Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS)

被引:785
作者
Leach, MO [1 ]
Boggis, CRM [1 ]
Dixon, AK [1 ]
Easton, DF [1 ]
Eeles, RA [1 ]
Evans, DGR [1 ]
Gilbert, FF [1 ]
Griebsch, I [1 ]
Hoff, RJC [1 ]
Kessar, P [1 ]
Lakhani, SR [1 ]
Moss, SM [1 ]
Nerurkar, A [1 ]
Padhani, AR [1 ]
Pointon, LJ [1 ]
Thompson, D [1 ]
Warren, RML [1 ]
机构
[1] Inst Canc Res, Sect Magnet Resonance, MARIBS Study Off, Sutton SM2 5PT, Surrey, England
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
D O I
10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66481-1
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background Women genetically predisposed to breast cancer often develop the disease at a young age when dense breast tissue reduces the sensitivity of X-ray mammography. Our aim was, therefore, to compare contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE MRI) with mammography for screening. Methods We did a prospective multicentre cohort study in 649 women aged 35-49 years with a strong family history of breast cancer or a high probability of a BRCA1, BRCA2, or TP53 mutation. We recruited participants from 22 centres in the UK, and offered the women annual screening with CE MRI and mammography for 2-7 years. Findings We diagnosed 35 cancers in the 649 women screened with both mammography and CE MRI (1881 screens): 19 by CE MRI only, six by mammography only, and eight by both, with two interval cases. Sensitivity was significantly higher for CE MRI (77%, 95% CI 60-90) than for mammography (40%, 24-58; p=0.01), and was 94% (81-99) when both methods were used. Specificity was 93% (92-95) for mammography, 81% (80-83) for CE MRI (p<0.0001), and 77% (75-79) with both methods. The difference between CE MRI and mammography sensitivities was particularly pronounced in BRCA1 carriers (13 cancers; 92% vs 23%, p=0.004). Interpretation Our findings indicate that CE MRI is more sensitive than mammography for cancer detection. Specificity for both procedures was acceptable. Despite a high proportion of grade 3 cancers, tumours were small and few women were node positive. Annual screening, combining CE MRI and mammography, would detect most tumours in this risk group.
引用
收藏
页码:1769 / 1778
页数:10
相关论文
共 35 条
[1]  
ACR, 2003, ACR BI RADS MAMM
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2003, BREAST IM REP DAT SY
[3]  
[Anonymous], PATH REP BREAST CANC
[4]   Decreasing women's anxieties after abnormal mammograms: A controlled trial [J].
Barton, MB ;
Morley, DS ;
Moore, S ;
Allen, JD ;
Kleinman, KP ;
Emmons, KM ;
Fletcher, SW .
JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2004, 96 (07) :529-538
[5]   A comparison of cancer detection rates achieved by breast cancer screening programmes by number of readers, for one and two view mammography: results from the UK National Health Service breast screening programme [J].
Blanks, RG ;
Wallis, MG ;
Moss, SM .
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCREENING, 1998, 5 (04) :195-201
[6]   Protocol for a national multi-centre study of magnetic resonance imaging screening in women at genetic risk of breast cancer [J].
Brown, J ;
Coulthard, A ;
Dixon, AK ;
Dixon, JM ;
Easton, DF ;
Eeles, RA ;
Evans, DGR ;
Gilbert, FG ;
Hayes, C ;
Jenkins, JPR ;
Leach, MO ;
Moss, SM ;
Padhani, AP ;
Pointon, LJ ;
Ponder, BAJ ;
Sloane, JP ;
Turnbull, LW ;
Walker, LG ;
Warren, RML ;
Watson, W .
BREAST, 2000, 9 (02) :78-82
[7]   Rationale for a national multi-centre study of magnetic resonance imaging screening in women at genetic risk of breast cancer [J].
Brown, J ;
Coulthard, A ;
Dixon, AK ;
Dixon, JM ;
Easton, DF ;
Eeles, RA ;
Evans, DGR ;
Gilbert, FG ;
Hayes, C ;
Jenkins, JPR ;
Leach, MO ;
Moss, SM ;
Padhani, AP ;
Pointon, LJ ;
Ponder, BAJ ;
Sloane, JP ;
Turnbull, LW ;
Walker, LG ;
Warren, RML ;
Watson, W .
BREAST, 2000, 9 (02) :72-77
[8]   Magnetic resonance imaging screening in women at genetic risk of breast cancer: imaging and analysis protocol for the UK multicentre study [J].
Brown, J ;
Buckley, D ;
Coulthard, A ;
Dixon, AK ;
Dixon, JM ;
Easton, DF ;
Eeles, RA ;
Evans, DGR ;
Gilbert, FG ;
Graves, M ;
Hayes, C ;
Jenkins, JPR ;
Jones, AP ;
Keevil, SF ;
Leach, MO ;
Liney, GP ;
Moss, SM ;
Padhani, AR ;
Parker, GJM ;
Pointon, LJ ;
Ponder, BAJ ;
Redpath, TW ;
Sloane, JP ;
Turnbull, LW ;
Walker, LG ;
Warren, RML .
MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2000, 18 (07) :765-776
[9]  
*CANC SCREEN PROGR, NAT BREAST SCREEN PR
[10]   COMPARING THE AREAS UNDER 2 OR MORE CORRELATED RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC CURVES - A NONPARAMETRIC APPROACH [J].
DELONG, ER ;
DELONG, DM ;
CLARKEPEARSON, DI .
BIOMETRICS, 1988, 44 (03) :837-845