5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Abbreviated breast MRI for screening women with dense breast: the EA1141 trial

      review-article
      The British Journal of Radiology
      The British Institute of Radiology.

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Early diagnosis improves survival of females with breast cancer. Mammographic screening improves early diagnosis of breast cancer. And yet, there appears to be room for improvement. Major shortcomings of mammographic screening are overdiagnosis of prognostically unimportant cancer, as well as underdiagnosis of cancers that are indeed relevant. Failure to detect biologically relevant breast cancer with mammographic screening is driven not only by host-related factors, i.e. breast tissue density, but also by tumour-related factors: Biologically relevant cancers may exhibit imaging features that render them indistinguishable from normal or benign breast tissue on mammography. These cancers will then progress to become the advanced-stage interval cancers observed in females undergoing mammographic screening. Since breast cancer continues to represent a major cause of cancer death in females, the search for improved breast cancer screening method continues. Abbreviated breast MRI has been proposed for this purpose because it will greatly reduce the cost associated with this method, due to a greatly reduced magnet time (down to 3 min), but especially also due to a greatly abridged image interpretation time, i.e. radiologist reading time. This commentary reviews the current situation and presents the EA1141 trial designed to investigate the utility of abbreviated breast MRI for screening average-risk females with dense breast tissue.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Benefits and Harms of Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.

          Patients need to consider both benefits and harms of breast cancer screening.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography.

            Mammography plays a key role in early breast cancer detection. Single-institution studies have shown that adding tomosynthesis to mammography increases cancer detection and reduces false-positive results. To determine if mammography combined with tomosynthesis is associated with better performance of breast screening programs in the United States. Retrospective analysis of screening performance metrics from 13 academic and nonacademic breast centers using mixed models adjusting for site as a random effect. Period 1: digital mammography screening examinations 1 year before tomosynthesis implementation (start dates ranged from March 2010 to October 2011 through the date of tomosynthesis implementation); period 2: digital mammography plus tomosynthesis examinations from initiation of tomosynthesis screening (March 2011 to October 2012) through December 31, 2012. Recall rate for additional imaging, cancer detection rate, and positive predictive values for recall and for biopsy. A total of 454,850 examinations (n=281,187 digital mammography; n=173,663 digital mammography + tomosynthesis) were evaluated. With digital mammography, 29,726 patients were recalled and 5056 biopsies resulted in cancer diagnosis in 1207 patients (n=815 invasive; n=392 in situ). With digital mammography + tomosynthesis, 15,541 patients were recalled and 3285 biopsies resulted in cancer diagnosis in 950 patients (n=707 invasive; n=243 in situ). Model-adjusted rates per 1000 screens were as follows: for recall rate, 107 (95% CI, 89-124) with digital mammography vs 91 (95% CI, 73-108) with digital mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, -16 (95% CI, -18 to -14; P < .001); for biopsies, 18.1 (95% CI, 15.4-20.8) with digital mammography vs 19.3 (95% CI, 16.6-22.1) with digital mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, 1.3 (95% CI, 0.4-2.1; P = .004); for cancer detection, 4.2 (95% CI, 3.8-4.7) with digital mammography vs 5.4 (95% CI, 4.9-6.0) with digital mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, 1.2 (95% CI, 0.8-1.6; P < .001); and for invasive cancer detection, 2.9 (95% CI, 2.5-3.2) with digital mammography vs 4.1 (95% CI, 3.7-4.5) with digital mammography + tomosynthesis; difference, 1.2 (95% CI, 0.8-1.6; P < .001). The in situ cancer detection rate was 1.4 (95% CI, 1.2-1.6) per 1000 screens with both methods. Adding tomosynthesis was associated with an increase in the positive predictive value for recall from 4.3% to 6.4% (difference, 2.1%; 95% CI, 1.7%-2.5%; P < .001) and for biopsy from 24.2% to 29.2% (difference, 5.0%; 95% CI, 3.0%-7.0%; P < .001). Addition of tomosynthesis to digital mammography was associated with a decrease in recall rate and an increase in cancer detection rate. Further studies are needed to assess the relationship to clinical outcomes.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Abbreviated breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): first postcontrast subtracted images and maximum-intensity projection-a novel approach to breast cancer screening with MRI.

              We investigated whether an abbreviated protocol (AP), consisting of only one pre- and one postcontrast acquisition and their derived images (first postcontrast subtracted [FAST] and maximum-intensity projection [MIP] images), was suitable for breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Br J Radiol
                Br J Radiol
                bjr
                The British Journal of Radiology
                The British Institute of Radiology.
                0007-1285
                1748-880X
                October 2018
                27 October 2017
                : 91
                : 1090
                : 20170441
                Affiliations
                [1]org-divisionDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Aachen, RWTH , Aachen, Germany
                Author notes
                Address correspondence to: Prof. Christiane K Kuhl E-mail: ckuhl@ 123456ukaachen.de
                Article
                BJR-D-17-00441
                10.1259/bjr.20170441
                6350487
                28749202
                8992bf7b-bbfb-44e9-9939-cb77f03b66aa
                © 2017 The Authors. Published by the British Institute of Radiology

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 Unported License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/, which permits unrestricted non-commercial reuse, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 12 June 2017
                : 13 July 2017
                : 19 July 2017
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 0, References: 32, Pages: 6
                Categories
                The role of imaging in screening special feature: Commentary
                bjr, BJR
                brst, Breast

                Radiology & Imaging
                Radiology & Imaging

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content125

                Cited by20

                Most referenced authors668