4.7 Article

Breast MR imaging screening in 192 women proved or suspected to be carriers of a breast cancer susceptibility gene: Preliminary results

Journal

RADIOLOGY
Volume 215, Issue 1, Pages 267-279

Publisher

RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMERICA
DOI: 10.1148/radiology.215.1.r00ap01267

Keywords

breast, MR; breast neoplasms, diagnosis; breast neoplasms, MR; breast neoplasms, radiography; breast neoplasms, US; cancer screening; genes and genetics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: To compare magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with conventional imaging in screening high-risk women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective trial included 192 asymptomatic and six symptomatic women who, on the basis of personal or family history or genetic analysis, were suspected or proved to carry a breast cancer susceptibility gene. RESULTS: Fifteen breast cancers were identified: nine in the 192 asymptomatic;women (six in the first and three in the second screening round) and six in the :symptomatic patients. Concerning the asymptomatic women, four of the nine breast cancers were detected and correctly classified with mammography and ultrasonography (US) combined; another two cancers were visible as well-circumscribed masses and were diagnosed as fibroadenomas. MR imaging allowed the correct classification and local staging of all nine cancers. In 105 asymptomatic women with validation of the 1st-year screening results, the sensitivities of mammography, US, and MR imaging were 33%, 33% (mammography and US combined, 44%), and 100%, respectively; the positive predictive values were 30%, 12%, and 64%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The accuracy of MR imaging is significantly higher than that of conventional imaging in screening high-risk women. Difficulties can be caused by an atypical manifestation of hereditary breast cancers at both conventional and MR imaging and by contrast material enhancement associated with hormonal stimulation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available