Cost-effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening With Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Women at Familial Risk.

Importance: For women with a 20% or more familial risk of breast cancer without a known BRCA1/2 (BRCA1, OMIM 113705; and BRCA2, OMIM 114480) or TP53 (OMIM 151623) variant, screening guidelines vary substantially, and cost-effectiveness analyses are scarce. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening strategies for women with a 20% or more familial risk for breast cancer without a known BRCA1/2 or TP53 variant. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation, conducted from February 1, 2019, to May 25, 2020, microsimulation modeling was used to estimate costs and effectiveness on a lifetime horizon from age 25 years until death of MRI screening among a cohort of 10 million Dutch women with a 20% or more familial risk for breast cancer without a known BRCA1/2 or TP53 variant. A Dutch screening setting was modeled. Most data were obtained from the randomized Familial MRI Screening (FaMRIsc) trial, which included Dutch women aged 30 to 55 years. A health care payer perspective was applied. Interventions: Several screening protocols with varying ages and intervals including those of the randomized FaMRIsc trial, consisting of the mammography (Mx) protocol (annual mammography and clinical breast examination) and the MRI protocol (annual MRI and clinical breast examination plus biennial mammography). Main Outcomes and Measures: Costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and discounted by 3%. A threshold of €22 000 (US $24 795.87) per QALY was applied. Results: This economic evaluation modeling study estimated that, on a lifetime horizon per 1000 women with the Mx protocol of the FaMRIsc trial, 346 breast cancers would be detected, and 49 women were estimated to die from breast cancer, resulting in 22 885 QALYs and total costs of €7 084 767 (US $7 985 134.61). The MRI protocol resulted in 79 additional QALYs and additional €2 657 266 (US $2 994 964.65). Magnetic resonance imaging performed only every 18 months between the ages of 35 and 60 years followed by the national screening program was considered optimal, with an ICER of €21 380 (US $24 097.08) compared with the previous nondominated strategy in the ranking, when applying the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold. Annual screening alternating MRI and mammography between the ages of 35 and 60 years, followed by the national screening program, gave similar outcomes. Higher thresholds would favor annual MRI screening. The ICER was most sensitive to the unit cost of MRI and the utility value for ductal carcinoma in situ and localized breast cancer. Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that MRI screening every 18 months between the ages of 35 and 60 years for women with a family history of breast cancer is cost-effective within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold for all densities. Higher thresholds would favor annual MRI screening. These outcomes support a change of current screening guidelines for this specific risk group and support MRI screening.

MRI versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women with familial risk (FaMRIsc): a multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 15% of all breast cancers occur in women with a family history of breast cancer, but for whom no causative hereditary gene mutation has been found. Screening guidelines for women with familial risk of breast cancer differ between countries. We did a randomised controlled trial (FaMRIsc) to compare MRI screening with mammography in women with familial risk. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, controlled trial done in 12 hospitals in the Netherlands, women were eligible to participate if they were aged 30-55 years and had a cumulative lifetime breast cancer risk of at least 20% because of a familial predisposition, but were BRCA1, BRCA2, and TP53 wild-type. Participants who were breast-feeding, pregnant, had a previous breast cancer screen, or had a previous a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ were eligible, but those with a previously diagnosed invasive carcinoma were excluded. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either annual MRI and clinical breast examination plus biennial mammography (MRI group) or annual mammography and clinical breast examination (mammography group). Randomisation was done via a web-based system and stratified by centre. Women who did not provide consent for randomisation could give consent for registration if they followed either the mammography group protocol or the MRI group protocol in a joint decision with their physician. Results from the registration group were only used in the analyses stratified by breast density. Primary outcomes were number, size, and nodal status of detected breast cancers. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, number NL2661. FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2011, and Dec 31, 2017, 1355 women provided consent for randomisation and 231 for registration. 675 of 1355 women were randomly allocated to the MRI group and 680 to the mammography group. 218 of 231 women opting to be in a registration group were in the mammography registration group and 13 were in the MRI registration group. The mean number of screening rounds per woman was 4·3 (SD 1·76). More breast cancers were detected in the MRI group than in the mammography group (40 vs 15; p=0·0017). Invasive cancers (24 in the MRI group and eight in the mammography group) were smaller in the MRI group than in the mammography group (median size 9 mm [5-14] vs 17 mm [13-22]; p=0·010) and less frequently node positive (four [17%] of 24 vs five [63%] of eight; p=0·023). Tumour stages of the cancers detected at incident rounds were significantly earlier in the MRI group (12 [48%] of 25 in the MRI group vs one [7%] of 15 in the mammography group were stage T1a and T1b cancers; one (4%) of 25 in the MRI group and two (13%) of 15 in the mammography group were stage T2 or higher; p=0·035) and node-positive tumours were less frequent (two [11%] of 18 in the MRI group vs five [63%] of eight in the mammography group; p=0·014). All seven tumours stage T2 or higher were in the two highest breast density categories (breast imaging reporting and data system categories C and D; p=0·0077) One patient died from breast cancer during follow-up (mammography registration group). INTERPRETATION: MRI screening detected cancers at an earlier stage than mammography. The lower number of late-stage cancers identified in incident rounds might reduce the use of adjuvant chemotherapy and decrease breast cancer-related mortality. However, the advantages of the MRI screening approach might be at the cost of more false-positive results, especially at high breast density. FUNDING: Dutch Government ZonMw, Dutch Cancer Society, A Sister's Hope, Pink Ribbon, Stichting Coolsingel, J&T Rijke Stichting.

