Purpose: To prospectively compare clinical breast examination ( CBE), mammography, ultrasonography ( US), and contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance ( MR) imaging for screening women at genetic-familial high risk for breast cancer and report interim results, with pathologic findings as standard.Materials and Methods: Institutional review board of each center approved the research; informed written consent was obtained. CBE, mammography, US, and MR imaging were performed for yearly screening of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers, first-degree relatives of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers, or women enrolled because of a strong family history of breast or ovarian cancer ( three or more events in first- or second-degree relatives in either maternal or paternal line; these included breast cancer in women younger than 60 years, ovarian cancer at any age, and male breast cancer at any age).Results: Two hundred seventy-eight women ( mean age, 46 years +/- 12 [ standard deviation]) were enrolled. Breast cancer was found in 11 of 278 women at first round and seven of 99 at second round ( 14 invasive, four intraductal; eight were <= 10 mm in diameter). Detection rate per year was 4.8% ( 18 of 377) overall; 4.3% ( 11 of 258) in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers and first- degree relatives of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers versus 5.9% ( seven of 119) in women enrolled because of strong family history; and 5.3% ( nine of 169) in women with previous personal breast and/or ovarian cancer versus 4.3% ( nine of 208) in those without. In six ( 33%) of 18 patients, cancer was detected only with MR imaging. Sensitivity was as follows: CBE, 50% ( 95% confidence interval [ CI]: 29%, 71%); mammography, 59% ( 95% CI: 36%, 78%); US, 65% ( 95% CI: 41%, 83%); and MR imaging, 94% ( 95% CI: 82%, 99%). Positive predictive value was as follows: CBE, 82% ( 95% CI: 52%, 95%); mammography, 77% ( 95% CI: 50%, 92%); US, 65% ( 95% CI: 41%, 83%); and MR imaging, 63% ( 95% CI: 43%, 79%).Conclusion: Addition of MR imaging to the screening regimen for high-risk women may enable detection of otherwise unsuspected breast cancers.

Sardanelli, F., Podo, F., D'Agnolo, G., Verdecchia, A., Santaquilani, M., Musumeci, R., et al. (2007). Multicenter comparative multimodality surveillance of women at genetic-familial high risk for breast cancer (HIBCRIT Study): Interim results. RADIOLOGY, 242(3), 698-715 [10.1148/radiol.2423051965].

Multicenter comparative multimodality surveillance of women at genetic-familial high risk for breast cancer (HIBCRIT Study): Interim results

Cortesi L.;Orlacchio A.;Di Cesare E.;Viel A.;Romagnoli R.;Battista R.;Cellini L.;Bonanni B.;Villa G.;Fedele I.
2007-01-01

Abstract

Purpose: To prospectively compare clinical breast examination ( CBE), mammography, ultrasonography ( US), and contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance ( MR) imaging for screening women at genetic-familial high risk for breast cancer and report interim results, with pathologic findings as standard.Materials and Methods: Institutional review board of each center approved the research; informed written consent was obtained. CBE, mammography, US, and MR imaging were performed for yearly screening of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers, first-degree relatives of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers, or women enrolled because of a strong family history of breast or ovarian cancer ( three or more events in first- or second-degree relatives in either maternal or paternal line; these included breast cancer in women younger than 60 years, ovarian cancer at any age, and male breast cancer at any age).Results: Two hundred seventy-eight women ( mean age, 46 years +/- 12 [ standard deviation]) were enrolled. Breast cancer was found in 11 of 278 women at first round and seven of 99 at second round ( 14 invasive, four intraductal; eight were <= 10 mm in diameter). Detection rate per year was 4.8% ( 18 of 377) overall; 4.3% ( 11 of 258) in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers and first- degree relatives of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers versus 5.9% ( seven of 119) in women enrolled because of strong family history; and 5.3% ( nine of 169) in women with previous personal breast and/or ovarian cancer versus 4.3% ( nine of 208) in those without. In six ( 33%) of 18 patients, cancer was detected only with MR imaging. Sensitivity was as follows: CBE, 50% ( 95% confidence interval [ CI]: 29%, 71%); mammography, 59% ( 95% CI: 36%, 78%); US, 65% ( 95% CI: 41%, 83%); and MR imaging, 94% ( 95% CI: 82%, 99%). Positive predictive value was as follows: CBE, 82% ( 95% CI: 52%, 95%); mammography, 77% ( 95% CI: 50%, 92%); US, 65% ( 95% CI: 41%, 83%); and MR imaging, 63% ( 95% CI: 43%, 79%).Conclusion: Addition of MR imaging to the screening regimen for high-risk women may enable detection of otherwise unsuspected breast cancers.
Pubblicato
Rilevanza internazionale
Articolo
Esperti anonimi
Settore MED/36
English
BRCA2 Protein; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Genetic Testing; Humans; Italy; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Middle Aged; Pilot Projects; Population Surveillance; Prevalence; Reproducibility of Results; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Sensitivity and Specificity; Ubiquitin-Protein Ligases
Sardanelli, F., Podo, F., D'Agnolo, G., Verdecchia, A., Santaquilani, M., Musumeci, R., et al. (2007). Multicenter comparative multimodality surveillance of women at genetic-familial high risk for breast cancer (HIBCRIT Study): Interim results. RADIOLOGY, 242(3), 698-715 [10.1148/radiol.2423051965].
Sardanelli, F; Podo, F; D'Agnolo, G; Verdecchia, A; Santaquilani, M; Musumeci, R; Trecate, G; Manoukian, S; Morassut, S; de Giacomi, C; Federico, M; Cortesi, L; Corcione, S; Cirillo, S; Marra, V; Cilotti, A; Di Maggio, C; Fausto, A; Preda, L; Zuiani, C; Contegiacomo, A; Orlacchio, A; Calabrese, M; Bonomo, L; Di Cesare, E; Tonutti, M; Panizza, P; Del Maschio, A; Bergonzi, S; Costa, C; Ferranti, C; Marchesini, M; Scaperotta, G; Suman, L; Vergnaghi, D; Dolcetti, R; Viel, A; Venturini, S; Romagnoli, R; Battista, R; Canossi, B; de Santis, M; Marchi, I; Medici, V; Turchetti, D; Querzoli, P; Cellini, L; Martincich, L; Regge, D; Bartolozzi, C; Bevilacqua, G; Brunetti, I; Caligo, Ma; Giaconi, C; Iacconi, C; Mazzotta, D; Moretti, M; Roncella, M; Artioli, G; D'Andrea, E; Nardelli, G; Nicoletto, Mo; Pescarini, L; Zavagno, G; Babaei, B; Gerra, F; Magaldi, A; Iozzelli, A; Lupo, En; Russo, M; Barile, M; Bazzi, L; Cassano, E; Decensi, A; Bellomi, M; Bonanni, B; Feroce, I; Villa, G; Bazzocchi, M; Bestagno, A; Francescutti, G; Pensabene, M; Capuano, I; Brizzi, D; Battista, P; Cama, A; Carriero, A; Mariani-Costantini, R; Palka, G; Ciccozzi, A; Colista, F; Fiumara, C; Lelli, S; Mancini, M; Masciocchi, C; Ricevuto, E; Amoroso, A; Dellach, C; Mustacchi, G; Pozzi-Mucelli, R; De Gaspari, A; Fedele, I
Articolo su rivista
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2108/309263
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 66
  • Scopus 305
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 258
social impact