Performance Measures of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Plus Mammography in the High Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program.
Journal
Journal of the National Cancer Institute
ISSN: 1460-2105
Titre abrégé: J Natl Cancer Inst
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7503089
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 02 2020
01 02 2020
Historique:
received:
04
10
2018
revised:
11
03
2019
accepted:
16
04
2019
pubmed:
25
6
2019
medline:
11
8
2020
entrez:
25
6
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The Ontario Breast Screening Program expanded in July 2011 to screen high-risk women age 30-69 years with annual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and digital mammography. This study examined the benefits of screening with mammography and MRI by age and risk criteria. This prospective cohort study included 8782 women age 30-69 years referred to the High Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program from July 2011 to June 2015, with final results to December 2016. Cancer detection rates, sensitivity, and specificity of MRI and mammography combined were compared with each modality individually within risk groups stratified by age using generalized estimating equation models. Prognostic features of screen-detected breast cancers were compared by modality using Fisher exact test. All P values are two-sided. Among 20 053 screening episodes, there were 280 screen-detected breast cancers (cancer detection rate = 14.0 per 1000, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 12.4 to 15.7). The sensitivity of mammography was statistically significantly lower than that of MRI plus mammography (40.8%, 95% CI = 29.3% to 53.5% vs 96.0%, 95% CI = 92.2% to 98.0%, P < .001). In mutation carriers age 30-39 years, sensitivity of the combination was comparable with MRI alone (100.0% vs 96.8%, 95% CI = 79.2% to 100.0%, P = .99) but with statistically significantly decreased specificity (78.0%, 95% CI = 74.7% to 80.9% vs 86.2%, 95% CI = 83.5% to 88.5%, P < .001). In women age 50-69 years, combining MRI and mammography statistically significantly increased sensitivity compared with MRI alone (96.3%, 95% CI = 90.6% to 98.6% vs 90.9%, 95% CI = 83.6% to 95.1%, P = .02), with a small but statistically significant decrease in specificity (84.2%, 95% CI = 83.1% to 85.2% vs 90.0%, 95% CI = 89.2% to 90.9%, P < .001). Screening high risk women age 30-39 years with annual MRI only may be sufficient for cancer detection and should be evaluated further, particularly for mutation carriers. Among women age 50-69 years, detection is most effective when mammography is included with annual MRI.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The Ontario Breast Screening Program expanded in July 2011 to screen high-risk women age 30-69 years with annual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and digital mammography. This study examined the benefits of screening with mammography and MRI by age and risk criteria.
METHODS
This prospective cohort study included 8782 women age 30-69 years referred to the High Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program from July 2011 to June 2015, with final results to December 2016. Cancer detection rates, sensitivity, and specificity of MRI and mammography combined were compared with each modality individually within risk groups stratified by age using generalized estimating equation models. Prognostic features of screen-detected breast cancers were compared by modality using Fisher exact test. All P values are two-sided.