Effect of computed tomography number-relative electron density conversion curve on the calculation of radiotherapy dose and evaluation of Monaco radiotherapy treatment planning system.

The accuracy of a computed tomography (CT)-relative electron density (RED) curve may have an indirect impact on the accuracy of dose calculation by a treatment planning system (TPS). This effect has not been previously quantified for input of different CT-RED curves from different CT-scan units in the Monaco TPS. This study aims to evaluate the effect of CT-RED curve on the dose calculation by the Monaco radiotherapy TPS. Four CT images of the CIRS phantom were obtained by different CT scanners. The accuracy of the dose calculation in the three algorithms of the Monaco TPS (Monte Carlo, collapse cone, and pencil beam) is also evaluated based on TECDOC 1583. The CT-RED curves from the CT scanners were transferred to the Monaco TPS to audit the different algorithms of the TPS. The dose values were measured with an ionization chamber in the CIRS phantom. Then, the dose values were calculated by the Monaco algorithms in the corresponding points. For the Monaco TPS and based on TECDOC 1583, the accuracy of the dose calculation in all the three algorithms is within the agreement criteria for most of the points evaluated. For low dose regions, the differences between the calculated and measured dose values are higher than the agreement criteria in a number of points. For the majority of the points, the algorithms underestimate the calculated dose values. It was also found that the use of different CT-RED curves can lead to minor discrepancies in the dose calculation by the Monaco TPS, especially in low dose regions. However, it appears that these differences are not clinically significant in most of the cases.

Correction: MicroRNA expression in pre-treatment plasma of patients with benign breast diseases and breast cancer.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.25262.].

Breast conserving therapy and mastectomy revisited: Breast cancer-specific survival and the influence of prognostic factors in 129,692 patients.

This large population-based study compared breast-conserving surgery with radiation therapy (BCT) with mastectomy on (long-term) breast cancer-specific (BCSS) and overall survival (OS), and investigated the influence of several prognostic factors. Patients with primary T1-2N0-2M0 breast cancer, diagnosed between 1999 and 2012, were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. We investigated the 1999-2005 (long-term outcome) and the 2006-2012 cohort (contemporary adjuvant systemic therapy). Cause of death was derived from the Statistics Netherlands (CBS). Multivariable analyses, per time cohort, were performed in T1-2N0-2, and separately in T1-2N0-1 and T1-2N2 stages. The T1-2N0-1 stages were further stratified for age, hormonal receptor and HER2 status, adjuvant systemic therapy and comorbidity. In total, 129,692 patients were included. In the 1999-2005 cohort, better BCSS and OS for BCT than mastectomy was seen in all subgroups, except in patients < 40 years with T1-2N0-1 stage. In the 2006-2012 cohort, superior BCSS and OS were found for T1-2N0-1, but not for T1-2N2. Subgroup analyses for T1-2N0-1 showed superior BCSS and OS for BCT in patients >50 years, not treated with chemotherapy and with comorbidity. Both treatments led to similar BCSS in patients <50 years, without comorbidity and those treated with chemotherapy. Although confounding by severity and residual confounding cannot be excluded, this study showed better long-term BCSS for BCT than mastectomy. Even with more contemporary diagnostics and therapies we identified several subgroups that may benefit from BCT. Our results support the hypothesis that BCT might be preferred in most breast cancer patients when both treatments are suitable.

