Triple-modality screening trial for familial breast cancer underlines the importance of magnetic resonance imaging and questions the role of mammography and ultrasound regardless of patient mutation status, age, and breast density

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Volumn 33, Issue 10, 2015, Pages 1128-1135

  Riedl, Christopher C ^a,b,c   Luft, Nikolaus ^a   Bernhart, Clemens ^a   Weber, Michael ^a   Bernathova, Maria ^a   Tea, Muy Kheng M ^a   Rudas, Margaretha ^a   Singer, Christian F ^a   Helbich, Thomas H ^a  

^a MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

^b MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BRCA1 PROTEIN; BRCA2 PROTEIN; BAP1 PROTEIN, MOUSE; TUMOR SUPPRESSOR PROTEIN; UBIQUITIN THIOLESTERASE;

ADULT; AGE; AGED; BREAST CANCER; BREAST CARCINOMA; BREAST DENSITY; CANCER GRADING; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER RECURRENCE; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER SIZE; CANCER STAGING; COLLOID CARCINOMA; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CONFERENCE PAPER; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY DEVICE; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FAMILIAL CANCER; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GENE MUTATION; HEALTH STATUS; HIGH RISK POPULATION; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MAMMOGRAPHY SYSTEM; MEDULLARY CARCINOMA; MIDDLE AGED; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TELEPHONE INTERVIEW; BREAST; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA, INTRADUCTAL, NONINFILTRATING; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; ECHOGRAPHY; GENETIC PREDISPOSITION; GENETICS; MASS SCREENING; MUTATION; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; REPRODUCIBILITY; VERY ELDERLY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BRCA1 PROTEIN; BRCA2 PROTEIN; BREAST; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA, INTRADUCTAL, NONINFILTRATING; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; GENETIC PREDISPOSITION TO DISEASE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIPHASIC SCREENING; MUTATION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TUMOR SUPPRESSOR PROTEINS; UBIQUITIN THIOLESTERASE; ULTRASONOGRAPHY;

EID: 84927614659     PISSN: 0732183X     EISSN: 15277755     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2014.56.8626     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (39)

