Screening and diagnostic breast MRI: how do they impact surgical treatment? Insights from the MIPA study.

OBJECTIVES: To report mastectomy and reoperation rates in women who had breast MRI for screening (S-MRI subgroup) or diagnostic (D-MRI subgroup) purposes, using multivariable analysis for investigating the role of MRI referral/nonreferral and other covariates in driving surgical outcomes. METHODS: The MIPA observational study enrolled women aged 18-80 years with newly diagnosed breast cancer destined to have surgery as the primary treatment, in 27 centres worldwide. Mastectomy and reoperation rates were compared using non-parametric tests and multivariable analysis. RESULTS: A total of 5828 patients entered analysis, 2763 (47.4%) did not undergo MRI (noMRI subgroup) and 3065 underwent MRI (52.6%); of the latter, 2441/3065 (79.7%) underwent MRI with preoperative intent (P-MRI subgroup), 510/3065 (16.6%) D-MRI, and 114/3065 S-MRI (3.7%). The reoperation rate was 10.5% for S-MRI, 8.2% for D-MRI, and 8.5% for P-MRI, while it was 11.7% for noMRI (p ≤ 0.023 for comparisons with D-MRI and P-MRI). The overall mastectomy rate (first-line mastectomy plus conversions from conserving surgery to mastectomy) was 39.5% for S-MRI, 36.2% for P-MRI, 24.1% for D-MRI, and 18.0% for noMRI. At multivariable analysis, using noMRI as reference, the odds ratios for overall mastectomy were 2.4 (p < 0.001) for S-MRI, 1.0 (p = 0.957) for D-MRI, and 1.9 (p < 0.001) for P-MRI. CONCLUSIONS: Patients from the D-MRI subgroup had the lowest overall mastectomy rate (24.1%) among MRI subgroups and the lowest reoperation rate (8.2%) together with P-MRI (8.5%). This analysis offers an insight into how the initial indication for MRI affects the subsequent surgical treatment of breast cancer. KEY POINTS: • Of 3065 breast MRI examinations, 79.7% were performed with preoperative intent (P-MRI), 16.6% were diagnostic (D-MRI), and 3.7% were screening (S-MRI) examinations. • The D-MRI subgroup had the lowest mastectomy rate (24.1%) among MRI subgroups and the lowest reoperation rate (8.2%) together with P-MRI (8.5%). • The S-MRI subgroup had the highest mastectomy rate (39.5%) which aligns with higher-than-average risk in this subgroup, with a reoperation rate (10.5%) not significantly different to that of all other subgroups.

Preoperative breast MRI positively impacts surgical outcomes of needle biopsy-diagnosed pure DCIS: a patient-matched analysis from the MIPA study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the influence of preoperative breast MRI on mastectomy and reoperation rates in patients with pure ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). METHODS: The MIPA observational study database (7245 patients) was searched for patients aged 18-80 years with pure unilateral DCIS diagnosed at core needle or vacuum-assisted biopsy (CNB/VAB) and planned for primary surgery. Patients who underwent preoperative MRI (MRI group) were matched (1:1) to those who did not receive MRI (noMRI group) according to 8 confounding covariates that drive referral to MRI (age; hormonal status; familial risk; posterior-to-nipple diameter; BI-RADS category; lesion diameter; lesion presentation; surgical planning at conventional imaging). Surgical outcomes were compared between the matched groups with nonparametric statistics after calculating odds ratios (ORs). RESULTS: Of 1005 women with pure unilateral DCIS at CNB/VAB (507 MRI group, 498 noMRI group), 309 remained in each group after matching. First-line mastectomy rate in the MRI group was 20.1% (62/309 patients, OR 2.03) compared to 11.0% in the noMRI group (34/309 patients, p = 0.003). The reoperation rate was 10.0% in the MRI group (31/309, OR for reoperation 0.40) and 22.0% in the noMRI group (68/309, p < 0.001), with a 2.53 OR of avoiding reoperation in the MRI group. The overall mastectomy rate was 23.3% in the MRI group (72/309, OR 1.40) and 17.8% in the noMRI group (55/309, p = 0.111). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to those going directly to surgery, patients with pure DCIS at CNB/VAB who underwent preoperative MRI had a higher OR for first-line mastectomy but a substantially lower OR for reoperation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: When confounding factors behind MRI referral are accounted for in the comparison of patients with CNB/VAB-diagnosed pure unilateral DCIS, preoperative MRI yields a reduction of reoperations that is more than twice as high as the increase in overall mastectomies. KEY POINTS: • Confounding factors cause imbalance when investigating the influence of preoperative MRI on surgical outcomes of pure DCIS. • When patient matching is applied to women with pure unilateral DCIS, reoperation rates are significantly reduced in women who underwent preoperative MRI. • The reduction of reoperations brought about by preoperative MRI is more than double the increase in overall mastectomies.

