Experiences, expectations and preferences regarding MRI and mammography as breast cancer screening tools in women at familial risk.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have investigated MRI breast cancer screening in women at increased risk, but little is known about their preferences. In this study, experiences, expectations and preferences for MRI and mammography were evaluated among women undergoing screening with MRI and/or mammography in the randomized FaMRIsc trial. METHODS: A 17-item questionnaire was sent to 412 women in the FaMRIsc trial. Participants were aged 30-55 years, had a ≥20% cumulative lifetime risk, but no BRCA1/2 or TP53 gene variant, and were screened outside the population-based screening program. Women received annual mammography (mammography-group), or annual MRI and biennial mammography (MRI-group). We asked whether women trust the screening outcome, what they consider as (dis)advantages, which screening they prefer and what they expect of the early detection by the screening tools. RESULTS: 255 (62%) women completed our questionnaire. The high chance of early cancer detection was the most important advantage of MRI screening (MRI-group: 95%; mammography-group: 74%), while this was also the main advantage of mammography (MRI-group: 57%; mammography-group: 72%). Most important disadvantages of MRI were the small tunnel and the contrast fluid (for 23-36%), and of mammography were its painfulness and X-radiation (for 48-60%). Almost the whole MRI-group and half the mammography-group preferred screening with MRI (either alone or with mammography). DISCUSSION: Most women would prefer screening with MRI. The way women think of MRI and mammography is influenced by the screening strategy they are undergoing. Our outcomes can be used for creating information brochures when MRI will be implemented for more women.

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.

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.].

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

BACKGROUND: MicroRNAs (miRs) are small RNA molecules, influencing messenger RNA (mRNA) expression and translation, and are readily detectable in blood. Some have been reported as potential breast cancer biomarkers. This study aimed to identify and validate miRs indicative of breast cancer. RESULTS: Based on the discovery and literature, 18 potentially informative miRs were quantified in the validation cohort. Irrespective of patient and tumour characteristics, hsa-miR-652-5p was significantly upregulated in the malignant compared to benign patients (1.26 fold, P = 0.005) and therefore validated as potential biomarker. In the validation cohort literature-based hsa-let-7b levels were higher in malignant patients as well (1.53 fold, P = 0.011). Two miRs differentiated benign wildtype from benign BRCA1 mutation carriers and an additional 8 miRs differentiated metastastic (n = 8) from non-metastatic (n = 41) cases in the validation cohort. METHODS: Pre-treatment plasma samples were collected of patients with benign breast disease and breast cancer and divided over a discovery (n = 31) and validation (n = 84) cohort. From the discovery cohort miRs differentially expressed between benign and malignant cases were identified using a 2,000-miR microarray. Literature-based miRs differentiating benign from malignant disease were added. Using RT-qPCR, their expression was investigated in a validation cohort consisting of pre-treatment benign, malignant and metastatic samples. Additionally, benign and malignant cases were compared to benign and malignant cases of BRCA1-mutation carriers. CONCLUSIONS: Plasma microRNA levels differed between patients with and without breast cancer, between benign disease from wildtype and BRCA1-mutation carriers and between breast cancer with and without metastases. Hsa-miR-652-5p was validated as a potential biomarker for breast cancer.

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.

Proteomic characterization of microdissected breast tissue environment provides a protein-level overview of malignant transformation.

Both healthy and cancerous breast tissue is heterogeneous, which is a bottleneck for proteomics-based biomarker analysis, as it obscures the cellular origin of a measured protein. We therefore aimed at obtaining a protein-level interpretation of malignant transformation through global proteome analysis of a variety of laser capture microdissected cells originating from benign and malignant breast tissues. We compared proteomic differences between these tissues, both from cells of epithelial origin and the stromal environment, and performed string analysis. Differences in protein abundances corresponded with several hallmarks of cancer, including loss of cell adhesion, transformation to a migratory phenotype, and enhanced energy metabolism. Furthermore, despite enriching for (tumor) epithelial cells, many changes to the extracellular matrix were detected in microdissected cells of epithelial origin. The stromal compartment was heterogeneous and richer in the number of fibroblast and immune cells in malignant sections, compared to benign tissue sections. Furthermore, stroma could be clearly divided into reactive and nonreactive based on extracellular matrix disassembly proteins. We conclude that proteomics analysis of both microdissected epithelium and stroma gives an additional layer of information and more detailed insight into malignant transformation.

