Systematic Review: Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Screen Women at High Risk for Breast Cancer

Warner, Ellen; Messersmith, Hans; Causer, Petrina; Eisen, Andrea; Shumak, Rene; Plewes, Donald B.

doi:10.7326/0003-4819-148-9-200805060-00007

Cited by 492 publications

(319 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

291

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The detected cancers in 168 patients were small: 49% B10 mm diameter, and only 19% of invasive cancers were associated with lymph node involvement [20]. Similar figures were found in the review of Warner et al [21] who evaluated 11 prospective non-randomized studies in which MRI and mammography were used to screen women at very high risk for breast cancer (not only women with high familial risk). In their meta-analysis, the sensitivity of mammography and MRI was 39 and 77%, respectively (at a cut-off value of BI-RADS C 3).…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 57%

Assessment of false-negative cases of breast MR imaging in women with a familial or genetic predisposition

Obdeijn

Loo

Rijnsburger

et al. 2009

Breast Cancer Res Treat

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to assess the characteristics of malignant breast lesions those were not detected during screening by MR imaging. In the Dutch MRI screening study (MRISC), a non-randomized prospective multicenter study, women with high familial risk or a genetic predisposition for breast cancer were screened once a year by mammography and MRI and every 6 months with a clinical breast examination (CBE). The false-negative MR examinations were subject of this study and were retrospectively reviewed by two experienced radiologists. From November 1999 until March 2006, 2,157 women were eligible for study analyses. Ninety-seven malignant breast tumors were detected, including 19 DCIS (20%). In 22 patients with a malignant lesion, the MRI was assessed as BI-RADS 1 or 2. One patient was excluded because the examinations were not available for review. Forty-three percent (9/21) of the false-negative MR cases concerned pure ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or DCIS with invasive foci, in eight of them no enhancement was seen at the review. In six patients the features of malignancy were missed or misinterpreted. Small lesion size (n = 3), extensive diffuse contrast enhancement of the breast parenchyma (n = 2), and a technically inadequate examination (n = 1) were other causes of the missed diagnosis. A major part of the false-negative MR diagnoses concerned non-enhancing DCIS, underlining the necessity of screening not only with MRI but also with mammography. Improvement of MRI scanning protocols may increase the detection rate of DCIS. The missed and misinterpreted cases are reflecting the learning curve of a multicenter study.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 57%

Assessment of false-negative cases of breast MR imaging in women with a familial or genetic predisposition

Obdeijn

Loo

Rijnsburger

et al. 2009

Breast Cancer Res Treat

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…75% and a specificity of about 60-90% [10]. In radioopaque breast tissue where the contrast between malignant structures and surrounding breast tissue is low, sensitivity can even drop below 50% [10,11].…”

Section: Biophotonicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Near‐infrared imaging of breast cancer using optical contrast agents

Poellinger

2012

Journal of Biophotonics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy in women worldwide and the second leading cause of cancer death. On the basis of three studies performed by our group, this article reviews the current status of optical breast imaging using extrinsic contrast agents. To date, only two contrast agents have been applied in human studies, indocyanine green (ICG) and omocianine. Both contrast media were used for absorption and fluorescence imaging. Generally speaking, malignant breast lesions exhibited higher absorption contrast as well as higher fluorescence contrast compared to benign lesions or non‐diseased breast tissue. Some groups consider early enhancement characteristics helpful for differentiation between malignant and benign lesions. Late fluorescence ICG imaging – capitalizing on the extravasation of the dye through the wall of tumorous vessels – seems to be a promising technique to distinguish malignant from benign breast lesions. (© 2012 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim)

show abstract

“…Dynamic contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) for breasts has become an established method not only in the preoperative diagnosis of the extent a cancer but also in the detection of an early cancer [1][2][3][4]. Breast DCE-MRI has a higher sensitivity than conventional mammography, which is the standard screening modality.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computer-Aided Diagnosis Scheme for Distinguishing Between Benign and Malignant Masses in Breast DCE-MRI

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our purpose in this study was to develop a computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) scheme for distinguishing between benign and malignant breast masses in dynamic contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI). Our database consisted 90 DCE-MRI examinations, each of which contained four sequential phase images; this database included 28 benign masses and 62 malignant masses. In our CAD scheme, we first determined 11 objective features of masses by taking into account the image features and the dynamic changes in signal intensity that experienced radiologists commonly use for describing masses in DCE-MRI. Quadratic discriminant analysis (QDA) was employed to distinguish between benign and malignant masses. As the input of the QDA, a combination of four objective features was determined among the 11 objective features according to a stepwise method. These objective features were as follows: (i) the change in signal intensity from 2 to 5 min; (ii) the change in signal intensity from 0 to 2 min; (iii) the irregularity of the shape; and (iv) the smoothness of the margin. Using this approach, the classification accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were shown to be 85.6 % (77 of 90), 87.1 % (54 of 62), and 82.1 % (23 of 28), respectively. Furthermore, the positive and negative predictive values were 91.5 % (54 of 59) and 74.2 % (23 of 31), respectively. Our CAD scheme therefore exhibits high classification accuracy and is useful in the differential diagnosis of masses in DCE-MRI images.

show abstract

Systematic Review: Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Screen Women at High Risk for Breast Cancer

Abstract: Screening with both MRI and mammography might rule out cancerous lesions better than mammography alone in women who are known or likely to have an inherited predisposition to breast cancer.

Cited by 492 publications

References 33 publications

Assessment of false-negative cases of breast MR imaging in women with a familial or genetic predisposition

Assessment of false-negative cases of breast MR imaging in women with a familial or genetic predisposition

Near‐infrared imaging of breast cancer using optical contrast agents

Computer-Aided Diagnosis Scheme for Distinguishing Between Benign and Malignant Masses in Breast DCE-MRI

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About