Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS)

M. O. Leach, C. Boggis, A. K. Dixon, D. Easton, R. A. Eeles, D. G. Evans, Fiona Jane Gilbert, I. Griebsch, R. J. Hoff, P. Kessar, S. R. Lakhani, S. M. Moss, A. Nerukar, A. R. Padhani, L. J. Pointon, D. Thompson, R. M. Warren, MARIBS Study Group

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

786 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background Women genetically predisposed to breast cancer often develop the disease at a young age when dense breast tissue reduces the sensitivity of X-ray mammography. Our aim was, therefore, to compare contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE MRI) with mammography for screening.

Methods We did a prospective multicentre cohort study in 649 women aged 35-49 years with a strong family history of breast cancer or a high probability of a BRCA1, BRCA2, or TP53 mutation. We recruited participants from 22 centres in the UK, and offered the women annual screening with CE MRI and mammography for 2-7 years.

Findings We diagnosed 35 cancers in the 649 women screened with both mammography and CE MRI (1881 screens): 19 by CE MRI only, six by mammography only, and eight by both, with two interval cases. Sensitivity was significantly higher for CE MRI (77%, 95% CI 60-90) than for mammography (40%, 24-58; p=0.01), and was 94% (81-99) when both methods were used. Specificity was 93% (92-95) for mammography, 81% (80-83) for CE MRI (p<0.0001), and 77% (75-79) with both methods. The difference between CE MRI and mammography sensitivities was particularly pronounced in BRCA1 carriers (13 cancers; 92% vs 23%, p=0.004).

Interpretation Our findings indicate that CE MRI is more sensitive than mammography for cancer detection. Specificity for both procedures was acceptable. Despite a high proportion of grade 3 cancers, tumours were small and few women were node positive. Annual screening, combining CE MRI and mammography, would detect most tumours in this risk group.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1769-1778
Number of pages9
JournalThe Lancet
Volume365
Issue number9473
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 2005

Keywords

  • GENETIC RISK
  • GADOPENTETATE DIMEGLUMINE
  • NATIONAL MULTICENTER
  • WOMEN
  • MRI
  • BRCA2
  • SURVEILLANCE
  • MUTATIONS
  • CARCINOMA
  • PROTOCOL

Cite this

Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS). / Leach, M. O.; Boggis, C.; Dixon, A. K.; Easton, D.; Eeles, R. A.; Evans, D. G.; Gilbert, Fiona Jane; Griebsch, I.; Hoff, R. J.; Kessar, P.; Lakhani, S. R.; Moss, S. M.; Nerukar, A.; Padhani, A. R.; Pointon, L. J.; Thompson, D.; Warren, R. M.; MARIBS Study Group.

In: The Lancet, Vol. 365, No. 9473, 05.2005, p. 1769-1778.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Leach, MO, Boggis, C, Dixon, AK, Easton, D, Eeles, RA, Evans, DG, Gilbert, FJ, Griebsch, I, Hoff, RJ, Kessar, P, Lakhani, SR, Moss, SM, Nerukar, A, Padhani, AR, Pointon, LJ, Thompson, D, Warren, RM & MARIBS Study Group 2005, 'Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS)', The Lancet, vol. 365, no. 9473, pp. 1769-1778. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66481-1
Leach, M. O. ; Boggis, C. ; Dixon, A. K. ; Easton, D. ; Eeles, R. A. ; Evans, D. G. ; Gilbert, Fiona Jane ; Griebsch, I. ; Hoff, R. J. ; Kessar, P. ; Lakhani, S. R. ; Moss, S. M. ; Nerukar, A. ; Padhani, A. R. ; Pointon, L. J. ; Thompson, D. ; Warren, R. M. ; MARIBS Study Group. / Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS). In: The Lancet. 2005 ; Vol. 365, No. 9473. pp. 1769-1778.
@article{574700d9627e4773b76e89305414dd43,
title = "Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS)",
abstract = "Background Women genetically predisposed to breast cancer often develop the disease at a young age when dense breast tissue reduces the sensitivity of X-ray mammography. Our aim was, therefore, to compare contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE MRI) with mammography for screening.Methods We did a prospective multicentre cohort study in 649 women aged 35-49 years with a strong family history of breast cancer or a high probability of a BRCA1, BRCA2, or TP53 mutation. We recruited participants from 22 centres in the UK, and offered the women annual screening with CE MRI and mammography for 2-7 years.Findings We diagnosed 35 cancers in the 649 women screened with both mammography and CE MRI (1881 screens): 19 by CE MRI only, six by mammography only, and eight by both, with two interval cases. Sensitivity was significantly higher for CE MRI (77{\%}, 95{\%} CI 60-90) than for mammography (40{\%}, 24-58; p=0.01), and was 94{\%} (81-99) when both methods were used. Specificity was 93{\%} (92-95) for mammography, 81{\%} (80-83) for CE MRI (p<0.0001), and 77{\%} (75-79) with both methods. The difference between CE MRI and mammography sensitivities was particularly pronounced in BRCA1 carriers (13 cancers; 92{\%} vs 23{\%}, p=0.004).Interpretation Our findings indicate that CE MRI is more sensitive than mammography for cancer detection. Specificity for both procedures was acceptable. Despite a high proportion of grade 3 cancers, tumours were small and few women were node positive. Annual screening, combining CE MRI and mammography, would detect most tumours in this risk group.",
keywords = "GENETIC RISK, GADOPENTETATE DIMEGLUMINE, NATIONAL MULTICENTER, WOMEN, MRI, BRCA2, SURVEILLANCE, MUTATIONS, CARCINOMA, PROTOCOL",
author = "Leach, {M. O.} and C. Boggis and Dixon, {A. K.} and D. Easton and Eeles, {R. A.} and Evans, {D. G.} and Gilbert, {Fiona Jane} and I. Griebsch and Hoff, {R. J.} and P. Kessar and Lakhani, {S. R.} and Moss, {S. M.} and A. Nerukar and Padhani, {A. R.} and Pointon, {L. J.} and D. Thompson and Warren, {R. M.} and {MARIBS Study Group}",
year = "2005",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66481-1",
language = "English",
volume = "365",
pages = "1769--1778",
journal = "The Lancet",
issn = "0140-6736",
publisher = "ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE",
number = "9473",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS)