Survival of BRCA1/BRCA2-associated pT1 breast cancer patients, a cohort study.

PURPOSE: Intensive screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers aims to improve breast cancer (BC) prognosis. Our aim is to clarify the prognostic impact of tumor size in BRCA mutation carriers with a pT1 BC, which is currently unclear. We are especially interested in differences between pT1a, pT1b, and pT1c regarding the prognosis of node-negative breast cancer, the effect of chemotherapy, and the prevalence of lymph node involvement. METHODS: For this study, BRCA1/2-associated BC patients were selected from a nationwide cohort. Primary outcomes were 10-year overall survival (OS) per pT1a-b-c group and the effect of chemotherapy on prognosis of node-negative BC, using Kaplan-Meier and Cox models. Finally, we evaluated lymph node involvement per pT1a-b-c group. RESULTS: 963 women with pT1 BRCA1/2-associated BC diagnosed between 1990 and 2017 were included, of which 679 had pN0 BC. After a median follow-up of 10.5 years, 10-year OS in patients without chemotherapy was 77.1% in pT1cN0 and lower than for pT1aN0 (91.4%, p = 0.119) and pT1bN0 (90.8%, p = 0.024). OS was better with than without chemotherapy for pT1cN0 (91.6% vs. 77.1%, p = 0.001; hazard ratio (HR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.21-1.48). Lymph node involvement was 24.9% in pT1c, 18.8% in pT1b, and 8.6% in pT1a. CONCLUSION: Smaller tumor size is associated with better OS and less lymph node involvement in pT1 BRCA1/2-associated BC patients. The results suggest that early detection in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers of pT1a/b BC may reduce mortality and the need for systemic therapy.

Magnetic resonance imaging before breast cancer surgery: results of an observational multicenter international prospective analysis (MIPA).

OBJECTIVES: Preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can inform surgical planning but might cause overtreatment by increasing the mastectomy rate. The Multicenter International Prospective Analysis (MIPA) study investigated this controversial issue. METHODS: This observational study enrolled women aged 18-80 years with biopsy-proven breast cancer, who underwent MRI in addition to conventional imaging (mammography and/or breast ultrasonography) or conventional imaging alone before surgery as routine practice at 27 centers. Exclusion criteria included planned neoadjuvant therapy, pregnancy, personal history of any cancer, and distant metastases. RESULTS: Of 5896 analyzed patients, 2763 (46.9%) had conventional imaging only (noMRI group), and 3133 (53.1%) underwent MRI that was performed for diagnosis, screening, or unknown purposes in 692/3133 women (22.1%), with preoperative intent in 2441/3133 women (77.9%, MRI group). Patients in the MRI group were younger, had denser breasts, more cancers ≥ 20 mm, and a higher rate of invasive lobular histology than patients who underwent conventional imaging alone (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). Mastectomy was planned based on conventional imaging in 22.4% (MRI group) versus 14.4% (noMRI group) (p < 0.001). The additional planned mastectomy rate in the MRI group was 11.3%. The overall performed first- plus second-line mastectomy rate was 36.3% (MRI group) versus 18.0% (noMRI group) (p < 0.001). In women receiving conserving surgery, MRI group had a significantly lower reoperation rate (8.5% versus 11.7%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians requested breast MRI for women with a higher a priori probability of receiving mastectomy. MRI was associated with 11.3% more mastectomies, and with 3.2% fewer reoperations in the breast conservation subgroup. KEY POINTS: • In 19% of patients of the MIPA study, breast MRI was performed for screening or diagnostic purposes. • The current patient selection to preoperative breast MRI implies an 11% increase in mastectomies, counterbalanced by a 3% reduction of the reoperation rate. • Data from the MIPA study can support discussion in tumor boards when preoperative MRI is under consideration and should be shared with patients to achieve informed decision-making.

The supplemental value of mammographic screening over breast MRI alone in BRCA2 mutation carriers.