Accuracy of screening women at familial risk of breast cancer without a known gene mutation: Individual patient data meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Women with a strong family history of breast cancer (BC) and without a known gene mutation have an increased risk of developing BC. We aimed to investigate the accuracy of screening using annual mammography with or without magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for these women outside the general population screening program. METHODS: An individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis was conducted using IPD from six prospective screening trials that had included women at increased risk for BC: only women with a strong familial risk for BC and without a known gene mutation were included in this analysis. A generalised linear mixed model was applied to estimate and compare screening accuracy (sensitivity, specificity and predictive values) for annual mammography with or without MRI. RESULTS: There were 2226 women (median age: 41 years, interquartile range 35-47) with 7478 woman-years of follow-up, with a BC rate of 12 (95% confidence interval 9.3-14) in 1000 woman-years. Mammography screening had a sensitivity of 55% (standard error of mean [SE] 7.0) and a specificity of 94% (SE 1.3). Screening with MRI alone had a sensitivity of 89% (SE 4.6) and a specificity of 83% (SE 2.8). Adding MRI to mammography increased sensitivity to 98% (SE 1.8, P < 0.01 compared to mammography alone) but lowered specificity to 79% (SE 2.7, P < 0.01 compared with mammography alone). CONCLUSION: In this population of women with strong familial BC risk but without a known gene mutation, in whom BC incidence was high both before and after age 50, adding MRI to mammography substantially increased screening sensitivity but also decreased its specificity.

[Influence of tumour stage at breast cancer detection on survival in modern times: population based study in 173,797 patients]. / De invloed nu van tumorstadium op overleving na borstkanker.

OBJECTIVE: To assess influence of stage at breast cancer diagnosis, tumour biology, and therapy on survival in contemporary times of better (neo-)adjuvant systemic therapy. DESIGN: Prospective nationwide population based study. METHOD: Female primary breast cancer patients diagnosed between 1999 and 2012 (173,797). Participants were subdivided into two time cohorts on the basis of breast cancer diagnosis; 1999 through 2005 (n = 80,228) and 2006 through 2012 (n = 93,569). Main outcome measures were relative survival, compared between both cohorts, and the influence of traditional prognostic factors on overall mortality, analyzed with Cox regression for both cohorts separately. RESULTS: Compared to 1999-2005 patients from 2006-2012 had smaller ( ≤ T1 65 vs. 60%; p < 0.001), more often lymph node negative (N0 68 vs. 65%; p < 0.001) tumours, but they received more chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, and targeted therapy (neo-adjuvant/adjuvant systemic therapy 60 vs. 53%; p < 0.001). Median follow-up was 9.8 years for 1999-2005 and 3.9 years for 2006-2012. Relative 5-years survival rate was 96% in 2006-2012, improved in all tumour and nodal stages compared to 1999-2005, and 100% in tumours ≤ 1 cm. With multivariable analyses, adjusted for age and tumour type, overall mortality decreased by surgery (especially breast conserving), radiotherapy and systemic therapies. Mortality increased with progressing tumour size in both cohorts (2006-2012 T1c vs. T1a HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.78), but without significant difference in invasive breast cancers until 1 cm (2006-2012 T1b vs. T1a HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.22), and independently with progressing number of positive lymph nodes (2006-2012 N1 vs. N0 HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.32). CONCLUSION: Tumour stage at breast cancer diagnosis influences overall survival significantly also in the current era of effective systemic therapy. Early tumour stage at breast cancer diagnosis remains vital.

