Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Breast MR imaging in women at high-risk of breast cancer. Is something changing in early breast cancer detection?

  • Breast
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the last few years, several papers have addressed the introduction of contrast-enhanced MR imaging for screening women at high risk for breast cancer. Taking in consideration five prospective studies, on 3,571 screened women with hereditary predisposition to the disease and 9,652 rounds, we found that 168 patients were diagnosed with breast cancer (155 screen-detected, eight interval, and five cancers excluded from analysis) with a detection rate per year of 1.7%. These cancers were small (49% equal to or less than 10 mm in diameter) but aggressive, 82% being invasive and 49% with histologic grade 3; however, only 19% of these invasive cancers were associated with nodal involvement. The pooled sensitivity was 16% for clinical breast examination, 40% for mammography, 43% for ultrasound, and 81% for MR. The positive predictive value (calculated on the basis of the number of invasive diagnostic procedures due to false positives) was 33%, 47%, 18%, and 53%, respectively. Aim of the present article is to present the historical development of MR imaging of breast tumors that made this application theoretically and technically possible, to explain what strategic problems we face in the presence of a hereditary predisposition to the disease, to review the main results of the published studies, and to outline open problems and future perspectives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kuhl CK, Schmutzler RK, Leutner CC et al (2000) Breast MR imaging screening in 192 women proved or suspected to be carriers of a breast cancer susceptibility gene: Preliminary results. Radiology 215:267–279

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Obdeijn IMM, Bartels KC, de Koning HJ, Oudkerk M (2000) First experiences in screening women at high risk for breast cancer with MR imaging. Breast Cancer Res Treat 63:53–60

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Warner E, Plewes DB, Shumak RS et al (2001) Comparison of breast magnetic resonance imaging, mammography, and ultrasound for surveillance of women at high risk for hereditary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 19:3524–3531

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Podo F, Sardanelli F, Canese R et al (2002) The Italian multi-centre project on evaluation of MRI and other imaging modalities in early detection of breast cancer in subjects at high genetic risk. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 21(Suppl 3):115–124

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C et al (2004) Efficacy of magnetic resonance imaging and mammography for breast cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med 351:427–437

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA et al (2004) Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA 292:1317–1325

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Leach MO, Boggis CR, Dixon AK et al (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). Lancet 365:1769–1778

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC et al (2005) Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:8469–8476

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sardanelli F, Podo F, D’Agnolo G et al (2006) Multicenter comparative surveillance of women at genetic-familial high-risk of breast cancer using contrast-enhanced MR imaging, mammography, ultrasound and clinical breast examination. Interim results. Radiology (in press)

  10. Stoutjesdijk MJ, Boetes C, Jager GJ et al (2001) Magnetic resonance imaging and mammography in women with a hereditary risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 93:1095–1102

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Morris EA, Liberman L, Ballon DJ (2003) MRI of occult breast carcinoma in a high-risk population. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181:619–626

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Israeli D, Tartter PI, Brower ST, Mizrachy B, Bratton J (1994) The significance of family history for patients with carcinoma of the breast. J Am Coll Surg 179:29–32

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hoskins KF, Stopfer JE, Calzone KA et al (1995) Assessment and counselling for women with a family history of breast cancer. A guide for clinicians. JAMA 273:577–585

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Claus EB, Risch N, Thompson WD (1994) Autosomal dominant inheritance of early-onset breast cancer. Implications for risk prediction. Cancer 73:643–651

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Claus EB, Schildkraut JM, Thompson WD, Risch NJ (1996) The genetic attributable risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Cancer 77:2318–2324

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Ford D, Easton DF, Stratton M et al (1998) Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families. The breast cancer linkage consortium. Am J Hum Genet 62:676–689

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Marchetti P, Di Rocco CZ, Ricevuto E et al (2004) Reducing breast cancer incidence in familial breast cancer: overlooking the present panorama. Ann Oncol 15(suppl 1):I27–I34

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Koutcher JA, Goldsmith M, Damadian R (1978) NMR in cancer. X. A malignancy index to discriminate normal and cancerous tissue. Cancer 41:174–182

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Heywang SH, Hahn D, Eiermann W, Krischke I, Lissner J (1985) Nuclear magnetic resonance tomography in breast cancer diagnosis-present status and future outlook. Digitale Bilddiagn 5:107–111

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Beck R (1995) Contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast. 2nd ed. Springer-Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  21. Goodman CM, Cohen V, Thornby J, Netscher D (1998) The life span of silicone gel breast implants and a comparison of mammography, ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance imaging in detecting implant rupture: a meta-analysis. Ann Plast Surg 41:577–585

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Heywang SH, Hahn D, Schmidt H et al (1986) MRI of the breast using gadolinium-DTPA. J Comput Assist Tomogr 10:199–204

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Heywang SH, Wolf A, Pruss E, Hilbertz T, Eiermann W, Permanetter W (1989) MR imaging of the breast with Gd-DTPA: use and limitations. Radiology 171:95–103

