Is mammography adequate for screening women with inherited BRCA mutations and low breast density?

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 706-711

  Bigenwald, Rachel Z ^a   Warner, Ellen ^a,c   Gunasekara, Anoma ^a   Hill, Kimberley A ^a   Causer, Petrina A ^a   Messner, Sandra J ^a   Eisen, Andrea ^a   Plewes, Donald B ^a   Narod, Steven A ^b   Zhang, Liying ^a   Yaffe, Martin J ^a  

^a SUNNYBROOK RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^c DEPARTMENT OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BRCA1 PROTEIN; BRCA2 PROTEIN;

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED RADIOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FAMILIAL CANCER; FEMALE; GENE MUTATION; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAMMOGRAPHY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; ULTRASOUND;

ADULT; AGED; BREAST; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; GENES, BRCA1; GENES, BRCA2; GENETIC PREDISPOSITION TO DISEASE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED;

EID: 41549115890     PISSN: 10559965     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-0509     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Ford D, Easton DF, Stratton M, et al. Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families. Am J Hum Genet 1998;62:676-89.
2. Chen S, Parmigiani G. Meta-analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 penetrance. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:1329-33.
3. Komenaka IK, Ditkoff B, Joseph K, et al. The development of interval breast malignancies in patients with BRCA mutations. Cancer 2004;100:2079-83.
4. Brekelmans CTM, Seynaeve C, Bartels CCM, et al. Effectiveness of breast cancer surveillance in BRCA1/2 gene mutation carriers and women with high familial risk. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:924-30.
5. Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA, etal. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breastexaminat ion. JAMA 2004;292:1317-25.
6. Leach MO, Boggis GRM, Dixon AK, etal. Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS). Lancet2005;365:1769-78.
7. Menell JH, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, Abramson, AF, Brogi, E, Liberman, L. Determination of the presence and extent of pure ductal carcinoma in situ by mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Breast J 2005;11:382-90.
8. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, et al. Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women athigh familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:8469-76.
9. Lehman CD, Blume JD, Weatherall P, et al. Screening women at high risk for breastcancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer 2005;103:1898-905.
10. Kriege M, Brekelmans CTM, Boetes C, et al. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breastcancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med 2004;351:427-37.
11. Podo F, Sardanelli F, Canese R, et al. The Italian multi-centre project on evaluation of MRI and other imaging modalities in early detection of breastcancer in subjects athigh risk. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2002;21:115-24.
12. Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1081-7.
13. Saarenmaa I, Salminen T, Geiger U, etal. The effect of age and density of the breast on the sensitivity of breast cancer diagnostic by mammography and ultrasonography. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2001;67:117-23.
14. Fenton JJ, Taplin SH, Carney PA, et al. Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography. N Engl J Med 2007;356:1399-409.
15. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1773-83.
16. Warner E, Plewes DB, Shumak RS, etal. Comparison of breast magnetic resonance imaging, mammography and ultrasound for surveillance of women athigh risk for hereditary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:3524-31.
17. American College of Radiology. American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). 4th ed. Reston (VA): American College of Radiology; 2003.
18. Byng JW, Boyd NF, Fishell E, Jong RA, Yaffe MJ. The quantitative analysis of mammographic densities. Phys Med Biol 1994;39:1629-38.
19. Boyd NF, Byng JW, Jong RA, et al. Quantitative classification of mammographic densities and breast cancer risk: results from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87:670-5.
20. Vasen HFA, Tesfay E, Boonstra H, et al. Early detection of breast and ovarian cancer in families with BRCA mutations. Eur J Cancer 2005;41:549-54.
21. Scheuer L, Kauff N, Robson M, et al. Outcome of preventative surgery and screening for breastand ovarian cancer in BRCA mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:1260-8.
22. Martin KE, Helvie MA, Zhou C, et al. Mammographic density measured with quantitative computer-aided method: comparison with radiologists' estimates and BI-RADS categories. Radiology 2006;240:656-65.
23. Lehman CD, Gatsonis C, Kuhl CK, et al. MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007;356:1295-303.