Contribution of mammography to MRI screening in BRCA mutation carriers by BRCA status and age: individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the additional contribution of mammography to screening accuracy in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers screened with MRI at different ages using individual patient data from six high-risk screening trials. METHODS: Sensitivity and specificity of MRI, mammography and the combination of these tests were compared stratified for BRCA mutation and age using generalised linear mixed models with random effect for studies. Number of screens needed (NSN) for additional mammography-only detected cancer was estimated. RESULTS: In BRCA1/2 mutation carriers of all ages (BRCA1 = 1,219 and BRCA2 = 732), adding mammography to MRI did not significantly increase screening sensitivity (increased by 3.9% in BRCA1 and 12.6% in BRCA2 mutation carriers, P > 0.05). However, in women with BRCA2 mutation younger than 40 years, one-third of breast cancers were detected by mammography only. Number of screens needed for mammography to detect one breast cancer not detected by MRI was much higher for BRCA1 compared with BRCA2 mutation carriers at initial and repeat screening. CONCLUSIONS: Additional screening sensitivity from mammography above that from MRI is limited in BRCA1 mutation carriers, whereas mammography contributes to screening sensitivity in BRCA2 mutation carriers, especially those ⩽ 40 years. The evidence from our work highlights that a differential screening schedule by BRCA status is worth considering.

Influence of tumour stage at breast cancer detection on survival in modern times: population based study in 173,797 patients.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the influence of stage at breast cancer diagnosis, tumour biology, and treatment on survival in contemporary times of better (neo-)adjuvant systemic therapy. DESIGN: Prospective nationwide population based study. SETTING: Nationwide Netherlands Cancer Registry. PARTICIPANTS: Female patients with primary breast cancer diagnosed between 1999 and 2012 (n=173,797), subdivided into two time cohorts on the basis of breast cancer diagnosis: 1999-2005 (n=80,228) and 2006-12 (n=93,569). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Relative survival was compared between the two cohorts. Influence of traditional prognostic factors on overall mortality was analysed with Cox regression for each cohort separately. RESULTS: Compared with 1999-2005, patients from 2006-12 had smaller (≤ T1 65% (n=60,570) v 60% (n=48,031); P<0.001), more often lymph node negative (N0 68% (n=63,544) v 65% (n=52,238); P<0.001) tumours, but they received more chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, and targeted therapy (neo-adjuvant/adjuvant systemic therapy 60% (n=56,402) v 53% (n=42,185); P<0.001). Median follow-up was 9.8 years for 1999-2005 and 3.9 years for 2006-12. The relative five year survival rate in 2006-12 was 96%, improved in all tumour and nodal stages compared with 1999-2005, and 100% in tumours ≤ 1 cm. In multivariable analyses adjusted for age and tumour type, overall mortality was decreased by surgery (especially breast conserving), radiotherapy, and systemic therapies. Mortality increased with progressing tumour size in both cohorts (2006-12 T1c v T1a: hazard ratio 1.54, 95% confidence interval 1.33 to 1.78), but without a significant difference in invasive breast cancers until 1 cm (2006-12 T1b v T1a: hazard ratio 1.04, 0.88 to 1.22), and independently with progressing number of positive lymph nodes (2006-12 N1 v N0: 1.25, 1.17 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS: Tumour stage at diagnosis of breast cancer still influences overall survival significantly in the current era of effective systemic therapy. Diagnosis of breast cancer at an early tumour stage remains vital.

Survival benefit in women with BRCA1 mutation or familial risk in the MRI screening study (MRISC).

Adding MRI to annual mammography screening improves early breast cancer detection in women with familial risk or BRCA1/2 mutation, but breast cancer specific metastasis free survival (MFS) remains unknown. We compared MFS of patients from the largest prospective MRI Screening Study (MRISC) with 1:1 matched controls. Controls, unscreened if<50 years, and screened with biennial mammography if ≥50 years, were matched on risk category (BRCA1, BRCA2, familial risk), year and age of diagnosis. Of 2,308 MRISC participants, breast cancer was detected in 93 (97 breast cancers), who received MRI <2 years before breast cancer diagnosis; 33 BRCA1 mutation carriers, 18 BRCA2 mutation carriers, and 42 with familial risk. MRISC patients had smaller (87% vs. 52%

Relevance and efficacy of breast cancer screening in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers above 60 years: a national cohort study.