AU - Leach, M. O.

AU - Boggis, C.

AU - Dixon, A. K.

AU - Easton, D.

AU - Eeles, R. A.

AU - Evans, D. G.

AU - Gilbert, Fiona Jane

AU - Griebsch, I.

AU - Hoff, R. J.

AU - Kessar, P.

AU - Lakhani, S. R.

AU - Moss, S. M.

AU - Nerukar, A.

AU - Padhani, A. R.

AU - Pointon, L. J.

AU - Thompson, D.

AU - Warren, R. M.

AU - MARIBS Study Group

PY - 2005/5

Y1 - 2005/5

N2 - Background Women genetically predisposed to breast cancer often develop the disease at a young age when dense breast tissue reduces the sensitivity of X-ray mammography. Our aim was, therefore, to compare contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE MRI) with mammography for screening.Methods We did a prospective multicentre cohort study in 649 women aged 35-49 years with a strong family history of breast cancer or a high probability of a BRCA1, BRCA2, or TP53 mutation. We recruited participants from 22 centres in the UK, and offered the women annual screening with CE MRI and mammography for 2-7 years.Findings We diagnosed 35 cancers in the 649 women screened with both mammography and CE MRI (1881 screens): 19 by CE MRI only, six by mammography only, and eight by both, with two interval cases. Sensitivity was significantly higher for CE MRI (77%, 95% CI 60-90) than for mammography (40%, 24-58; p=0.01), and was 94% (81-99) when both methods were used. Specificity was 93% (92-95) for mammography, 81% (80-83) for CE MRI (p<0.0001), and 77% (75-79) with both methods. The difference between CE MRI and mammography sensitivities was particularly pronounced in BRCA1 carriers (13 cancers; 92% vs 23%, p=0.004).Interpretation Our findings indicate that CE MRI is more sensitive than mammography for cancer detection. Specificity for both procedures was acceptable. Despite a high proportion of grade 3 cancers, tumours were small and few women were node positive. Annual screening, combining CE MRI and mammography, would detect most tumours in this risk group.

AB - Background Women genetically predisposed to breast cancer often develop the disease at a young age when dense breast tissue reduces the sensitivity of X-ray mammography. Our aim was, therefore, to compare contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE MRI) with mammography for screening.Methods We did a prospective multicentre cohort study in 649 women aged 35-49 years with a strong family history of breast cancer or a high probability of a BRCA1, BRCA2, or TP53 mutation. We recruited participants from 22 centres in the UK, and offered the women annual screening with CE MRI and mammography for 2-7 years.Findings We diagnosed 35 cancers in the 649 women screened with both mammography and CE MRI (1881 screens): 19 by CE MRI only, six by mammography only, and eight by both, with two interval cases. Sensitivity was significantly higher for CE MRI (77%, 95% CI 60-90) than for mammography (40%, 24-58; p=0.01), and was 94% (81-99) when both methods were used. Specificity was 93% (92-95) for mammography, 81% (80-83) for CE MRI (p<0.0001), and 77% (75-79) with both methods. The difference between CE MRI and mammography sensitivities was particularly pronounced in BRCA1 carriers (13 cancers; 92% vs 23%, p=0.004).Interpretation Our findings indicate that CE MRI is more sensitive than mammography for cancer detection. Specificity for both procedures was acceptable. Despite a high proportion of grade 3 cancers, tumours were small and few women were node positive. Annual screening, combining CE MRI and mammography, would detect most tumours in this risk group.

KW - GENETIC RISK

KW - GADOPENTETATE DIMEGLUMINE

KW - NATIONAL MULTICENTER

KW - WOMEN

KW - MRI

KW - BRCA2

KW - SURVEILLANCE

KW - MUTATIONS

KW - CARCINOMA

KW - PROTOCOL

U2 - 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66481-1

DO - 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66481-1

M3 - Article

VL - 365

SP - 1769

EP - 1778

JO - The Lancet

JF - The Lancet

SN - 0140-6736

IS - 9473

ER -