Mammographic screening in BRCA1 mutation carriers postponed until age 40: Evaluation of benefits, costs and radiation risks using models.

PURPOSE: BRCA1 mutation carriers are offered screening with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and mammography. The aim of this study was to weigh benefits and risks of postponing mammographic screening until age 40. METHODS: With the MISCAN microsimulation model two screening protocols were evaluated: 1) the current Dutch guidelines: annual MRI from age 25-60, annual mammography from age 30-60, and biennial mammography in the nationwide program from age 60-74, and 2) the modified protocol: with annual mammography postponed until age 40. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed. The risks of radiation-induced breast cancer mortality were estimated with absolute and relative exposure-risk models of the 7th Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation Committee. RESULTS: Current screening guidelines prevent 13,139 breast cancer deaths per 100,000 BRCA1 mutation carriers. Postponing mammography until age 40 would increase breast cancer deaths by 23 (0.17%), but would also reduce radiation-induced breast cancer deaths by 15 or 105 using the absolute and relative risk model respectively per 100,000 women screened. The estimated net effect is an increase of eight or a reduction of 82 breast cancer deaths per 100,000 women screened (depending on the risk model used). The incremental cost of mammograms between age 30-39 is €272,900 per life year gained. CONCLUSIONS: The modified protocol may be slightly less effective or even better than the current guidelines. The high cost-savings justify a possible small loss of effectiveness.

[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.

Assessment of variation in immunosuppressive pathway genes reveals TGFBR2 to be associated with prognosis of estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer after chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Tumor lymphocyte infiltration is associated with clinical response to chemotherapy in estrogen receptor (ER) negative breast cancer. To identify variants in immunosuppressive pathway genes associated with prognosis after adjuvant chemotherapy for ER-negative patients, we studied stage I-III invasive breast cancer patients of European ancestry, including 9,334 ER-positive (3,151 treated with chemotherapy) and 2,334 ER-negative patients (1,499 treated with chemotherapy). METHODS: We pooled data from sixteen studies from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC), and employed two independent studies for replications. Overall 3,610 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 133 genes were genotyped as part of the Collaborative Oncological Gene-environment Study, in which phenotype and clinical data were collected and harmonized. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression was used to assess genetic associations with overall survival (OS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS). Heterogeneity according to chemotherapy or ER status was evaluated with the log-likelihood ratio test. RESULTS: Three independent SNPs in TGFBR2 and IL12B were associated with OS (P <10⁻³) solely in ER-negative patients after chemotherapy (267 events). Poorer OS associated with TGFBR2 rs1367610 (G > C) (per allele hazard ratio (HR) 1.54 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22 to 1.95), P = 3.08 × 10⁻4) was not found in ER-negative patients without chemotherapy or ER-positive patients with chemotherapy (P for interaction <10-3). Two SNPs in IL12B (r² = 0.20) showed different associations with ER-negative disease after chemotherapy: rs2546892 (G > A) with poorer OS (HR 1.50 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.86), P = 1.81 × 10⁻4), and rs2853694 (A > C) with improved OS (HR 0.73 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.87), P = 3.67 × 10⁻4). Similar associations were observed with BCSS. Association with TGFBR2 rs1367610 but not IL12B variants replicated using BCAC Asian samples and the independent Prospective Study of Outcomes in Sporadic versus Hereditary Breast Cancer Study and yielded a combined HR of 1.57 ((95% CI 1.28 to 1.94), P = 2.05 × 10⁻5) without study heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: TGFBR2 variants may have prognostic and predictive value in ER-negative breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy. Our findings provide further insights into the development of immunotherapeutic targets for ER-negative breast cancer.