Annual MRI and mammography is recommended for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers to reduce breast cancer mortality. Less intensive screening is advised ≥60 years, although effectiveness is unknown. We identified BRCA1/2 mutation carriers without bilateral mastectomy before age 60 to determine for whom screening ≥60 is relevant, in the Rotterdam Family Cancer Clinic and HEBON: a nationwide prospective cohort study. Furthermore, we compared tumour stage at breast cancer diagnosis between different screening strategies in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers ≥60. Tumours >2 cm, positive lymph nodes, or distant metastases at detection were defined as "unfavourable." Of 548 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers ≥60 years in 2012, 395 (72%) did not have bilateral mastectomy before the age of 60. Of these 395, 224 (57%) had a history of breast or other invasive carcinoma. In 136 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, we compared 148 breast cancers (including interval cancers) detected ≥60, of which 84 (57%) were first breast cancers. With biennial mammography 53% (30/57) of carcinomas were detected in unfavourable stage, compared to 21% (12/56) with annual mammography (adjusted odds ratio: 4·07, 95% confidence interval [1.79-9.28], p = 0.001). With biennial screening 40% of breast cancers were interval cancers, compared to 20% with annual screening (p = 0.016). Results remained significant for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, and first breast cancers separately. Over 70% of 60-year old BRCA1/2 mutation carriers remain at risk for breast cancer, of which half has prior cancers. When life expectancy is good, continuation of annual breast cancer screening of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers ≥60 is worthwhile.

[Choices for women at risk of hereditary breast cancer]. / Keuzes bij erfelijk risico op borstkanker.

In this article, we describe a woman diagnosed as being a BRCA1 mutation carrier at 32 years of age and a BRCA2 mutation carrier diagnosed at age 63 who each opted for MRI screening instead of a preventive mastectomy. In both women, breast cancer was detected by MRI: not visible on the mammogram, < 1 cm and node negative. Both women opted for breast-conserving treatment. We compare their screening strategies and therapy choices with those of a woman with a familial risk who was diagnosed with breast cancer at age 52. We also discuss the relevant literature. For BRCA1/2-mutation carriers, bilateral preventive oophorectomy, combined with either MRI screening or a bilateral preventive mastectomy, can contribute considerably to a better life expectancy. Both options are nearly equally effective. Breast-conserving treatment can be a safe choice for young BRCA1/2 mutation carriers despite a 40% risk of contralateral cancer within 10 years and possibly a higher risk of developing a second ipsilateral cancer. The contribution of mammography to early breast cancer detection is small for MRI-screened BRCA1 carriers below 40 years of age; less than 10% according to the current literature. The high tumour growth rate and high breast cancer incidence in BRCA1/2 carriers above the age of 60 are arguments to screen more frequently than the current mammogram every 2 years. The optimal screening strategy for women with a familial risk either yearly MRI or mammogram - is still unknown and is being investigated in a randomized controlled trial (www.famrisc.nl). The age of onset of breast cancer is determined by both family history and risk group. If known, the ages of family members at diagnosis may assist in determining at what age preventive measures should be started for high-risk women.

Cost-effectiveness of screening women with familial risk for breast cancer with magnetic resonance imaging.

BACKGROUND: To reduce mortality, women with a family history of breast cancer are often screened with mammography before age 50 years. Additional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) improves sensitivity and is cost-effective for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. However, for women with a family history without a proven mutation, cost-effectiveness is unclear. METHODS: We evaluated data of the largest prospective MRI screening study (MRISC). Between 1999 and 2007, 1597 women (8370 woman-years at risk) aged 25 to 70 years with an estimated cumulative lifetime risk of 15% to 50% for breast cancer were screened with clinical breast examination every 6 months and with annual mammography and MRI. We calculated the cost per detected and treated breast cancer. After incorporating MRISC data into a microsimulation screening analysis model (MISCAN), different schemes were evaluated, and cost per life-year gained (LYG) was estimated in comparison with the Dutch nationwide breast cancer screening program (biennial mammography from age 50 to 75 years). All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Forty-seven breast cancers (9 ductal carcinoma in situ) were detected. Screening with additional MRI costs $123 672 (€93 639) per detected breast cancer. In increasing age-cohorts, costs per detected and treated breast cancer decreased, but, unexpectedly, the percentage of MRI-only detected cancers increased. Screening under the MRISC-scheme from age 35 to 50 years was estimated to reduce breast cancer mortality by 25% at $134 932 (€102 164) per LYG (3.5% discounting) compared with 17% mortality reduction at $54 665 (€41 390) per LYG with mammography only. CONCLUSIONS: Screening with MRI may improve survival for women with familial risk for breast cancer but is expensive, especially in the youngest age categories.

Addition of interferon-α to the p53-SLP® vaccine results in increased production of interferon-γ in vaccinated colorectal cancer patients: a phase I/II clinical trial.

We previously established safety and immunogenicity of a p53 synthetic long peptides (p53-SLP®) vaccine. In the current trial, we investigated whether combination of interferon-alpha (IFN-α) with p53-SLP® is both safe and able to improve the induced p53-specific IFN-γ response. Eleven colorectal cancer patients successfully treated for metastatic disease were enrolled in this study. Of these, nine patients completed follow-up after two injections with p53-SLP® together with IFN-α. Safety and p53-specific immune responses were determined before and after vaccination. Furthermore, cryopreserved PBMCs were compared head-to-head to cryopreserved PBMCs obtained in our previous trial with p53-SLP® only. Toxicity of p53-SLP® vaccination in combination with IFN-α was limited to Grade 1 or 2, with predominantly small ongoing swellings at the vaccination site. All patients harbored p53-specific T cells after vaccination and most patients showed p53-specific antibodies. Compared to the previous trial, addition of IFN-α significantly improved the frequency of p53-specific T cells in IFN-γ ELISPOT. Moreover, in this trial, p53-specific T cells were detectable in blood samples of all patients in a direct ex vivo multiparameter flowcytometric assay, opposed to only 2 of 10 patients vaccinated with p53-SLP® only. Finally, patients in this trial displayed a broader p53-specific immunoglobulin-G response, indicating an overall better p53-specific T-helper response. Our study shows that p53-SLP® vaccination combined with IFN-α injection is safe and capable of inducing p53-specific immunity. When compared to a similar trial with p53-SLP® vaccination alone the combination was found to induce significantly more IFN-γ producing p53-specific T cells.

Breast density as indicator for the use of mammography or MRI to screen women with familial risk for breast cancer (FaMRIsc): a multicentre randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: To reduce mortality, women with a family history of breast cancer often start mammography screening at a younger age than the general population. Breast density is high in over 50% of women younger than 50 years. With high breast density, breast cancer incidence increases, but sensitivity of mammography decreases. Therefore, mammography might not be the optimal method for breast cancer screening in young women. Adding MRI increases sensitivity, but also the risk of false-positive results. The limitation of all previous MRI screening studies is that they do not contain a comparison group; all participants received both MRI and mammography. Therefore, we cannot empirically assess in which stage tumours would have been detected by either test.The aim of the Familial MRI Screening Study (FaMRIsc) is to compare the efficacy of MRI screening to mammography for women with a familial risk. Furthermore, we will assess the influence of breast density. METHODS/DESIGN: This Dutch multicentre, randomized controlled trial, with balanced randomisation (1:1) has a parallel grouped design. Women with a cumulative lifetime risk for breast cancer due to their family history of ≥20%, aged 30-55 years are eligible. Identified BRCA1/2 mutation carriers or women with 50% risk of carrying a mutation are excluded. Group 1 receives yearly mammography and clinical breast examination (n = 1000), and group 2 yearly MRI and clinical breast examination, and mammography biennially (n = 1000).Primary endpoints are the number and stage of the detected breast cancers in each arm. Secondary endpoints are the number of false-positive results in both screening arms. Furthermore, sensitivity and positive predictive value of both screening strategies will be assessed. Cost-effectiveness of both strategies will be assessed. Analyses will also be performed with mammographic density as stratification factor. DISCUSSION: Personalized breast cancer screening might optimize mortality reduction with less over diagnosis. Breast density may be a key discriminator for selecting the optimal screening strategy for women < 55 years with familial breast cancer risk; mammography or MRI. These issues are addressed in the FaMRIsc study including high risk women due to a familial predisposition. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherland Trial Register NTR2789.