Converting evidence to practice: A guide for the clinical application of MRI for the screening and management of breast cancer

Zakhireh, Jennifer; Gomez, Rachel; Esserman, Laura

doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2008.09.008

Cited by 20 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…22 These studies have ignited a debate over the routine use of preoperative MRI in patients requiring breast cancer surgery. 3,23,24 We consider that one of the major causes of poor surgical outcome is that patients undergo MRI scanning in the prone position. This position is required for the reduction of respiration-and motion-induced artifacts, which would otherwise occur during the lengthy imaging process; this can result in incorrect tumor localization.…”

Section: Margin Status Number (%)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Usefulness of Breast CT Imaging in Delineating Tumor Extent and Guiding Surgical Management

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Margin Status Number (%)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Usefulness of Breast CT Imaging in Delineating Tumor Extent and Guiding Surgical Management

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This model includes age at menarche, age at first birth, personal history of benign breast biopsies and of atypical hyperplasia, in addition to family history of breast cancer. Since MRI breast cancer screening is costly and has been shown to have limited specificity (5,6), it would be useful to provide health researchers and policy analysts with nationally representative estimates of the numbers of U.S. women with a breast cancer risk estimate that would meet the ACS’s criterion of ≥20% lifetime risk for breast cancer screening with MRI. In this paper we present the numbers and percentages of women who meet this criterion and also present estimated distributions of 5-year and lifetime absolute risk of breast cancer using smaller cutoffs such as the 1.67% 5-year absolute risk used to determine eligibility for tamoxifen in the Breast Cancer Prevention Trial (7).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Five-Year and Lifetime Risk of Breast Cancer among U.S. Subpopulations: Implications for Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening

Graubard

Freedman

Gail

2010

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers &Amp; Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Guidelines from the American Cancer Society recommend annual breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening for women with a projected lifetime risk of ≥20% based on risk models that use family history. Because MRI screening is costly and has limited specificity, estimates of the numbers of U.S. women with ≥20% breast cancer risk would be useful.Methods: We used data from the 2000 and 2005 National Health Interview Survey and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (i.e., Gail model 2 with a revision for African Americans) to calculate estimates of U.S. women by age and race/ethnicity categories with a lifetime absolute breast cancer risk of ≥20%. Distributions of 5-year and lifetime absolute risk of breast cancer were compared across demographic groups.Results: We estimated that 1.09% (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.24%) of women age 30 to 84 years have a lifetime absolute breast cancer risk of ≥20%, which translates to 880,063 U.S. women eligible for MRI screening. The 5-year risks are highest for white non-Hispanics and lowest for Hispanics. The lifetime risks decrease with age and are generally highest for white non-Hispanics, lower for African American non-Hispanic, and lowest for Hispanics.Conclusion: We provide national estimates of the number of U.S. women who would be eligible for MRI breast screening and distributions of 5-year and lifetime risks of breast cancer using the NCI Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool.Impact: These estimates inform the potential resources and public health demand for MRI screening and chemopreventive interventions that might be required for U.S. women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 19(10);

show abstract

“…MRM has been shown to be very sensitive for the detection of breast cancer lesions [24]. Even lesions that are occult on clinical breast examination, X-ray mammography and sonography may be detected by MR imaging [25,26].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic accuracy of fused positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance mammography: initial results

Heusner

Hahn²,

Jonkmanns³

et al. 2011

BJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of fused fluoro-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance mammography (FDG-PET/MRM) in breast cancer patients and to compare FDG-PET/ MRM with MRM. Methods: 27 breast cancer patients (mean age 58.9¡9.9 years) underwent MRM and prone FDG-PET. Images were fused software-based to FDG-PET/MRM images. Histopathology served as the reference standard to define the following parameters for both MRM and FDG-PET/MRM: sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy for the detection of breast cancer lesions. Furthermore, the number of patients with correctly determined lesion focality was assessed. Differences between both modalities were assessed by McNemars test (p,0.05). The number of patients in whom FDG-PET/MRM would have changed the surgical approach was determined. Results: 58 breast lesions were evaluated. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy were 93%, 60%, 87%, 75% and 85% for MRM, respectively. For FDG-PET/MRM they were 88%, 73%, 90%, 69% and 92%, respectively. FDG-PET/MRM was as accurate for lesion detection (p51) and determination of the lesions' focality (p50.7722) as MRM. In only 1 patient FDG-PET/MRM would have changed the surgical treatment. Conclusion: FDG-PET/MRM is as accurate as MRM for the evaluation of local breast cancer. FDG-PET/MRM defines the tumours' focality as accurately as MRM and may have an impact on the surgical treatment in only a small portion of patients. Based on these results, FDG-PET/MRM cannot be recommended as an adjunct or alternative to MRM.

show abstract

Converting evidence to practice: A guide for the clinical application of MRI for the screening and management of breast cancer

Cited by 20 publications

References 64 publications

Evaluation of the Usefulness of Breast CT Imaging in Delineating Tumor Extent and Guiding Surgical Management

Evaluation of the Usefulness of Breast CT Imaging in Delineating Tumor Extent and Guiding Surgical Management

Five-Year and Lifetime Risk of Breast Cancer among U.S. Subpopulations: Implications for Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening

Diagnostic accuracy of fused positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance mammography: initial results

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About