RESULTS
Among 20 053 screening episodes, there were 280 screen-detected breast cancers (cancer detection rate = 14.0 per 1000, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 12.4 to 15.7). The sensitivity of mammography was statistically significantly lower than that of MRI plus mammography (40.8%, 95% CI = 29.3% to 53.5% vs 96.0%, 95% CI = 92.2% to 98.0%, P < .001). In mutation carriers age 30-39 years, sensitivity of the combination was comparable with MRI alone (100.0% vs 96.8%, 95% CI = 79.2% to 100.0%, P = .99) but with statistically significantly decreased specificity (78.0%, 95% CI = 74.7% to 80.9% vs 86.2%, 95% CI = 83.5% to 88.5%, P < .001). In women age 50-69 years, combining MRI and mammography statistically significantly increased sensitivity compared with MRI alone (96.3%, 95% CI = 90.6% to 98.6% vs 90.9%, 95% CI = 83.6% to 95.1%, P = .02), with a small but statistically significant decrease in specificity (84.2%, 95% CI = 83.1% to 85.2% vs 90.0%, 95% CI = 89.2% to 90.9%, P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS
Screening high risk women age 30-39 years with annual MRI only may be sufficient for cancer detection and should be evaluated further, particularly for mutation carriers. Among women age 50-69 years, detection is most effective when mammography is included with annual MRI.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31233143
pii: 5522370
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djz079
pmc: PMC7019092
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
136-144Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Références
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Apr 1;33(10):1128-35
pubmed: 25713430
Ann Intern Med. 2008 May 6;148(9):671-9
pubmed: 18458280
J Clin Oncol. 2005 Nov 20;23(33):8469-76
pubmed: 16293877
Mol Genet Genomic Med. 2018 Mar;6(2):213-223
pubmed: 29368425
Br J Cancer. 2016 Mar 15;114(6):631-7
pubmed: 26908327
Stat Med. 1995 Mar 15-Apr 15;14(5-7):491-8
pubmed: 7792443
Radiology. 2011 Apr;259(1):65-71
pubmed: 21325032
JAMA. 2003 Jul 23;290(4):465-75
pubmed: 12876089
Am J Hum Genet. 2003 May;72(5):1117-30
pubmed: 12677558
Eur J Cancer. 2012 Dec;48(18):3355-77
pubmed: 23116682
Lancet. 2005 May 21-27;365(9473):1769-78
pubmed: 15910949
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Jun 20;31(18):2282-8
pubmed: 23610104
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Apr 10;25(11):1329-33
pubmed: 17416853
Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2010;10(3):1-55
pubmed: 23074406
Cancer. 2013 Feb 1;119(3):495-503
pubmed: 22952042
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012 Apr;132(2):723-8
pubmed: 22179927
Int J Cancer. 1997 May 29;71(5):800-9
pubmed: 9180149
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Nov 1;31(31):3997-4013
pubmed: 24101045
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Jul 20;32(21):2224-30
pubmed: 24934793
Stat Med. 2004 Apr 15;23(7):1111-30
pubmed: 15057881
Br J Cancer. 2004 Oct 18;91(8):1580-90
pubmed: 15381934
Eur J Cancer. 2017 Nov;85:31-38
pubmed: 28886475
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007 May;102(3):357-63
pubmed: 17051427
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010 Jul;134(7):e48-72
pubmed: 20586616
Lancet Oncol. 2013 Dec;14(13):e621-9
pubmed: 24275135
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Dec 20;28(36):5265-73
pubmed: 21079137
CA Cancer J Clin. 2007 Mar-Apr;57(2):75-89
pubmed: 17392385
Invest Radiol. 2011 Feb;46(2):94-105
pubmed: 21139507
Cancer. 2014 Aug 15;120(16):2507-13
pubmed: 24888639
Ann Intern Med. 2010 Apr 6;152(7):444-55; W144-54
pubmed: 20368650
J Clin Oncol. 2011 May 1;29(13):1664-9
pubmed: 21444874
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2009 Nov;7(10):1060-96
pubmed: 19930975
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000 Jul 5;92(13):1081-7
pubmed: 10880551
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Feb 1;33(4):349-56
pubmed: 25534390
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010 Dec;124(3):643-51
pubmed: 20204502
Acad Radiol. 2008 Dec;15(12):1590-5
pubmed: 19000876
Clin Imaging. 2007 Nov-Dec;31(6):394-400
pubmed: 17996602
Lancet. 2001 Oct 27;358(9291):1389-99
pubmed: 11705483
Histopathology. 1991 Nov;19(5):403-10
pubmed: 1757079
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007;131(1):18-43
pubmed: 19548375
Br J Cancer. 2012 Jun 26;107(1):24-30
pubmed: 22588560
Radiology. 2007 Aug;244(2):381-8
pubmed: 17641362
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Mar 20;28(9):1450-7
pubmed: 20177029
Nat Rev Cancer. 2004 Sep;4(9):665-76
pubmed: 15343273