PURPOSE: BRCA2 mutation carriers are offered annual breast screening with MRI and mammography. The aim of this study was to investigate the supplemental value of mammographic screening over MRI screening alone. METHODS: In this multicenter study, proven BRCA2 mutation carriers, who developed breast cancer during screening using both digital mammography and state-of-art breast MRI, were identified. Clinical data were reviewed to classify cases in screen-detected and interval cancers. Imaging was reviewed to assess the diagnostic value of mammography and MRI, using the Breast Imaging and Data System (BI-RADS) classification allocated at the time of diagnosis. RESULTS: From January 2003 till March 2019, 62 invasive breast cancers and 23 ductal carcinomas in situ were diagnosed in 83 BRCA2 mutation carriers under surveillance. Overall screening sensitivity was 95.2% (81/85). Four interval cancers occurred (4.7% (4/85)). MRI detected 73 of 85 breast cancers (sensitivity 85.8%) and 42 mammography (sensitivity 49.9%) (p < 0.001). Eight mammography-only lesions occurred. In 1 of 17 women younger than 40 years, a 6-mm grade 3 DCIS, retrospectively visible on MRI, was detected with mammography only in a 38-year-old woman. The other 7 mammography-only breast cancers were diagnosed in women aged 50 years and older, increasing sensitivity in this subgroup from 79.5% (35/44) to 95.5% (42/44) (p ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In BRCA2 mutation carriers younger than 40 years, the benefit of mammographic screening over MRI was very small. In carriers of 50 years and older, mammographic screening contributed significantly. Hence, we propose to postpone mammographic screening in BRCA2 mutation carriers to at least age 40.

Radioactive Seed Versus Wire-Guided Localization for Ductal Carcinoma in Situ of the Breast: Comparable Resection Margins.

BACKGROUND: There are currently two widely used methods for preoperative localization of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast: wire-guided localization (WGL) and radioactive seed localization (RSL). Several studies compared these localization techniques in small cohorts. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the surgical resection margin status between RSL and WGL in a large national cohort of patients with DCIS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included patients from the Dutch Pathology Registry who underwent breast-conserving surgery for DCIS by either RSL (n = 1851) or WGL (n = 2187) between 2009 and 2019. Several clinicopathological characteristics were compared between these two groups, including resection margin status and number of re-excisions. RESULTS: Patients undergoing RSL were younger (p = 0.014) and were more often diagnosed with a large DCIS (p = 0.013), high grade DCIS (p < 0.001) and comedonecrosis (p < 0.001) compared with patients undergoing WGL. There was no significant difference in resection margin status between both groups (p = 0.089) and the number of re-excisions (p = 0.429). However, in case of re-excision, patients in the RSL group were more often treated with breast-conserving surgery (p = 0.029). CONCLUSION: In this large national cohort study of patients with DCIS, we demonstrated that there was no difference in resection margin status between both procedures, or in the number of re-excisions, but patients in the RSL group were more often treated with breast-conserving therapy in case of a re-excision.

Solving the preoperative breast MRI conundrum: design and protocol of the MIPA study.

Despite its high diagnostic performance, the use of breast MRI in the preoperative setting is controversial. It has the potential for personalized surgical management in breast cancer patients, but two of three randomized controlled trials did not show results in favor of its introduction for assessing the disease extent before surgery. Meta-analyses showed a higher mastectomy rate in women undergoing preoperative MRI compared to those who do not. Nevertheless, preoperative breast MRI is increasingly used and a survey from the American Society of Breast Surgeons showed that 41% of respondents ask for it in daily practice. In this context, a large-scale observational multicenter international prospective analysis (MIPA study) was proposed under the guidance of the European Network for the Assessment of Imaging in Medicine (EuroAIM). The aims were (1) to prospectively and systematically collect data on consecutive women with a newly diagnosed breast cancer, not candidates for neoadjuvant therapy, who are offered or not offered breast MRI before surgery according to local practice; (2) to compare these two groups in terms of surgical and clinical endpoints, adjusting for covariates. The underlying hypotheses are that MRI does not cause additional mastectomies compared to conventional imaging, while reducing the reoperation rate in all or in subgroups of patients. Ninety-six centers applied to a web-based call; 36 were initially selected based on volume and quality standards; 27 were active for enrollment. On November 2018, the target of 7000 enrolled patients was reached. The MIPA study is presently at the analytic phase. Key Points • Breast MRI has a high diagnostic performance but its utility in the preoperative setting is controversial. • A large-scale observational multicenter prospective study was launched to compare women receiving with those not receiving preoperative MRI. • Twenty-seven centers enrolled more than 7000 patients. The study is presently at the analytic phase.