Magnetic resonance imaging improves breast screening sensitivity in BRCA mutation carriers age ≥ 50 years: evidence from an individual patient data meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: There is no consensus on whether magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) should be included in breast screening protocols for women with BRCA1/2 mutations age ≥ 50 years. Therefore, we investigated the evidence on age-related screening accuracy in women with BRCA1/2 mutations using individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: IPD were pooled from six high-risk screening trials including women with BRCA1/2 mutations who had completed at least one screening round with both MRI and mammography. A generalized linear mixed model with repeated measurements and a random effect of studies estimated sensitivity and specificity of MRI, mammography, and the combination in all women and specifically in those age ≥ 50 years. RESULTS: Pooled analysis showed that in women age ≥ 50 years, screening sensitivity was not different from that in women age < 50 years, whereas screening specificity was. In women age ≥ 50 years, combining MRI and mammography significantly increased screening sensitivity compared with mammography alone (94.1%; 95% CI, 77.7% to 98.7% v 38.1%; 95% CI, 22.4% to 56.7%; P < .001). The combination was not significantly more sensitive than MRI alone (94.1%; 95% CI, 77.7% to 98.7% v 84.4%; 95% CI, 61.8% to 94.8%; P = .28). Combining MRI and mammography in women age ≥ 50 years resulted in sensitivity similar to that in women age < 50 years (94.1%; 95% CI, 77.7% to 98.7% v 93.2%; 95% CI, 79.3% to 98%; P = .79). CONCLUSION: Addition of MRI to mammography for screening BRCA1/2 mutation carriers age ≥ 50 years improves screening sensitivity by a magnitude similar to that observed in younger women. Limiting screening MRI in BRCA1/2 carriers age ≥ 50 years should be reconsidered.

Should we screen BRCA1 mutation carriers only with MRI? A multicenter study.

BRCA1 mutation carriers are offered screening with MRI and mammography. Aim of the study was to investigate the additional value of digital mammography over MRI screening. BRCA1 mutation carriers, who developed breast cancer since the introduction of digital mammography between January 2003 and March 2013, were included. The images and reports were reviewed in order to assess whether the breast cancers were screen-detected or interval cancers and whether they were visible on mammography and MRI, using the breast imaging and data system classification allocated at the time of diagnosis. In 93 BRCA1 mutation carriers who underwent screening with MRI and mammography, 82 invasive breast cancers and 12 ductal carcinomas in situ (DCIS) were found. Screening sensitivity was 95.7 % (90/94). MRI detected 88 of 94 breast cancers (sensitivity 93.6 %), and mammography detected 48 breast cancers (sensitivity 51.1 %) (two-sided p < 0.001). Forty-two malignancies were detected only by MRI (42/94 = 44.7 %). Two DCIS were detected only with mammography (2/94 = 2.1 %) concerning a grade 3 in a 50-year-old patient and a grade 2 in a 67-year-old patient. Four interval cancers occurred (4/94 = 4.3 %), all grade 3 triple negative invasive ductal carcinomas. In conclusion, digital mammography added only 2 % to the breast cancer detection in BRCA1 patients. There was no benefit of additional mammography in women below age 40. Given the potential risk of radiation-induced breast cancer in young mutation carriers, we propose to screen BRCA1 mutation carriers yearly with MRI from age 25 onwards and to start with mammographic screening not earlier than age 40.

[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.

