An imaging approach to high-risk screening for breast cancer

Seminars in Roentgenology

Volumn 46, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 68-75

  Jochelson, Maxine S ^a   Morris, Elizabeth A ^a  

^a WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BRCA1 PROTEIN; BRCA2 PROTEIN; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; GADOLINIUM; METHOXY ISOBUTYL ISONITRILE TECHNETIUM TC 99M;

ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; BREAST HYPERPLASIA; CANCER SCREENING; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; FAMILY HISTORY; GENE MUTATION; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HODGKIN DISEASE; HUMAN; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAMMOGRAPHY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OVARY CANCER; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CONTRAST MEDIA; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RADIOPHARMACEUTICALS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, MAMMARY;

EID: 78649843272     PISSN: 0037198X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1053/j.ro.2010.06.004     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Smart C.R., Hendrick E.R., Rutledge J.H., et al. Benefit of mammography screening in women ages 40 to 49 years. Cancer 1995, 75:1619-1626.
2. Leitch A.M., Dodd G.D., Costanza M., et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of breast cancer update 1997. CA Cancer J Clin 1997, 47:150-153.
3. Smith R.A., Saslow D., Sawyer K.A., et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening: update 2003. CA Cancer J Clin 2003, 53:141-169.
4. Saltzmann P., Kerlikowske K., Phillips K. Cost-effectiveness of extending screening mammography guidelines to include women 40 to 49 years of age. Ann Intern Med 1997, 127:955-964.
5. Elmore J.G., Armstrong K., Lehman C.D., et al. Screening for cancer. JAMA 2005, 293:1245-1256.
6. Satariano W.A., Ragland D.R. The effect of comorbidity on 3-year survival of w omen with primary breast cancer. Ann Intern Med 1994, 120:104-110.
7. Walter L.C., Covinsky K.E. Cancer screening in elderly patients: a framework for individualized decision making. JAMA 2001, 285:2750-2756.
8. Gabriel H., Wilson T., Helvie M.A. Breast cancer in women 65-74 years old: earlier detection by mammographic screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997, 168:23-31.
9. National Cancer Institute Web site Genetics of breast and ovarian cancer (PDQ), Accessed November 23, 2009. http://www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/pdq/genetics/breast-and-ovarian.
10. Ford D., Easton D.F., Stratton M., et al. Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families. Am J Hum Genet 1998, 62:676-689.
11. Dershaw D.D. Mammographic screening of the high-risk woman. Am J Surg 2000, 180:288-289.
12. Kuhl C.K., Schmutzler R.K., Leutner C.C., 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, 215:267-279.
13. Warner E., Plewes D.B., Hill K.A., et al. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography and clinical breast examination. JAMA 2004, 292:1317-1325.
14. Leach M.O., Boggis C.R., Dixon A.K., et al. 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, 365:1769-1778.
15. Kriege M., Brekelmans C.T., Boates C., et al. Efficacy of MR and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med 2004, 351:427-437.
16. Tilanus-Linthorst M., Verhoog L., Obdeijn I.M., et al. A BRCA1/2 mutation, high breast density and prominent pushing margins of a tumor independently contribute to a frequent false-negative mammography. Int J Cancer 2002, 102:91-95.
17. Komenaka I.K., Ditkoff B.A., Joseph K.A., et al. The development of interval breast malignancies in patients with BRCA mutations. Cancer 2004, 100:2079-2083.
18. Kuhl C.K. Current status of breast MR imaging. Part 2. Clinical applications. Radiology 2007, 244:672-691.
19. Evans D.G., Howell A. Breast cancer risk-assessment models (review). Breast Cancer Res 2007, 9:213.
20. Bondy M.L., Newman L.A. Breast cancer risk assessment models. Cancer 2003, 97(suppl):230-235.
21. Gail M., Costantino J.P., Pee D., et al. Projecting individualized absolute invasive breast cancer risk in African American women. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007, 99:1782-1792.
22. Morris E.A., Liberman L., Ballon D.J., et al. MRI of occult breast carcinoma in a high-risk population. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003, 181:619-626.
23. Warner E., Plewes D.B., Shumak R.S., 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, 19:3524-3531.
24. Sardanelli F., Podo F., D'Agnolo G., et al. Multicenter comparative multimodality surveillance of women at genetic-familial high risk for breast cancer (HIBCRIT Study): interim results. Radiology 2007, 242:698-714.
