Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk.

CONTEXT Annual ultrasound screening may detect small, node-negative breast cancers that are not seen on mammography. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may reveal additional breast cancers missed by both mammography and ultrasound screening. OBJECTIVE To determine supplemental cancer detection yield of ultrasound and MRI in women at elevated risk for breast cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS From April 2004-February 2006, 2809 women at 21 sites with elevated cancer risk and dense breasts consented to 3 annual independent screens with mammography and ultrasound in randomized order. After 3 rounds of both screenings, 612 of 703 women who chose to undergo an MRI had complete data. The reference standard was defined as a combination of pathology (biopsy results that showed in situ or infiltrating ductal carcinoma or infiltrating lobular carcinoma in the breast or axillary lymph nodes) and 12-month follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Cancer detection rate (yield), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV3) of biopsies performed and interval cancer rate. RESULTS A total of 2662 women underwent 7473 mammogram and ultrasound screenings, 110 of whom had 111 breast cancer events: 33 detected by mammography only, 32 by ultrasound only, 26 by both, and 9 by MRI after mammography plus ultrasound; 11 were not detected by any imaging screen. Among 4814 incidence screens in the second and third years combined, 75 women were diagnosed with cancer. Supplemental incidence-screening ultrasound identified 3.7 cancers per 1000 screens (95% CI, 2.1-5.8; P < .001). Sensitivity for mammography plus ultrasound was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.65-0.85); specificity, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.83-0.85); and PPV3, 0.16 (95% CI, 0.12-0.21). For mammography alone, sensitivity was 0.52 (95% CI, 0.40-0.64); specificity, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.90-0.92); and PPV3, 0.38 (95% CI, 0.28-0.49; P < .001 all comparisons). Of the MRI participants, 16 women (2.6%) had breast cancer diagnosed. The supplemental yield of MRI was 14.7 per 1000 (95% CI, 3.5-25.9; P = .004). Sensitivity for MRI and mammography plus ultrasound was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.79-1.00); specificity, 0.65 (95% CI, 0.61-0.69); and PPV3, 0.19 (95% CI, 0.11-0.29). For mammography and ultrasound, sensitivity was 0.44 (95% CI, 0.20-0.70, P = .004); specificity 0.84 (95% CI, 0.81-0.87; P < .001); and PPV3, 0.18 (95% CI, 0.08 to 0.34; P = .98). The number of screens needed to detect 1 cancer was 127 (95% CI, 99-167) for mammography; 234 (95% CI, 173-345) for supplemental ultrasound; and 68 (95% CI, 39-286) for MRI after negative mammography and ultrasound results. CONCLUSION The addition of screening ultrasound or MRI to mammography in women at increased risk of breast cancer resulted in not only a higher cancer detection yield but also an increase in false-positive findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00072501.

[1]  H. Nelson,et al.  Screening for Breast Cancer: An Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force , 2009, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[2]  Harry J de Koning,et al.  Differences between first and subsequent rounds of the MRISC breast cancer screening program for women with a familial or genetic predisposition , 2006, Cancer.

[3]  T. M. Kolb,et al.  Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. , 2002, Radiology.

[4]  M. Yaffe,et al.  American Cancer Society Guidelines for Breast Screening with MRI as an Adjunct to Mammography , 2007, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[5]  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.

[6]  Stuart S Kaplan,et al.  Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. , 2001, Radiology.

[7]  E. DeLong,et al.  Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. , 1988, Biometrics.

[8]  R. Warren,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging screening of the contralateral breast in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of incremental cancer detection and impact on surgical management. , 2009, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[9]  S. Goldenberg,et al.  Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound. A retrospective review , 1995, Cancer.

[10]  Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination , 2004 .

[11]  Michael J Schell,et al.  Evidence-based target recall rates for screening mammography. , 2007, Radiology.

[12]  Maximilian Reiser,et al.  Prospective multicenter cohort study to refine management recommendations for women at elevated familial risk of breast cancer: the EVA trial. , 2010, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

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

[14]  J. Fleiss,et al.  Statistical methods for rates and proportions , 1973 .

[15]  T. Bevers.  Ultrasound for the screening of breast cancer , 2008, Current oncology reports.

[16]  Baudouin Maldague,et al.  Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the importance of radiologic breast density. , 2003, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

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

[18]  W. Odling-Smee,et al.  Screening for Breast Cancer , 1985, The Lancet.

[19]  Laura Cortesi,et al.  Multicenter Surveillance of Women at High Genetic Breast Cancer Risk Using Mammography, Ultrasonography, and Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging (the High Breast Cancer Risk Italian 1 Study): Final Results , 2011, Investigative radiology.

[20]  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.

[21]  B. Everitt,et al.  Statistical methods for rates and proportions , 1973 .

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

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

[24]  N. Ohuchi,et al.  Randomized Controlled Trial on Effectiveness of Ultrasonography Screening for Breast Cancer in Women Aged 40–49 (J-START): Research Design , 2010, Japanese journal of clinical oncology.

[25]  S. Ciatto,et al.  Role of ultrasonography in detecting mammographically occult breast carcinoma in women with dense breasts , 2006, La radiologia medica.

[26]  Rhian Gabe,et al.  The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: what have we learned? , 2004, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[27]  Wendie A Berg,et al.  Tailored supplemental screening for breast cancer: what now and what next? , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[28]  Pavel Crystal,et al.  Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. , 2003, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[29]  L. Liberman,et al.  Breast MRI screening of women with a personal history of breast cancer. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[30]  Jeffrey D Blume,et al.  Reasons women at elevated risk of breast cancer refuse breast MR imaging screening: ACRIN 6666. , 2010, Radiology.

[31]  E A Sickles,et al.  Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound: A retrospective review , 1996, Cancer.

[32]  W. Buchberger,et al.  Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions: detection and classification with high-resolution sonography. , 2000, Seminars in ultrasound, CT, and MR.

[33]  C. Gatsonis,et al.  Cancer yield of mammography, MR, and US in high-risk women: prospective multi-institution breast cancer screening study. , 2007, Radiology.

[34]  David Hinkley,et al.  Bootstrap Methods: Another Look at the Jackknife , 2008 .