MRI breast screening in high-risk women: cancer detection and survival analysis
- 1.8k Downloads
Women with a genetic predisposition to breast cancer tend to develop the disease at a younger age with denser breasts making mammography screening less effective. The introduction of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for familial breast cancer screening programs in recent years was intended to improve outcomes in these women. We aimed to assess whether introduction of MRI surveillance improves 5- and 10-year survival of high-risk women and determine the accuracy of MRI breast cancer detection compared with mammography-only or no enhanced surveillance and compare size and pathology of cancers detected in women screened with MRI + mammography and mammography only. We used data from two prospective studies where asymptomatic women with a very high breast cancer risk were screened by either mammography alone or with MRI also compared with BRCA1/2 carriers with no intensive surveillance. 63 cancers were detected in women receiving MRI + mammography and 76 in women receiving mammography only. Sensitivity of MRI + mammography was 93 % with 63 % specificity. Fewer cancers detected on MRI were lymph node positive compared to mammography/no additional screening. There were no differences in 10-year survival between the MRI + mammography and mammography-only groups, but survival was significantly higher in the MRI-screened group (95.3 %) compared to no intensive screening (73.7 %; p = 0.002). There were no deaths among the 21 BRCA2 carriers receiving MRI. There appears to be benefit from screening with MRI, particularly in BRCA2 carriers. Extended follow-up of larger numbers of high-risk women is required to assess long-term survival.
KeywordsMRI Breast cancer BRCA1 BRCA2, survival
We acknowledge support from the NIHR to the Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust.
Conflict of interest
- 1.Cancer Research UK (2010) CancerStats incidence—UK. [online] Cancer Research UK. Available at: www.cancerresearchuk.org Accessed Jan 2014
- 7.Copson E, Eccles B, Maishman T, Gerty S, Stanton L, Cutress RI, Altman DG, Durcan L, Simmonds P, Lawrence G, Jones L, Bliss J, Eccles D, POSH Study Steering Group (2013) Prospective observational study of breast cancer treatment outcomes for UK women aged 18–40 years at diagnosis: the POSH study. J Natl Cancer Inst 105(13):978–988PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Lakhani SR, Van De Vijver MJ, Jacquemier J, Anderson TJ, Osin PP, McGuffog L, Easton DF (2002) The pathology of familial breast cancer: predictive value of immunohistochemical markers estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, HER-2, and p53 in patients with mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. J Clin Oncol 20(9):2310–2318PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Duffy SW, Mackay J, Thomas S, Anderson E, Chen TH, Ellis I, Evans G, Fielder H, Fox R, Gui G, Macmillan D, Moss S, Rogers C, Sibbering M, Wallis M, Warren R, Watson E, Whynes D, Allgood P, Caunt J (2013) Evaluation of mammographic surveillance services in women aged 40–49 years with a moderate family history of breast cancer: a single-arm cohort study. Health Technol Assess 17(11: vii–xiv):1–95Google Scholar
- 21.Le-Petross HT, Whitman GJ, Atchley DP, Yuan Y, Gutierrez-Barrera A, Hortobagyi GN, Litton JK, Arun BK (2011) Effectiveness of alternating mammography and magnetic resonance imaging for screening women with deleterious BRCA mutations at high risk of breast cancer. Cancer 117(17):3900–3907PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Rijnsburger AJ, Obdeijn IM, Kaas R, Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Boetes C, Loo CE, Wasser MN, Bergers E, Kok T, Muller SH, Peterse H, Tollenaar RA, Hoogerbrugge N, Meijer S, Bartels CC, Seynaeve C, Hooning MJ, Kriege M, Schmitz PI, Oosterwijk JC, de Koning HJ, Rutgers EJ, Klijn JG (2010) BRCA1-associated breast cancers present differently from BRCA2-associated and familial cases: long-term follow-up of the Dutch MRISC screening study. J Clin Oncol 28(36):5265–5273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.McIntosh A, Shaw C, Evans G, Turnbull N, Bahar N, Barclay M, Easton D, Emery J, Gray J, Halpin J, Hopwood P, McKay J, Sheppard C, Sibbering M, Watson W, Wailoo A, Hutchinson A (2004 updated 2006) Clinical Guidelines and Evidence Review for The Classification and Care of Women at Risk of Familial Breast Cancer, London: National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care/University of Sheffield. NICE guideline CG041. www.nice.org.uk
- 26.Griebsch I, Brown J, Boggis C, Dixon A, Dixon M, Easton D, Eeles R, Evans DG, Gilbert FJ, Hawnaur J, Kessar P, Lakhani SR, Moss M, Nerurkar A, Padhani AR, Pointon L, Potterton J, Thompson D, Turnbull LW, Walker LG, Warren R, Leach MO for the UK Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Breast Screening (MARIBS) Study Group (2006) Cost-effectiveness of contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging versus X-ray mammography of women at a high familial risk of breast cancer. Brit J Cancer 95(7):801-810Google Scholar
- 28.Moller P, Borg A, Evans DG, Haites N, Reis MM, Vasen H, Anderson E, Steel CM, Apold J, Goudie D, Howell A, Lalloo F, Maehle L, Gregory H, Heimdal K (2002) Survival in prospectively ascertained familial breast cancer: analysis of a series stratified by tumor characteristics, BRCA mutations and oophorectomy. Int J Cancer 101(6):555–559PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Cott Chubiz JE, Lee JM, Gilmore ME, Kong CY, Lowry KP, Halpern EF, McMahon PM, Ryan PD, Gazelle GS (2013) Cost-effectiveness of alternating magnetic resonance imaging and digital mammography screening in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers. Cancer 119(6):1266–1276PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar