Literature DB >> 35857199

Outcomes of Abbreviated MRI (Ab-MRI) for Women of any Breast Cancer Risk and Breast Density in a Community Academic Setting.

Kaitlyn Kennard1,2,3, Olivia Wang4, Stephanie Kjelstrom5, Sharon Larson5, Lina M Sizer6, Catherine Carruthers6, William B Carter6, Robin Ciocca4, Jennifer Sabol4, Thomas G Frazier6, Ned Z Carp4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging (Ab-MRI) has been evaluated for elevated breast cancer risk or dense breasts but has not been evaluated across all risk profiles.
METHODS: Patients selected underwent Ab-MRI from February 2020 to September 2021. Women were older than aged 30 years, up to date with screening mammography, and paid $299 cash.
RESULTS: A total of 93 patients were identified with a mean age of 52 years; 92.5% were Caucasian, 0% black, and 97.9% were from high socioeconomic status. Mean Gail score was 14.2, and 83.3% had a lifetime risk of breast cancer <20%. Reasons for Ab-MRI: dense breasts (36.6%); family history (24.7%); palpable mass (12.9%). Providers ordering: OBGYN (49.5%); breast surgeon (39.1%); primary care (6.6%). Thirteen biopsies (14%) detected one breast cancer. 31.1% had a change in follow-up screening: 58.6% 6-month MRI, 20.7% 6-month mammogram, and 10.3% 6-month ultrasound. Negative predictive value was 100% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 95-100%, p < 0.0001). Sensitivity was 100% (95% CI: 2.5-100%, p < 0.0001), and specificity was 87% (95% CI: 78.3-93.1%, p < 0.0001) compared with 77.6% and 98.8% for mammography. Only one cancer was detected: cost of $27,807 plus cost of 13 MRI or ultrasound (US)-guided biopsies and additional follow-up imaging. Historically 20% of abnormalities detected on full MRI are malignant; however, 7.7% of ab-MRI abnormalities were malignant
CONCLUSIONS: One third of women were recommended a change in follow-up, which predominantly included a 6-month MRI. Ab-MRI may introduce average risk women to unnecessary follow-up and increased biopsies with a lower cancer detection rate. Ab-MRI should be evaluated closely before implementation.
© 2022. Society of Surgical Oncology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35857199     DOI: 10.1245/s10434-022-12194-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol        ISSN: 1068-9265            Impact factor:   4.339


  21 in total

1.  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

2.  Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Authors:  Albert L Siu
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Correction to: Usefulness of abbreviated breast MRI screening for women with a history of breast cancer surgery.

Authors:  Bo Hwa Choi; Nami Choi; Mi Young Kim; Jung-Hyun Yang; Young Bum Yoo; Hae Kyoung Jung
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 4.872

4.  More Is More: Semiannual Breast MRI Screening in BRCA1 Mutation Carriers.

Authors:  Christiane K Kuhl; Simone Schrading
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2018-11-14       Impact factor: 12.531

Review 5.  Clinical role of breast MRI now and going forward.

Authors:  D Leithner; G J Wengert; T H Helbich; S Thakur; R E Ochoa-Albiztegui; E A Morris; K Pinker
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2017-12-09       Impact factor: 2.350

6.  Breast MRI screening for average-risk women: A monte carlo simulation cost-benefit analysis.

Authors:  Victoria L Mango; Akshay Goel; Eralda Mema; Ellie Kwak; Richard Ha
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2019-01-11       Impact factor: 4.813

Review 7.  The Changing World of Breast Cancer: A Radiologist's Perspective.

Authors:  Christiane K Kuhl
Journal:  Plast Surg Nurs       Date:  2016 Jan-Mar

8.  Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations.

Authors:  Thomas M Kolb; Jacob Lichy; Jeffrey H Newhouse
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 9.  Benefits and harms of mammography screening.

Authors:  Magnus Løberg; Mette Lise Lousdal; Michael Bretthauer; Mette Kalager
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2015-05-01       Impact factor: 6.466

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

Authors:  Christopher E Comstock; Constantine Gatsonis; Gillian M Newstead; Bradley S Snyder; Ilana F Gareen; Jennifer T Bergin; Habib Rahbar; Janice S Sung; Christina Jacobs; Jennifer A Harvey; Mary H Nicholson; Robert C Ward; Jacqueline Holt; Andrew Prather; Kathy D Miller; Mitchell D Schnall; Christiane K Kuhl
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2020-02-25       Impact factor: 157.335

View more
  1 in total

1.  23rd Annual Meeting of the American Society of Breast Surgeons: Back to In-Person Scientific Exploration.

Authors:  Carla S Fisher; Mediget Teshome; Sarah L Blair
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2022-07-28       Impact factor: 4.339

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.