Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Mammography in Women With a Hereditary Risk of Breast Cancer

Stoutjesdijk, Mark J.; Boetes, C.; Jager, Gerrit J.; Beex, L.V.A.M.; Bult, Peter; Hendriks, J.H.C.L.; Laheij, R.J.F.; Massuger, Lfag; Die, L. E. van; Wobbes, Theo; Barentsz, Jelle O.

doi:10.1093/jnci/93.14.1095

Cited by 292 publications

(142 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

131

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The absence of association between a positive family history and earlier detection of the disease has previously been reported (Groenendijk et al, 2002;Madlensky et al, 2005). One explanation could be that, compared to sporadic cases, BRCA1/BRCA2-related breast cancers, as well as breast cancers diagnosed in the context of a strong family history, are less susceptible to be detected by mammography screening Stoutjesdijk et al, 2001). Also, some of the high familial risk patients might have had fast growing cancers, which became symptomatic in between two screening interventions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Impact of familial risk factors on management and survival of early-onset breast cancer: a population-based study

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This population-based study evaluates the impact of a strong family history of breast cancer on management and survival of women with early-onset disease. We identified all breast cancer patients p50 years, recorded between 1990 and 2001 at the Geneva familial breast cancer registry. We compared patients at high familial risk and low familial risk in terms of tumour characteristics, method of detection, treatment, survival and breast cancer mortality risk. Compared to patients at low familial risk (n ¼ 575), those at high familial risk (n ¼ 58) received significantly more often systemic therapy, especially for node-negative or receptor-positive disease. Five-year disease-specific survival rates of patients at high vs low familial risk were 86 and 90%, respectively. After adjustment, there was no difference in breast cancer mortality in general. A strong family history nonsignificantly increased breast cancer mortality in patients p40 years (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 4.0, 95% CI 0.8 -19.7) and in patients treated without chemotherapy (adjusted HR 2.7, 95% CI 0.6 -12.5). A strong family history of breast cancer is associated with an increased use of systemic therapy in early-onset patients. Although a strong family history does not seem to affect survival in general, it may impair survival of very young patients and patients treated without adjuvant chemotherapy. Owing to the limited number of patients in this study, these results should be used only to generate hypotheses.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Impact of familial risk factors on management and survival of early-onset breast cancer: a population-based study

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Eligible studies were identified for ultrasound (Kolb et al, 1998;Buchberger et al, 1999;O'Driscol et al, 2001;Warner et al, 2001;Hou et al, 2002) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (Kuhl et al, 2000;Tilanus-Linthorst et al, 2000a, b;Stoutjesdijk et al, 2001;Warner et al, 2001), CAD (te Brake et al, 1998; Burhenne et al, 2000;Birdwell et al, 2001;Freer and Ulissey, 2001), and full-field digital mammography (FFDM) (Lewin et al, 2001(Lewin et al, , 2002. For ultrasound, MRI, and CAD, findings are summarised in Tables 1 -3.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

New technologies in screening for breast cancer: a systematic review of their accuracy

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We systematically reviewed the literature on the accuracy of new technologies proposed for breast cancer screening. Four potential tests were identified (ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), full-field digital mammography (FFDM), and computer-aided detection (CAD)) for which primary studies met quality and applicability criteria and provided adequate data on test accuracy. These technologies have been assessed in cross-sectional studies of test accuracy where the new test is compared to mammography. Ultrasound, used as an adjunct to mammography in women with radiologically dense breasts, detects additional cancers and causes additional false positives. Magnetic resonance imaging may have a better sensitivity (but lower specificity) than mammography in selected high-risk women, but studies of this technology included small number of cancers. Computer-aided detection may enhance the sensitivity of mammography and warrants further evaluation in large prospective trials. One study of FFDM suggests that it may identify some cancers not identified on conventional mammography and may result in a lower recall rate. The evidence is currently insufficient to support the use of any of these new technologies in population screening, but would support further evaluation. British Journal of Cancer (2004) Despite recent controversy surrounding the efficacy of mammographic screening, it remains the only screening test for breast cancer that has been extensively evaluated in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and shown to reduce breast cancer mortality (IARC, 2002;Nystrom et al, 2002). Since evidence exists that early detection reduces mortality from breast cancer, it is reasonable to evaluate a new screening test by assessing its effect on early detection of breast cancer. While RCTs examining mortality as an outcome are the gold standard, studies assessing new tests are commonly evaluated using surrogate measures as indicators of early breast cancer detection. These surrogate measures may be measurable at the time of screening or require follow-up. Immediate indicators include the cancer detection rate and the size, stage, and nodal status of cancers detected. The measure requiring follow-up is the interval cancer rate. Ascertainment of interval breast cancers poses a number of challenges that include identification (requiring linkage to cancer registries), standardisation, and validation of review and categorisation methods, as well as access to the films taken at diagnosis. Assessing whether tests differ in their interval cancer rate is best assessed by randomising people to the different tests. In designs in which women are assessed by both tests, women in whom cancers are detected by either test would obviously be identified and treated; interval cancers that arise thereafter would be those missed by both tests. To assess whether interval cancer rates differ between the tests is therefore best assessed by randomising women to the different tests. However, all of the immediately measurable surrogates can be asses...

show abstract

“…Approximately 50% of these gene mutation carriers will develop breast cancer by the age of 50 years. [6][7][8][9] Therefore, a woman at high risk of developing breast cancer is expected to benefit from close surveillance and aggressive screening for breast cancer.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Power Spectral Analysis of Mammographic Parenchymal Patterns for Breast Cancer Risk Assessment

Giger

Olopade

et al. 2008

J Digit Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the usefulness of power law spectral analysis on mammographic parenchymal patterns in breast cancer risk assessment. Materials and Methods: Mammograms from 172 subjects (30 women with the BRCA1/BRCA2 gene mutation and 142 low-risk women) were retrospectively collected and digitized. Because age is a very important risk factor, 60 low-risk women were randomly selected from the 142 low-risk subjects and were age matched to the 30 gene mutation carriers. Regions of interest were manually selected from the central breast region behind the nipple of these digitized mammograms and subsequently used in power spectral analysis. The power law spectrum of the form P f ð Þ ¼ B f β was evaluated for the mammographic patterns. The performance of exponent β as a decision variable for differentiating between gene mutation carriers and low-risk women was assessed using receiver operating characteristic analysis for both the entire database and the age-matched subset. Results:Power spectral analysis of mammograms demonstrated a statistically significant difference between the 30 BRCA1/BRCA2 gene mutation carriers and the 142 low risk women with an average β values of 2.92 (±0.28) and 2.47(±0.20), respectively. An A z value of 0.90 was achieved in distinguishing between gene mutation carriers and low-risk women in the entire database, with an A z value of 0.89 being achieved on the age-matched subset. Conclusions: The BRCA1/BRCA2 gene mutation carriers and low-risk women have different mammographic parenchymal patterns. It is expected that women identified as high risk by computerized feature analyses might potentially be more aggressively screened for breast cancer.

show abstract

Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Mammography in Women With a Hereditary Risk of Breast Cancer

Abstract: MRI was more accurate than mammography in annual breast cancer surveillance of women with a hereditary risk of breast cancer. Larger prospective studies to examine the role of MRI in screening programs are justified.

Cited by 292 publications

References 44 publications

Impact of familial risk factors on management and survival of early-onset breast cancer: a population-based study

Impact of familial risk factors on management and survival of early-onset breast cancer: a population-based study

New technologies in screening for breast cancer: a systematic review of their accuracy

Power Spectral Analysis of Mammographic Parenchymal Patterns for Breast Cancer Risk Assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About