E A Sickles; B N Curpen; R A Sollitto; S H Ominsky; H B Galvin
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Breast Cancers Detected at Screening MR Imaging and Mammography in Patients at High Risk: Method of Detection Reflects Tumor Histopathologic Results.

Authors:  Janice S Sung; Sarah Stamler; Jennifer Brooks; Jennifer Kaplan; Tammy Huang; D David Dershaw; Carol H Lee; Elizabeth A Morris; Christopher E Comstock
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2016-04-20       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg; Jeffrey D Blume; Jean B Cormack; Ellen B Mendelson; Daniel Lehrer; Marcela Böhm-Vélez; Etta D Pisano; Roberta A Jong; W Phil Evans; Marilyn J Morton; Mary C Mahoney; Linda Hovanessian Larsen; Richard G Barr; Dione M Farria; Helga S Marques; Karan Boparai
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2008-05-14       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition.

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

10.  High signal intensity in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1-weighted MR images: relationship with increasing cumulative dose of a gadolinium-based contrast material.

Authors:  Tomonori Kanda; Kazunari Ishii; Hiroki Kawaguchi; Kazuhiro Kitajima; Daisuke Takenaka
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-12-07       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  55 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

2.  Breast MRI Finds More Invasive Cancers than Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Women with Dense Breasts Undergoing Screening.

Authors:  Audrey Y Chang; Bonnie N Joe
Journal:  Radiol Imaging Cancer       Date:  2020-07-31

Review 3.  A review of optical breast imaging: Multi-modality systems for breast cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  Quing Zhu; Steven Poplack
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2020-05-18       Impact factor: 3.528

4.  Errors in Author Affiliations.

Authors: 
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2020-03-24       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 5.  Abbreviated MR Imaging for Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Laura Heacock; Alana A Lewin; Hildegard K Toth; Linda Moy; Beatriu Reig
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2020-11-02       Impact factor: 2.303

6.  Genetic Testing May Help Reduce Breast Cancer Disparities for African American Women.

Authors:  Anne Marie McCarthy; Katrina Armstrong
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2020-12-14       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Breast Cancer Screening Trials: Endpoints and Overdiagnosis.

Authors:  Ismail Jatoi; Paul F Pinsky
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2021-09-04       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 8.  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

9.  New mammography screening performance metrics based on the entire screening episode.

Authors:  Brian L Sprague; Diana L Miglioretti; Christoph I Lee; Hannah Perry; Anna A N Tosteson; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2020-05-06       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 10.  Screening Algorithms in Dense Breasts: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg; Elizabeth A Rafferty; Sarah M Friedewald; Carrie B Hruska; Habib Rahbar
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2020-12-23       Impact factor: 3.959

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.