Cancer screening with digital mammography for women at average risk for breast cancer, Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) for women at high risk: An evidence-based analysis

Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series

Volumn 10, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 1-55

[No Author Info available]

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BREAST CANCER; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL TRIAL; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FILM MAMMOGRAPHY; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH SERVICE; HIGH RISK POPULATION; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAMMOGRAPHY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; RADIATION HAZARD; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 77952925817     PISSN: 19157398     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (39)

1. Canadian Cancer Society/National Cancer Institute of Canada. Canadian cancer statistics 2006 [Internet]. Toronto, ON: Canadian Cancer Society/National Cancer Institute of Canada; [updated 2006; cited 2006 Jun 6]. Available from: http://www.cancer.ca/canada-wide/about%20cancer/cancer%20statistics/ canadian%20cancer%20statistics.aspx
2. Agence Nationale d'Accréditation et d'Evaluation en Santé. Clinical evaluation of digital mammography in breast cancer diagnosis and screening [Internet]. Paris: ANAES. 2000. [cited: 2006 May 15]. 4 p. Available from: http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/pdf/Mammography. pdf
3. Technology Evaluation Center (TEC). Full-field digital mammography. Chicago, IL: Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBS). 2006.
4. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005; 353(17):1773-1783 (Pubitemid 41549889)
5. Technology Evaluation Center (TEC). Full-field digital mammography. Chicago, IL: Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (BCBS). 2002.
6. NHS Quality Improvement Scotland. Evidence Note 7: Comparison of digital mammography and film screen mammography [Internet]. Glasgow: NHS Quality Improvement Scotland (NHS QIS). 2004. [cited: 2006 Jun 15]. 2 p. Available from: http://www.nhshealthquality.org/nhsqis/files/20699%20Evidence%20Note%207.pdf
7. Ho C., Hailey D., Warburton R., MacGregor J., Pisano E., and Joyce J. Digital mammography versus film-screen mammography: technical, clinical and economic assessments [Internet]. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA). 2002. [cited: 2006 May 15]. 55 p. Available from: http://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/131-digital-mammography-tr-e.pdf
8. Comite d' Evaluation et de Diffusion des Innovations Technologiques. Digital mammography - systematic review, expert panel. Paris, France: Comite d' Evaluation et de Diffusion des Innovations Technologiques (CEDIT). 2001.
9. Lewin JM, Hendrick RE, D'Orsi CJ, Isaacs PK, Moss LJ, Karellas A et al. Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations. Radiology 2001; 218:873-880 (Pubitemid 32172576)
10. Skaane P, Skjennald A. Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program - the Oslo II study. Radiology 2004; 232:197-204. (Pubitemid 38787838)
11. Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the detection of breast abnormalities. Bloomington, MN: Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement (ICSI). 2003.
12. Mark D. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast in screening women considered to be at high genetic risk of breast cancer. Technology Evaluation Center, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. 2003.
13. Lewin JM, D'Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE, Moss LJ, Isaacs PK, Karellas A et al. Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. Amer J Radiol 2002; 179:671-677 (Pubitemid 34919579)
14. Warner E, Plewes DB, Shumak RS, Catzavelos GC, Di Prospero LS, Yaffe MJ et al. Comparison of breast magnetic resonance imaging, mammography, and ultrasound for surveillance of women at high risk for hereditary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19(15):3524-3531 (Pubitemid 32730090)
15. Warner E, Plewes D, Hill K, Narod S, Prance S. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. Wom Oncol Rev 2004; 4(4):315-316 (Pubitemid 40521059)
16. Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, Besnard PE, Zonderland HM, Obdeijn IM et al. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med 2004; 351(5):427-437 (Pubitemid 38988592)
17. Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C., Rutgers EJ, Oosterwijk JC, Tollenaar R et al. MRI screening for breast cancer in women with familial or genetic predisposition: design of the Dutch National Study (MRISC). Fam Cancer 2001; 1(3-4):163-168 (Pubitemid 35407938)
18. Kuhl CK, Schmutzler RK, Leutner CC, Kempe A, Wardelmann E, Hocke A et al. Breast MR imaging screening in 192 women proved or suspected to be carriers of a breast cancer susceptibility gene: preliminary results. Radiology 2000; 215(1):267-279 (Pubitemid 30190541)
19. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, Morakkabati-Spitz N, Wardelmann E, Fimmers R et al. Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23(33):8469-8476 (Pubitemid 46260243)
20. Leach MO. Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: A prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS). Lancet 2005; 365(9473):1769-1778 (Pubitemid 40744657)
21. Dunfield L. and Severn M. Effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening for women at high risk of breast cancer [Internet]. Ottawa, ON: Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. 2007. 12 p. Available from: http://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/I3010-MRI-Breast-Cancer-tr-e.pdf
22. Davidson E. and Hancock S. Surveillance of women at high risk of breast cancer: a tech brief [Internet]. New Zealand Health Technology Assessment (NZHTA): Christchurch, NZ. 2007. 285 p. NZHTA Technical Brief: Volume 6 Number 1. Available from: http://nzhta.chmeds.ac.nz/publications/brca-%20surv.pdf
23. Warner E, Messersmith H, Causer P, Eisen A, Shumak R, Plewes D. Systematic review: using magnetic resonance imaging to screen women at high risk for breast cancer. Ann Intern Med 2008; 148(9):671-679 (Pubitemid 351669112)
24. Hartman AR, Daniel BL, Kurian AW, Mills MA, Nowels KW, Dirbas FM et al. Breast magnetic resonance image screening and ductal lavage in women at high genetic risk for breast carcinoma. Cancer 2004; 100:479-489 (Pubitemid 38124764)
25. Sardanelli F, Podo F, D'Agnolo G, Verdecchia A, Santaquilani M, Musumeci R et al. Multicenter comparative multimodality surveillance of women at genetic-familial high risk for breast cancer (HIBCRIT Study): Interim results. Radiology 2007; 242(3):698-715. (Pubitemid 46310082)
26. Hagen AI, Kvistad KA, Maehle L, Holmen MM, Aase H, Styr B et al. Sensitivity of MRI versus conventional screening in the diagnosis of BRCA-associated breast cancer in a national prospective series. Breast 2007; 16(4):367-374 (Pubitemid 47157808)
27. Lehman CD, Blume JD, Weatherall P, Thickman D, Hylton N, Warner E et al. Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer 2005; 103:1898-1905 (Pubitemid 40563263)
28. Lehman CD, Isaacs C, Schnall MD, Pisano ED, Ascher SM, Weatherall PT et al. Cancer yield of mammography, MR, and US in high-risk women: prospective multi-institution breast cancer screening study. Radiology 2007; 244(2):381-388
29. Trecate G, Vergnaghi D, Manoukian S, Bergonzi S, Scaperrotta G, Marchesini M et al. MRI in the early detection of breast cancer in women with high genetic risk. Tumori 2006; 92:517-523 (Pubitemid 46166305)
30. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, Flottorp S et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004; 328(7454):1490.
31. Statistics Canada. Age and sex for the population of Canada, provinces, territories, census metropolitan areas and census agglomerations, 2001 and 2006 censuses - 100% data [Internet]. [updated 2008; cited 2008 Jan 10]. Available from: http://tiny.cc/61yie
32. Statistics Canada. Deaths and death rate, by province and territory (death rate) [Internet]. [updated 2009 Mar 26; cited 2009 Mar 26]. Available from: http://www40.statcan.ca/101/cst01/demo07b-eng.htm
33. Taneja C, Edelsberg J, Weycker D, Guo A, Oster G, Weinreb J. Cost effectiveness of breast cancer screening with contrast-enhanced MRI in high-risk women. J Am Coll Radiol 2009; 6(3):171-179
34. Moore SG, Shenoy PJ, Fanucchi L, Tumeh JW, Flowers CR. Cost-effectiveness of MRI compared to mammography for breast cancer screening in a high risk population. BMC Health Serv Res 2009; 9:9.
35. Norman RP, Evans DG, Easton DF, Young KC. The cost-utility of magnetic resonance imaging for breast cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers aged 30-49. Eur J Health Econ 2007; 8(2):137-144
36. Griebsch I, Brown J, Boggis C, Dixon A, Dixon M, Easton D et al. Cost-effectiveness of screening with contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging vs X-ray mammography of women at a high familial risk of breast cancer. Br J Cancer 2006; 95(7):801-810
37. Plevritis SK, Kurian AW, Sigal BM, Daniel BL, Ikeda DM, Stockdale FE et al. Cost-effectiveness of screening BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with breast magnetic resonance imaging. JAMA 2006; 295(20):2374-2384
38. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Schedule of benefits for physician services under the Health Insurance Act [Internet]. [updated 2008 Jun 3; cited 2009 Jan 1]. Available from: http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/ providers/program/ohip/sob/physserv/physserv-mn.html
39. Ontario Case Costing Initiative. Costing analysis tool (CAT) [Internet]. [updated 2009; cited 2009 Jun 18]. Available from: http://www.occp.com/