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.

Extent of ductal carcinoma in situ according to breast cancer subtypes: a population-based cohort study.

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a precursor of invasive breast carcinoma (IBC). The DCIS component is often more extensive than the invasive component, which affects local control. The aim of our study was to analyze features of DCIS within different IBC subtypes, which may contribute to the optimization of personalized approaches for patients with IBC. Patients with IBC reported according to the synoptic reporting module in the Netherlands between 2009 and 2015 were included. Data extraction included characteristics of the invasive component and, if present, several features of the DCIS component. Resection margin status analyses were restricted to patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Differences between subtypes were tested by a Chi-square test, spearman's Rho test or a one-way ANOVA test. Overall, 36.937 cases of IBC were included. About half of the IBCs (n = 16.014; 43.4 %) were associated with DCIS. Her2+ IBC (irrespective of ER status) was associated with a higher prevalence of adjacent DCIS, a larger extent of DCIS and a higher rate of irradicality of the DCIS component as compared to ER+/Her2- and triple-negative subtypes (P < 0.0001 for all variables). The prevalence of DCIS in triple-negative IBC on the other hand was lowest. In this large population-based cohort study, we showed significant differences between the prevalence and extent of DCIS according to IBC subtypes, which is also reflected in the resection margin status in patients treated with BCS. Our data provide important information regarding the optimization of local therapy according to IBC subtypes.

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%

Preoperative prediction of cosmetic results in breast conserving surgery.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative objective predictions of cosmetic result after breast conserving surgery (BCS) has the potential to aid in surgical treatment decision making. Our aim was to investigate the predictive value of tumor volume in relation to breast volume (TV/BV ratio) for cosmetic result. METHODS: Sixty-nine invasive breast cancer women with preoperative MRI and treated by BCS and radiotherapy in 2007-2012 were prospectively included. Simple excision or basic oncoplastic techniques were used, but no volume displacement. TV/BV ratio was measured in the MRI while 3D-projected in virtual reality environment (I-Space). Cosmetic result was assessed by patient questionnaire, panel evaluation, and breast retraction assessment (BRA). Quality-of-life was assessed by EORTC QLQ-C30 and BR23. RESULTS: Intraobserver and interobserver correlation coefficients for tumor and breast volume were all >0.95. Increasing TV/BV ratio correlated with decreasing cosmetic result as determined by patient, panel, and BRA. TV/BV ratio was a significant independent predictor for the panel evaluation (P=0.028), as was tumor location (P<0.05), and together they constituted a good prediction model (AUC 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: TV/BV ratio was a precise and independent predictor for cosmetic result determined by a panel and can be used as preoperative prediction tool to enable more informed surgical treatment decision making.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Assessment of false-negative cases of breast MR imaging in women with a familial or genetic predisposition.

In order to assess the characteristics of malignant breast lesions those were not detected during screening by MR imaging. In the Dutch MRI screening study(MRISC), a non-randomized prospective multicenter study,women with high familial risk or a genetic predisposition for breast cancer were screened once a year by mammography and MRI and every 6 months with a clinical breast examination (CBE). The false-negative MR examinations were subject of this study and were retrospectively reviewed by two experienced radiologists. From November 1999 until March 2006, 2,157 women were eligible for study analyses. Ninety-seven malignant breast tumors were detected, including 19 DCIS (20%). In 22 patients with a malignant lesion, the MRI was assessed as BI-RADS 1 or 2. One patient was excluded because the examinations were not available for review. Forty-three percent (9/21) of the false-negative MR cases concerned pure ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or DCIS with invasive foci, in eight of them no enhancement was seen at the review. In six patients the features of malignancy were missed or misinterpreted.Small lesion size (n = 3), extensive diffuse contrast enhancement of the breast parenchyma (n = 2),and a technically inadequate examination (n = 1) were other causes of the missed diagnosis. A major part of the false-negative MR diagnoses concerned non-enhancing DCIS, underlining the necessity of screening not only with MRI but also with mammography. Improvement of MRI scanning protocols may increase the detection rate of DCIS. The missed and misinterpreted cases are reflecting the learning curve of a multicenter study.

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.