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S, Leutner C, Wardelmann E, Gieseke J, Schild HH (1999) Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 211:101–110

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Sardanelli F, Iozzelli A, Fausto A (2003) MR imaging of the breast: indications, established technique and new directions. Eur Radiol 13(Suppl 3):N28–N36

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sardanelli F, Fausto A, Iozzelli A, Rescinito G, Calabrese M (2004) Dynamic breast magnetic resonance imaging. Effect of changing the region of interest on early enhancement using 2D and 3D techniques. J Comput Assist Tomogr 28:642–646

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Orel SG, Schnall MD, Powell CM et al (1995) Staging of suspected breast cancer: effect of MR imaging and MR-guided biopsy. Radiology 196:115–122

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Boné B, Aspelin P, Bronge L, Isberg B, Perbeck L, Veress B (1996) Sensitivity and specificity of MR mammography with histopathological correlation in 250 breasts. Acta Radiol 37:208–213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Viehweg P, Heinig A, Kuchler C (1997) Contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast: accuracy, value, controversies, solutions. Eur J Radiol 24:94–108

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Del Maschio A, Panizza P (1998) MR state of the art. Eur J Radiol 27(Suppl 2):S250–S253

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Fischer U, Westerhof JP, Brinck U, Korabiowska M, Schauer A, Grabbe E (1996) Ductal carcinoma in situ in dynamic MR-mammography at 1.5 T. Rofo 164:290–294

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Fischer U, Kopka L, Grabbe E (1999) Breast carcinoma: effect of preoperative contrast-enhanced MR imaging on the therapeutic approach. Radiology 213:881–888

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Malur S, Wurdinger S, Moritz A, Michels W, Schneider A (2001) Comparison of written reports of mammography, sonography and magnetic resonance mammography for preoperative evaluation of breast lesions, with special emphasis on magnetic resonance mammography. Breast Cancer Res 3:55–60

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Oshida K, Nagashima T, Ueda T et al (2005) Pharmacokinetic analysis of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast using dynamic MR mammography. Eur Radiol 15:1353–1360

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Orel SG, Hochman MG, Schnall MD, Reynolds C, Sullivan DC (1996) High-resolution MR imaging of the breast: clinical context. Radiographics 16:1385–1401

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Vomweg TW, Teifke A, Kunz RP et al (2004) Combination of low and high resolution sequences in two orientations for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast: more than a compromise. Eur Radiol 14:1732–1742

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Liberman L, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, Abramson AF, Tan LK (2003) MR imaging of the ipsilateral breast in women with percutaneously proven breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:901–910

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Fischer U, Zachariae O, Baum F, von Heyden D, Funke M, Liersch T (2004) The influence of preoperative MRI of the breasts on recurrence rate in patients with breast cancer. Eur Radiol 14:1725–1731

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Sardanelli F, Giuseppetti GM, Panizza P et al (2004) Sensitivity of MRI versus mammography for detecting foci of multifocal, multicentric breast cancer in fatty and dense breasts using the whole-breast pathologic examination as a gold standard. AJR Am J Roentgenol 183:1149–1157

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Van Goethem M, Schelfout K, Kersschot E et al (2004) Enhancing area surrounding breast carcinoma on MR mammography: comparison with pathological examination. Eur Radiol 14:1363–1370

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Schelfout K, Van Goethem M, Kersschot E et al (2004) Preoperative breast MRI in patients with invasive lobular breast cancer. Eur Radiol 14:1209–1216

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Liberman L, Morris EA, Kim CM et al (2003) MR imaging findings in the contralateral breast of women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:333–341

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Belli P, Costantini M, Romani M, Marano P, Pastore G (2002) Magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer recurrence. Breast Cancer Res Treat 73:223–235

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Morakkabati N, Leutner CC, Schmiedel A, Schild HH, Kuhl CK (2003) Breast MR imaging during or soon after radiation therapy. Radiology 229:893–901

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Partridge SC, Gibbs JE, Lu Y et al (2005) MRI measurements of breast tumor volume predict response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and recurrence-free survival. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184:1774–1781

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Yeh E, Slanetz P, Kopans DB et al (2005) Prospective comparison of mammography, sonography, and MRI in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for palpable breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184:868–877

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Obdeijn IM, Brouwers-Kuyper EM, Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Wiggers T, Oudkerk M (2000) MR imaging-guided sonography follwed by fine-needle aspiration cytology in occult carcinoma of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174:1079–1084

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Schorn C, Fischer U, Luftner-Nagel S, Westerhof JP, Grabbe E (1999) MRI of the breast in patients with metastatic disease of unknown primary. Eur Radiol 9:470–473

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Orel SG, Weinstein SP, Schnall MD et al (1999 ) Breast MR imaging in patients with axillary node metastases and unknown primary malignancy. Radiology 212:543–549