25. Lehman C.D., Isaacs C., Schnall M.D., et al. Cancer yield of mammography, MR, and US in high-risk women: prospective multi-institution breast cancer screening study. Radiology 2007, 244:381-388.
26. Esserman L.J., Kumar A.S., Herrera A.F., et al. Magnetic resonance imaging captures the biology of ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol 2006, 24:4603-4610.
27. Kuhl C.K., Schrading S., Bieling H.B., et al. MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study. Lancet 2007, 370:485-492.
28. Leonard G.D., Swain S.M. Ductal carcinoma in situ, complexities and challenges. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004, 96:906-920.
29. Ottinetti A., Sapino A. Morphometric evaluation of microvessels surrounding hyperplastic and neoplastic mammary lesions. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1988, 11:241-248.
30. Gilles R., Zafrani B., Guinebretiere J.M., et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ: MR imaging-histopathologic correlation. Radiology 1995, 196:415-419.
31. Jansen S.A., Paunesku T., Fan X., et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ: x-ray fluorescence microscopy and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging reveals gadolinium uptake within neoplastic mammary ducts in a murine model. Radiology 2009, 253:399-406.
32. Yu J., Park A., Morris E.A., et al. MRI screening in a clinic population with a family history of breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2007, 15:452-461.
33. Abramovici G., Mainiero M.B. Screening breast MRI: comparison of interpretation of baseline and annual follow-up studies. Radiol Soc North Am 2009, VB31:02. (abstr).
34. Sardanelli F, Podo F, Santoro F: Evolution of positive predictive value (PPV) of MRI during a multimodality multicenter surveillance of high risk women. Radiol Soc North Am vol B31-03.
35. Saslow D., Boetes C., Burke W., et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin 2007, 57:75-89.
36. Jansen-Van Der Weide M.C., De Bock G.H., Greuter M., et al. Mammography screening and radiation-induced breast cancer among women with a familial or genetic predisposition: a metaanalysis. Radiol Soc North Am 2009, R022-04, (abstr).
37. Port E.R., Park A., Borgen P.I., et al. Results of MRI screening for breast cancer in high-risk patients with LCIS and atypical hyperplasia. Ann Surg Oncol 2007, 14:1051-1057.
38. Brennan S., Liberman L., Dershaw D.D., et al. San Antonio Breast Cancer Meeting Dec, 2009, (Poster).
39. Berg W.A., Berg W., Zhang Z., et al. Supplemental yield and performance characteristics of screening MRI after combined ultrasound and mammography: ACRIN* 6666* American College of Radiology Imaging Network. Radiol Soc North Am VB31-12 2009, (abstr).
40. Berg W.A., Zhang Z., Marques H., et al. False positives induced by annual screening us added to mammography: acrin *6666 American College of Radiology Imaging Network. Radiol Soc North Am VB31-10 2009.
41. Berg W.A. Tailored supplemental screening for breast cancer: what now and what next?. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009, 192:390-399.
42. Lee J.H., Rosen E.L., Mankoff D.A. The role of radiotracer imaging in the diagnosis and management of patients with breast cancer. Part 1 Overview, detection, and staging. J Nucl Med 2009, 50:569-581.
43. Avril N., Menzel M., Dose J., et al. Glucose metabolism of breast cancer assessed by 18F-FDG PET: histologic and immunohistochemical analysis. J Nucl Med 2001, 42:9-16.
44. Kumar R., Chauhan A., Zhuang H., et al. Clinicopathologic factors associated withfalse negative FDG-PET in primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2006, 98:267-274.
45. Rosen E.L., Eubank W.B., Mankoff D.A. FDG PET, PET/CT, and breast cancer imaging. Radiographics 2007, 27(suppl):215-229.
46. Berg W.A., Weinberg I.N., Narayanan D., et al. High resolution fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with compression ("positron emission mammography") is highly accurate in depicting primary breast cancer. Breast J 2006, 12:309-323.
47. Khalkhali I., Mena I., Jouanne E., et al. Prone scintimammography in patients with suspicion of carcinoma of the breast. J Am Coll Surg 1994, 178:491-497.
48. Liberman M., Sampalis F., Mulder D.S., et al. Breast cancer diagnosis bu scintimammography: a meta-analysis and review of the literature. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2003, 80:115-126.
49. Waxman A.D. The role of 99mTc methoxyisobutylisonitrile in imaging breast cancer. Semin Nucl Med 1997, 27:40-54.
50. Brem R.F., Floerke A.C., Rapelyea J.A., et al. Brest-specific gamma imaging as an adjunct imaging modality for the diagnosis of breast cancer. Radiology 2008, 247:651-657.
51. Brem R.F., Fishman M., Rapelyea J.A. Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ with mammography, breast specific gamma imaging, and magnetic resonance imaging: a comparative study. Acad Radiol 2007, 14:945-950.