Prospective multicenter cohort study to refine management recommendations for women at elevated familial risk of breast cancer: the EVA trial.

PURPOSE We investigated the respective contribution (in terms of cancer yield and stage at diagnosis) of clinical breast examination (CBE), mammography, ultrasound, and quality-assured breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), used alone or in different combination, for screening women at elevated risk for breast cancer. METHODS Prospective multicenter observational cohort study. Six hundred eighty-seven asymptomatic women at elevated familial risk (> or = 20% lifetime) underwent 1,679 annual screening rounds consisting of CBE, mammography, ultrasound, and MRI, read independently and in different combinations. In a subgroup of 371 women, additional half-yearly ultrasound and CBE was performed more than 869 screening rounds. Mean and median follow-up was 29.18 and 29.09 months. RESULTS Twenty-seven women were diagnosed with breast cancer: 11 ductal carcinoma in situ (41%) and 16 invasive cancers (59%). Three (11%) of 27 were node positive. All cancers were detected during annual screening; no interval cancer occurred; no cancer was identified during half-yearly ultrasound. The cancer yield of ultrasound (6.0 of 1,000) and mammography (5.4 of 1,000) was equivalent; it increased nonsignificantly (7.7 of 1,000) if both methods were combined. Cancer yield achieved by MRI alone (14.9 of 1,000) was significantly higher; it was not significantly improved by adding mammography (MRI plus mammography: 16.0 of 1,000) and did not change by adding ultrasound (MRI plus ultrasound: 14.9 of 1,000). Positive predictive value was 39% for mammography, 36% for ultrasound, and 48% for MRI. CONCLUSION In women at elevated familial risk, quality-assured MRI screening shifts the distribution of screen-detected breast cancers toward the preinvasive stage. In women undergoing quality-assured MRI annually, neither mammography, nor annual or half-yearly ultrasound or CBE will add to the cancer yield achieved by MRI alone.

[1]  G. Brix,et al.  Strahlenrisiko infolge von Mammographie-Screening-Untersuchungen für Frauen unter 50 Jahren , 2008 .

[2]  J R Griffiths,et al.  Clinical studies. , 2005, Advances in pharmacology.

[3]  D. Berry,et al.  Determining carrier probabilities for breast cancer-susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. , 1998, American journal of human genetics.

[4]  Constantine Gatsonis,et al.  Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging , 2005, Cancer.

[5]  D. Stoppa-Lyonnet,et al.  Recommendations for medical management of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: the French National Ad Hoc Committee. , 1998, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[6]  L. Liberman,et al.  Determination of the Presence and Extent of Pure Ductal Carcinoma in Situ by Mammography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging , 2005, The breast journal.

[7]  Peter C Gøtzsche,et al.  Overdiagnosis in publicly organised mammography screening programmes: systematic review of incidence trends , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[8]  R. Fimmers,et al.  Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[9]  Giovanni Parmigiani,et al.  BRCAPRO validation, sensitivity of genetic testing of BRCA1/BRCA2, and prevalence of other breast cancer susceptibility genes. , 2002, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[10]  P. V. van Diest,et al.  BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutation analysis in the Indonesian population , 2007, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[11]  G. Giles,et al.  The histologic phenotypes of breast carcinoma occurring before age 40 years in women with and without BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutations , 1998, Cancer.

[12]  D. Easton,et al.  Risk prediction models for familial breast cancer. , 2006, Future oncology.

[13]  W. Foulkes,et al.  A Basal Epithelial Phenotype Is More Frequent in Interval Breast Cancers Compared with Screen Detected Tumors , 2005, Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention.

[14]  L. Esserman,et al.  Genetic/familial high-risk assessment , 2010 .

[15]  Ellen Warner,et al.  Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination , 2004, JAMA.

[16]  Kevin Hughes,et al.  Predicting the survival of patients with breast carcinoma using tumor size , 2002, Cancer.

[17]  R. A’Hern,et al.  The incidence of breast cancer from screening women according to predicted family history risk: Does annual clinical examination add to mammography? , 2001, European journal of cancer.

[18]  V. Kataja,et al.  Risk for distant recurrence of breast cancer detected by mammography screening or other methods. , 2004, JAMA.

[19]  J. Satagopan,et al.  Outcome of preventive surgery and screening for breast and ovarian cancer in BRCA mutation carriers. , 2002, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[20]  H. D. de Koning,et al.  Hereditary breast cancer growth rates and its impact on screening policy. , 2005, European journal of cancer.

[21]  Laura Cortesi,et al.  Multicenter comparative multimodality surveillance of women at genetic-familial high risk for breast cancer (HIBCRIT study): interim results. , 2007, Radiology.

[22]  G. Parker,et al.  DCE-MRI biomarkers in the clinical evaluation of antiangiogenic and vascular disrupting agents , 2007, British Journal of Cancer.

[23]  Ingvar Andersson,et al.  Rate of over-diagnosis of breast cancer 15 years after end of Malmö mammographic screening trial: follow-up study , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[24]  Barbara L. Smith,et al.  The effect of tumor size and lymph node status on breast carcinoma lethality , 2003, Cancer.

[25]  Edna Schechtman,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging reveals functional diversity of the vasculature in benign and malignant breast lesions , 2005, Cancer.

[26]  Edward Ashton,et al.  Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging , 2012, Definitions.

[27]  U. P. S. T. Force Genetic Risk Assessment and BRCA Mutation Testing for Breast and Ovarian Cancer Susceptibility: Recommendation Statement , 2005, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[28]  Jean B. Cormack,et al.  Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. , 2008, JAMA.

[29]  N. Hylton,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast prior to biopsy. , 2004, JAMA.