Should women with a BRCA1/2 mutation aged 60 and older be offered intensified breast cancer screening? - A cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of intensified breast cancer (BC) screening for women with a BRCA1/2 mutation aged 60-74. Simulated strategies were: (0) annual mammography as reference, (1) alternating annual mammography and MRI for women with dense breasts only; (2) addition of annual MRI for women with dense breasts only; (3) addition of annual MRI for all women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A validated micro-simulation model of invasive BC was updated and validated for interval BC rates and tumor size distribution. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of all three intensified strategies were compared to the next best strategy and stratified for BRCA1 and BRCA2. Discount rates for costs and life years gained (LYG) were 1.5% and 4% for the Dutch situation; 3% and 3% for international comparison. A threshold of €20,000 per LYG was applied. RESULTS: All intensified strategies showed more detected BCs and LYG, reduced BC deaths, and increased false positives. The Dutch discounted ICER of intensified strategy 1 compared to annual mammography was €38,000 per LYG in BRCA1 mutation carriers and €18,000 per LYG in BRCA2 mutation carriers. Further intensified strategies showed an ICER above the threshold when compared to this strategy. With international discount rate, the ICERs of all intensified strategies were above the threshold. CONCLUSION: Of the three alternative strategies, only alternating annual MRI and mammography for BRCA2 mutation carriers and dense breasts aged 60-75 is cost-effective compared to annual mammography. For BRCA1 mutation carriers, none of the alternative strategies is cost-effective compared to the next best strategy.

BRCA1 mutation and young age predict fast breast cancer growth in the Dutch, United Kingdom, and Canadian magnetic resonance imaging screening trials.

PURPOSE: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening enables early detection of breast cancers in women with an inherited predisposition. Interval cancers occurred in women with a BRCA1 mutation, possibly due to fast tumor growth. We investigated the effect of a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation and age on the growth rate of breast cancers, as this may influence the optimal screening frequency. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We reviewed the invasive cancers from the United Kingdom, Dutch, and Canadian MRI screening trials for women at hereditary risk, measuring tumor size at diagnosis and on preceding MRI and/or mammography. We could assess tumor volume doubling time (DT) in 100 cancers. RESULTS: Tumor DT was estimated for 43 women with a BRCA1 mutation, 16 women with a BRCA2 mutation, and 41 women at high risk without an identified mutation. Growth rate slowed continuously with increasing age (P = 0.004). Growth was twice as fast in BRCA1 (P = 0.003) or BRCA2 (P = 0.03) patients as in high-risk patients of the same age. The mean DT for women with BRCA1/2 mutations diagnosed at ages < or =40, 41 to 50, and >50 years was 28, 68, and 81 days, respectively, and 83, 121, and 173 days, respectively, in the high-risk group. Pathologic tumor size decreased with increasing age (P = 0.001). Median size was 15 mm for patients ages < or =40 years compared with 9 mm in older patients (P = 0.003); tumors were largest in young women with BRCA1 mutations. CONCLUSION: Tumors grow quickly in women with BRCA1 mutations and in young women. Age and risk group should be taken into account in screening protocols.

Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition.

BACKGROUND: The value of regular surveillance for breast cancer in women with a genetic or familial predisposition to breast cancer is currently unproven. We compared the efficacy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with that of mammography for screening in this group of high-risk women. METHODS: Women who had a cumulative lifetime risk of breast cancer of 15 percent or more were screened every six months with a clinical breast examination and once a year by mammography and MRI, with independent readings. The characteristics of the cancers that were detected were compared with the characteristics of those in two different age-matched control groups. RESULTS: We screened 1909 eligible women, including 358 carriers of germ-line mutations. Within a median follow-up period of 2.9 years, 51 tumors (44 invasive cancers, 6 ductal carcinomas in situ, and 1 lymphoma) and 1 lobular carcinoma in situ were detected. The sensitivity of clinical breast examination, mammography, and MRI for detecting invasive breast cancer was 17.9 percent, 33.3 percent, and 79.5 percent, respectively, and the specificity was 98.1 percent, 95.0 percent, and 89.8 percent, respectively. The overall discriminating capacity of MRI was significantly better than that of mammography (P<0.05). The proportion of invasive tumors that were 10 mm or less in diameter was significantly greater in our surveillance group (43.2 percent) than in either control group (14.0 percent [P<0.001] and 12.5 percent [P=0.04], respectively). The combined incidence of positive axillary nodes and micrometastases in invasive cancers in our study was 21.4 percent, as compared with 52.4 percent (P<0.001) and 56.4 percent (P=0.001) in the two control groups. CONCLUSIONS: MRI appears to be more sensitive than mammography in detecting tumors in women with an inherited susceptibility to breast cancer.