Breast fine-needle aspiration cytology performance in the high-risk screening population: a study of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of breast lesions is usually confirmed by fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) or histological biopsy. Although there is increasing literature regarding the advantages and limitations of both modalities, there is no literature regarding the accuracy of these modalities for diagnosing breast lesions in high-risk patients, who usually have lesions detected by screening. The objective of the current study was to evaluate diagnostic performance indices of FNAC in breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA) mutation carriers. METHODS: BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers who underwent FNAC were selected from the database of the Rotterdam Family Cancer Clinic. FNAC accuracy parameters were calculated by taking the outcome of a subsequent histological diagnosis or clinical follow-up as reference standard. RESULTS: In total, 320 FNACs were obtained, and FNAC examination was followed by histological examination in 150 patients. The rate of insufficient material was 25.6%. Sensitivity was 92.3%, specificity 96.3%. The false-positive rate was 3.7%, the false-negative rate was 7.7%, and accuracy was 94.7%. A substantial proportion of patients (35%) with malignant FNAC results underwent histological biopsy upfront surgical resection. Small lesion size (≤ 1 cm) and nonpalpability of the breast lesion were associated with decreased FNAC accuracy. In 113 patients who had a benign FNAC outcome without histological follow-up, no malignancies were detected during clinical or radiologic surveillance (median follow-up 84 months). CONCLUSIONS: There is a role for FNAC in diagnosing breast lesions of BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers, ie, to confirm a radiological (probably) benign lesion. However, despite the high overall sensitivity of FNAC, the authors recommend histological biopsy as the preferred diagnostic method for high-risk patients who have small or nonpalpable lesions.

Preoperative breast MRI can reduce the rate of tumor-positive resection margins and reoperations in patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery.

OBJECTIVE: In breast cancer patients eligible for breast-conserving surgery, we evaluated whether the information provided by preoperative MRI of the breast would result in fewer tumor-positive resection margins and fewer reoperations. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The study group consisted of 123 consecutive patients diagnosed with either breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ eligible for breast-conserving surgery between April 2007 and July 2010. For these patients, a first plan for breast-conserving surgery was made on the basis of clinical examination and conventional imaging. The final surgical plan was made with knowledge of the preoperative breast MRI. The rates of tumor-positive resection margins and reoperations were compared with those of a historical control group consisting of 119 patients who underwent 123 breast-conserving procedures between January 2005 and December 2006. The percentage of change in the surgical plan was recorded. RESULTS: Preoperative breast MRI changed the surgical plan to more extensive surgery in 42 patients (34.1%), mainly to mastectomy (29 patients, 23.6%). Ninety-four patients underwent 95 breast-conserving procedures. Significantly fewer patients had tumor-positive resection margins than in the control group (15.8%, 15/95 versus 29.3%, 36/123; p < 0.01). Patients in the study group underwent significantly fewer reoperations compared with the historical control group (18.9%, 18/95 vs 37.4%, 46/123; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Preoperative breast MRI can substantially decrease the rate of tumor-positive resection margins and reoperations in breast cancer patients eligible for breast-conserving surgery.

Optimal age to start preventive measures in women with BRCA1/2 mutations or high familial breast cancer risk.

Women from high-risk families consider preventive measures for breast cancer including screening. Guidelines on screening differ considerably regarding starting age. We investigated whether age at diagnosis in affected relatives is predictive for age at diagnosis. We analyzed the age of breast cancer detection of 1,304 first- and second-degree relatives of 314 BRCA1, 164 BRCA2 and 244 high-risk participants of the Dutch MRI-SCreening study. The within- and between-family variance in the relative's age at diagnosis was analyzed with a random effect linear regression model. We compared the starting age of screening based on risk-group (25 years for BRCA1, 30 years for BRCA2 and 35 years for familial risk), on family history, and on the model, which combines both. The findings were validated in 63 families from the UK-MARIBS study. Mean age at diagnosis in the relatives varied between families; 95% range of mean family ages was 35-55 in BRCA1-, 41-57 in BRCA2- and 44-60 in high-risk families. In all, 14% of the variance in age at diagnosis, in BRCA1 even 23%, was explained by family history, 7% by risk group. Determining start of screening based on the model and on risk-group gave similar results in terms of cancers missed and years of screening. The approach based on familial history only, missed more cancers and required more screening years in both the Dutch and the United Kingdom data sets. Age at breast cancer diagnosis is partly dependent on family history which may assist planning starting age for preventive measures.