[30]  K Offit,et al.  Recommendations for follow-up care of individuals with an inherited predisposition to cancer. II. BRCA1 and BRCA2. Cancer Genetics Studies Consortium. , 1997, JAMA.

[31]  Simone Schrading,et al.  MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study , 2007, The Lancet.

[32]  J. Klijn,et al.  Effectiveness of breast cancer surveillance in BRCA1/2 gene mutation carriers and women with high familial risk. , 2001, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[33]  E. Lynge,et al.  Breast cancer incidence after the introduction of mammography screening , 2006, Cancer.

[34]  Ying Lu,et al.  Invasive breast cancer: predicting disease recurrence by using high-spatial-resolution signal enhancement ratio imaging. , 2008, Radiology.

[35]  E. Lustbader,et al.  Validation of a breast cancer risk assessment model in women with a positive family history. , 1994, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[36]  Kjell Arne Kvistad,et al.  Sensitivity of MRI versus conventional screening in the diagnosis of BRCA-associated breast cancer in a national prospective series. , 2007, Breast.

[37]  N. Hylton,et al.  Improved tumor vascular function following high‐dose epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy , 2007, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[38]  E. Thomson,et al.  Recommendations for follow-up care of individuals with an inherited predisposition to Cancer. II. BRCA1 and BRCA2 , 1997 .

[39]  A. Trentham-Dietz,et al.  Familial relative risk estimates for use in epidemiologic analyses. , 2006, American journal of epidemiology.

[40]  A. Ellis Breast , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[41]  Daniel F Chen,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging captures the biology of ductal carcinoma in situ. , 2006, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[42]  M. Yaffe,et al.  American Cancer Society Guidelines for Breast Screening with MRI as an Adjunct to Mammography , 2007 .

[43]  G M Lenoir,et al.  Hereditary breast cancer: Pathobiology, prognosis, and BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene linkage , 1996, Cancer.

[44]  A. Meindl,et al.  Comprehensive analysis of 989 patients with breast or ovarian cancer provides BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation profiles and frequencies for the German population , 2002, International journal of cancer.

[45]  N. Hylton Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging as an imaging biomarker. , 2006, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[46]  Erik Holmberg,et al.  Radiation Effects on Breast Cancer Risk: A Pooled Analysis of Eight Cohorts , 2002, Radiation research.

[47]  Theo van der Kwast,et al.  A BRCA1/2 mutation, high breast density and prominent pushing margins of a tumor independently contribute to a frequent false‐negative mammography , 2002, International journal of cancer.

[48]  R. Macmillan Screening women with a family history of breast cancer--results from the British Familial Breast Cancer Group. , 2000, European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology.

[49]  H. D. de Koning,et al.  Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.

[50]  L. Tabár,et al.  Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: Estimates of overdiagnosis from two trials of mammographic screening for breast cancer , 2005, Breast Cancer Research.

[51]  J. Chang-Claude,et al.  Effect of chest X-rays on the risk of breast cancer among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers in the international BRCA1/2 carrier cohort study: a report from the EMBRACE, GENEPSO, GEO-HEBON, and IBCCS Collaborators' Group. , 2006, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[52]  A R Padhani,et al.  Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS) , 2005, The Lancet.

[53]  R Holland,et al.  European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition--summary document. , 2008, Annals of Oncology.

[54]  D Krebs,et al.  Breast MR imaging screening in 192 women proved or suspected to be carriers of a breast cancer susceptibility gene: preliminary results. , 2000, Radiology.

[55]  J. Austoker,et al.  What is the psychological impact of mammographic screening on younger women with a family history of breast cancer? Findings from a prospective cohort study by the PIMMS Management Group. , 2007, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[56]  K. Offit,et al.  Clinical practice. Management of an inherited predisposition to breast cancer. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[57]  F. Alexander,et al.  Screening Status in Relation to Biological and Chronological Characteristics of Breast Cancers: A Cross Sectional Survey , 1997, Journal of medical screening.

[58]  J. Marks,et al.  Young age at diagnosis correlates with worse prognosis and defines a subset of breast cancers with shared patterns of gene expression. , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[59]  M. Stratton,et al.  Multifactorial analysis of differences between sporadic breast cancers and cancers involving BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. , 1998, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[60]  C. Kuhl,et al.  Mammographic, US, and MR imaging phenotypes of familial breast cancer. , 2008, Radiology.

[61]  J. Klijn,et al.  Identification of women with an increased risk of developing radiation-induced breast cancer: a case only study , 2007, Breast Cancer Research.

[62]  A. Hackshaw,et al.  EUSOMA review of mammography screening. , 2003, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[63]  Emily White,et al.  Factors contributing to mammography failure in women aged 40-49 years. , 2004, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[64]  A. Berrington de González,et al.  Mammographic screening before age 50 years in the UK: comparison of the radiation risks with the mortality benefits , 2005, British Journal of Cancer.

[65]  Karla Kerlikowske,et al.  Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. , 2006, Radiology.

[66]  Yu Shen,et al.  Role of detection method in predicting breast cancer survival: analysis of randomized screening trials. , 2005, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[67]  Ying Lu,et al.  AG-013736, a novel inhibitor of VEGF receptor tyrosine kinases, inhibits breast cancer growth and decreases vascular permeability as detected by dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. , 2007, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[68]  Mark Robson,et al.  Estimated risk of radiation-induced breast cancer from mammographic screening for young BRCA mutation carriers. , 2009, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[69]  L. Norton,et al.  BRCA-associated breast cancer in young women. , 1998, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[70]  R. Eeles,et al.  An audit of screening for familial breast cancer before 50 years in the South Thames Region – have we got it right? , 2004, Familial Cancer.