Evaluation of the Utility of Screening Mammography for High-Risk Women Undergoing Screening Breast MR Imaging

被引:54
作者
Lo, Glen
Scaranelo, Anabel M.
Aboras, Hana
Ghai, Sandeep
Kulkarni, Supriya
Fleming, Rachel
Bukhanov, Karina
Crystal, Pavel
机构
[1] Univ Hlth Network, Mt Sinai Hosp, Joint Dept Med Imaging, Toronto, ON, Canada
[2] Womens Coll Hosp, Toronto, ON, Canada
关键词
PROSPECTIVE MULTICENTER COHORT; HIGH FAMILIAL RISK; MUTATION CARRIERS; CANCER; RECOMMENDATIONS; ULTRASOUND; SURVEILLANCE; MANAGEMENT; EFFICACY; SOCIETY;
D O I
10.1148/radiol.2017161103
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Purpose: To evaluate the value of mammography in detecting breast cancer in high-risk women undergoing screening breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. Materials and Methods: An ethics-approved, retrospective review of prospective databases was performed to identify outcomes of 3934 screening studies (1977 screening MR imaging examinations and 1957 screening mammograms) performed between January 2012 and July 2014 in 1249 high-risk women. Performance measures including recall and cancer detection rates, sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values were calculated for both mammography and MR imaging. Results: A total of 45 cancers (33 invasive and 12 ductal carcinomas in situ) were diagnosed, 43 were seen with MR imaging and 14 with both mammography and MR imaging. Additional tests ( further imaging and/or biopsy) were recommended in 461 screening MR imaging studies (recall rate, 23.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 21.5%, 25.2%), and mammography recalled 217 (recall rate, 11.1%; 95% CI: 9.7%, 12.6%). The cancer detection rate for MR imaging was 21.8 cancers per 1000 examinations (95% CI: 15.78, 29.19) and that for mammography was 7.2 cancers per 1000 examinations (95% CI: 3.92, 11.97; P < .001). Sensitivity and specificity of MR imaging were 96% and 78% respectively, and those of mammography were 31% and 89%, respectively (P < .001). Positive predictive value for MR imaging recalls was 9.3% (95% CI: 6.83%, 12.36%) and that for mammography recalls was 6.5% (95% CI: 3.57%, 10.59%). Conclusion: Contemporaneous screening mammography did not have added value in detection of breast cancer for women who undergo screening MR imaging. Routine use of screening mammography in women undergoing screening breast MR imaging warrants reconsideration.
引用
收藏
页码:36 / 43
页数:8
相关论文
共 23 条
[1]   Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis [J].
Bevers, Therese B. ;
Anderson, Benjamin O. ;
Bonaccio, Ermelinda ;
Buys, Sandra ;
Daly, Mary B. ;
Dempsey, Peter J. ;
Farrar, William B. ;
Fleming, Irving ;
Garber, Judy E. ;
Harris, Randall E. ;
Heerdt, Alexandra S. ;
Helvie, Mark ;
Huff, John G. ;
Khakpour, Nazanin ;
Khan, Seema A. ;
Krontiras, Helen ;
Lyman, Gary ;
Rafferty, Elizabeth ;
Shaw, Sara ;
Smith, Mary Lou ;
Tsangaris, Theodore N. ;
Williams, Cheryl ;
Yaneeklov, Thomas .
JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL COMPREHENSIVE CANCER NETWORK, 2009, 7 (10) :1060-1096
[2]  
Carney PA, 2003, ANN INTERN MED, V138, P168, DOI 10.7326/0003-4819-138-3-200302040-00008
[3]  
DOrsi CJ, 2013, Am Coll Radiol
[4]   Sensitivity of MRI versus conventional screening in the diagnosis of BRCA-associated breast cancer in a national prospective series [J].
Hagen, Anne I. ;
Kvistad, Kjell Arne ;
Maehle, Lovise ;
Holmen, Marit Muri ;
Aase, Hildegunn ;
Styr, Bodil ;
Vabo, Anita ;
Apold, Jaran ;
Skaane, Per ;
Moller, Pal .
BREAST, 2007, 16 (04) :367-374
[5]   Performance of Digital Screening Mammography Among Older Women in the United States [J].
Henderson, Louise M. ;
O'Meara, Ellen S. ;
Braithwaite, Dejana ;
Onega, Tracy .
CANCER, 2015, 121 (09) :1379-1386
[6]   Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition [J].
Kriege, M ;
Brekelmans, CTM ;
Boetes, C ;
Besnard, PE ;
Zonderland, HM ;
Obdeijn, IM ;
Manoliu, RA ;
Kok, T ;
Peterse, H ;
Tilanus-Linthorst, MMA ;
Muller, SH ;
Meijer, S ;
Oosterwijk, JC ;
Beex, LVAM ;
Tollenaar, RAEM ;
de Koning, HJ ;
Rutgers, EJT ;
Klijn, JGM .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2004, 351 (05) :427-437
[7]   Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study to Refine Management Recommendations for Women at Elevated Familial Risk of Breast Cancer: The EVA Trial [J].
Kuhl, Christiane ;
Weigel, Stefanie ;
Schrading, Simone ;
Arand, Birke ;
Bieling, Heribert ;
Koenig, Roy ;
Tombach, Bernd ;
Leutner, Claudia ;
Rieber-Brambs, Andrea ;
Nordhoff, Dennis ;
Heindel, Walter ;
Reiser, Maximilian ;
Schild, Hans H. .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2010, 28 (09) :1450-1457
[8]   Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer [J].
Kuhl, CK ;
Schrading, S ;
Leutner, CC ;
Morakkabati-Spitz, N ;
Wardelmann, E ;
Fimmers, R ;
Kuhn, W ;
Schild, HH .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2005, 23 (33) :8469-8476
[9]   Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS) [J].
Leach, MO ;
Boggis, CRM ;
Dixon, AK ;
Easton, DF ;
Eeles, RA ;
Evans, DGR ;
Gilbert, FF ;
Griebsch, I ;
Hoff, RJC ;
Kessar, P ;
Lakhani, SR ;
Moss, SM ;
Nerurkar, A ;
Padhani, AR ;
Pointon, LJ ;
Thompson, D ;
Warren, RML .
LANCET, 2005, 365 (9473) :1769-1778
[10]   Breast Cancer Screening With Imaging: Recommendations From the Society of Breast Imaging and the ACR on the Use of Mammography, Breast MRI, Breast Ultrasound, and Other Technologies for the Detection of Clinically Occult Breast Cancer [J].
Lee, Carol H. ;
Dershaw, David ;
Kopans, Daniel ;
Evans, Phil ;
Monsees, Barbara ;
Monticciolo, Debra ;
Brenner, R. James ;
Bassett, Lawrence ;
Berg, Wendie ;
Feig, Stephen ;
Hendrick, Edward ;
Mendelson, Ellen ;
D'Orsi, Carl ;
Sickles, Edward ;
Burhenne, Linda Warren .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY, 2010, 7 (01) :18-27