1. Chen S, Parmigiani G: Meta-analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 penetrance. J Clin Oncol 25: 1329-1333, 2007
2. Ford D, Easton DF, Stratton M, et al: Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families: The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Am J Hum Genet 62:676-689, 1998
3. van Dijk S, van Roosmalen MS, Otten W, et al: Decision making regarding prophylactic mastectomy: Stability of preferences and the impact of anticipated feelings of regret. J Clin Oncol 26:2358-2363, 2008
4. 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 57:75-89, 2007
5. Struikmans H, Nortier JW, Rutgers EJ, et al: [Guideline 'Treatment of breast cancer 2008= (revision)]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 152:2507-2511, 2008
6. Sardanelli F, Boetes C, Borisch B, et al: Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: Recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer 46:1296-1316, 2010
7. Singer CF, Tea MK, Pristauz G, et al: [Guideline for the prevention and early detection of breast and ovarian cancer in high risk patients, particularly in women from HBOC (hereditary breast and ovarian cancer) families]. Wien Klin Wochenschr 124:334-339, 2012
8. Kuhl C, Weigel S, Schrading S, et al: Prospective multicenter cohort study to refine management recommendations for women at elevated familial risk of breast cancer: The EVA trial. J Clin Oncol 28:1450-1457, 2010
9. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, et al: Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:8469-8476, 2005
10. Leach MO, Boggis CR, Dixon AK, 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 365:1769-1778, 2005
11. Riedl CC, Ponhold L, FlöryD, et al: Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast improves detection of invasive cancer, preinvasive cancer, and premalignant lesions during surveillance of women at high risk for breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 13:6144-6152, 2007
12. Stoutjesdijk MJ, Boetes C, Jager GJ, et al: Magnetic resonance imaging and mammography in women with a hereditary risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 93:1095-1102, 2001
13. Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Obdeijn IM, Bartels KC, et al: First experiences in screening women at high risk for breast cancer with MR imaging. Breast Cancer Res Treat 63:53-60, 2000
14. Warner E, Plewes DB, Shumak RS, 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 19:3524-3531, 2001
15. National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Guidance, Familial Breast Cancer: The Classification and Care of Women at Risk of Familial Breast Cancer in Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Care: Update. London, United Kingdom, Royal College of General Practitioners National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care, 2006
16. American College of Radiology: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS) (ed 3). Reston, VA, American College of Radiology, 1998
17. American College of Radiology: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) Atlas. Reston, VA, American College of Radiology, 2003
18. Mendelson EB, Berg WA, Merritt CR: Toward a standardized breast ultrasound lexicon, BI-RADS: Ultrasound. Semin Roentgenol 36:217-225, 2001
19. Kuhl CK, Bieling HB, Gieseke J, et al: Healthy premenopausal breast parenchyma in dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast: Normal contrast medium enhancement and cyclicalphase dependency. Radiology 203:137-144, 1997
20. Morris EA: Illustrated breast MR lexicon. Semin Roentgenol 36:238-249, 2001
21. Gruber R, Jaromi S, Rudas M, et al: Histologic work-up of non-palpable breast lesions classified as probably benign at initial mammography and/or ultrasound (BI-RADS category 3). Eur J Radiol 82:398-403, 2013
22. Floery D, Helbich TH: MRI-guided percutaneous biopsy of breast lesions: Materials, techniques, success rates, and management in patients with suspected radiologic-pathologic mismatch. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 14:411-425, 2006
23. Riedl CC, Pfarl G, Memarsadeghi M, et al: Lesion miss rates and false-negative rates for 1115 consecutive cases of stereotactically guided needlelocalized open breast biopsy with long-term followup. Radiology 237:847-853, 2005
24. Burhenne HJ, Burhenne LW, Goldberg F, et al: Interval breast cancers in the Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia: Analysis and classification. AJR Am J Roentgenol 162:1067-1071, 1994
25. Passaperuma K, Warner E, Causer PA, et al: Long-term results of screening with magnetic resonance imaging in women with BRCA mutations. Br J Cancer 107:24-30, 2012
26. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, et al: Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 299:2151-2163, 2008
27. Rijnsburger AJ, Obdeijn IM, Kaas R, et al: BRCA1-associated breast cancers present differently from BRCA2-associated and familial cases: Long-term follow-up of the Dutch MRISC Screening Study. J Clin Oncol 28:5265-5273, 2010
28. Schrading S, Kuhl CK: Mammographic, US, and MR imaging phenotypes of familial breast cancer. Radiology 246:58-70, 2008
29. Warner E, Causer PA, Wong JW, et al: Improvement in DCIS detection rates by MRI over time in a high-risk breast screening study. Breast J 17:9-17, 2011
30. Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, et al: Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breastcancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med 351:427-437, 2004
31. Lehman CD, Blume JD, Weatherall P, et al: Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer 103:1898-1905, 2005
32. Sardanelli F, Podo F, Santoro F, et al: Multicenter surveillance of women at high genetic breast cancer risk using mammography, ultrasonography, and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (the High Breast Cancer Risk Italian 1 study): Final results. Invest Radiol 46:94-105, 2011
33. Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA, et al: Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA 292: 1317-1325, 2004
34. Ellsworth RE, Ellsworth DL, Deyarmin B, et al: Timing of critical genetic changes in human breast disease. Ann Surg Oncol 12:1054-1060, 2005
35. Larson PS, de las Morenas A, Cerda SR, et al: Quantitative analysis of allele imbalance supports atypical ductal hyperplasia lesions as direct breast cancer precursors. J Pathol 209:307-316, 2006
36. Ma XJ, Salunga R, Tuggle JT, et al: Gene expression profiles of human breast cancer progression. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:5974-5979, 2003
37. Simpson PT, Reis-Filho JS, Gale T, et al: Molecular evolution of breast cancer. J Pathol 205: 248-254, 2005
38. Pankratz VS, Hartmann LC, Degnim AC, et al: Assessment of the accuracy of the Gail model in women with atypical hyperplasia. J Clin Oncol 26: 5374-5379, 2008
39. Chiarelli AM, Prummel MV, Muradali D, et al: Effectiveness of screening with annual magnetic resonance imaging and mammography: Results of the initial screen from the Ontario high risk breast screening program. J Clin Oncol 32:2224-2230, 2014