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Nunes LW, Schnall MD, Orel SG, Hochman MG, Langlotz CP, Reynolds CA, Torosian MH (1997) Breast MR imaging: interpretation model. Radiology 202:833–841

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Vomveg TW, Buscema M, Kauczor H et al (2003) Improved artificial neural networks in prediction of malignancy of lesions in contrast-enhanced MR-mammography. Med Phys 30:2350–2359

    Google Scholar 

  52. Baum F, Fischer U, Vosshenrich R, Grabbe E (2002) Classification of hypervascularized lesions in CE MR imaging of the breast. Eur Radiol 12:1087–1092

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Fischer DR, Baltzer P, Malich A et al (2004) Is the “blooming sign” a promising additional tool to determine malignancy in MR mammography? Eur Radiol 14:394–401

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Morris EA (2005) Breast MRI for cancer screening in high-risk patients. Applied Radiology May (Suppl):4–9

  55. LaTrenta LR, Menell JH, Morris EA, Abramson AF, Dershaw DD, Liberman L (2003) Breast lesions detected with MR imaging: utility and histopathologic importance of identification with US. Radiology 227:856–861

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Orel SG, Schnall MD, Newman RW et al (1994) MR imaging-guided localization and biopsy of breast lesions: initial experience. Radiology 193:97–102

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Fischer U, Kopka L, Grabbe E (1998) Magnetic resonance guided localization and biopsy of suspicious breast lesions. Top Magn Reson Imaging 9:44–59

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Kuhl CK, Elevelt A, Leutner CC et al (1997) Interventional breast MR imaging: clinical use of a stereotactic localization and biopsy device. Radiology 204:667–675

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Heinig A, Pickuth D et al (2000) Interventional MRI of the breast: lesion localization and biopsy. Eur Radiol 10:36–45

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Morris EA, Liberman L, Dershaw DD et al (2002) Preoperative MR imaging-guided needle localization of breast lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 178:1211–1220

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Liberman L, Morris EA, Dershaw DD et al (2003) Fast MRI-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: initial experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181:1283–1293

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Jemal A, Tiwari RC, Murray T et al (2004) Cancer Statistics 2004. CA Cancer J Clin 54:8–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Siesling S, van Dijck JA, Visser O, Coebergh JW; Working Group of The Netherlands Cancer Registry (2003) Trends in incidence of and mortality from cancer in The Netherlands in the period 1989–1998. Eur J Cancer 39:2521–2530

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Serova OM, Mazoyer S, Puget N et al (1997) Mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 in breast cancer families: are there more breast cancer-susceptibility genes? Am J Hum Genet 60:486–495

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Szabo CI, King MC (1997) Population genetics of BRCA 1 and BRCA2. Am J Hum Genet 60:1013–1020

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. No authors listed (1997) Pathology of familial breast cancer: differences between breast cancer in carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA 2 mutations and sporadic cases. Breast cancer linkage consortium. Lancet 349:1505–1510

    Google Scholar 

  67. Krainer M, Silva-Arrieta S, FitzGerald MG et al (1997) Differential contributions of BRCA1 and BRCA2 to early-onset breast cancers. N Engl J Med 336:1416–1421

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Lakhani SR, Jacquemier J, Sloane JP et al (1998) Multifactorial analysis of differences between sporadic breast cancers and cancers involving BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. J Natl Cancer Inst 90:1138–1145

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Porter DE, Dixon M, Smyth E, Steel CM (1993) Breast cancer survival in BRCA1 carriers. Lancet 341:184–185

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Verhoog LC, Brekelmans CT, Seynaeve C et al (1998) Survival and tumour characteristics of breast-cancer patients with germline mutations of BRCA1. Lancet 351:316–321

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Thull DL, Vogel VG (2004) Recognition and management of hereditary breast cancer syndromes. Oncologist 9:13–24

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Ardern-Jones A, Kenen R, Eeles R (2005) Too much, too soon? Patients and health professionals’ views concerning the impact of genetic testing at the time of breast cancer diagnosis in women under the age of 40. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 14:272–281

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Sevilla C, Julian-Reynier C, Eisinger F et al (2003) Impact of gene patents on the cost-effective delivery of care: the case of BRCA1 genetic testing. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 19:287–300

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP et al (1989) Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst 81:1879–1886

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Gail MH, Costantino J, Bryant J et al (1999) Weighing the risks and benefits of tamoxifen treatment for preventing breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 91:1829–1846

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Friedenson B (2004) Assessing and managing breast cancer risk: clinical tools for advising patients. MedGenMed 6:8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Domchek SM, Eisen A, Calzone K et al (2003) Application of breast cancer risk prediction models in clinical practice. J Clin Oncol 21:593–601

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. McTiernan A, Kuniyuki A, Yasui Y et al (2001) Comparisons of two breast cancer risk estimates in women with a family history of breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 10:333–338

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Bonadona V, Sinilnikova OM, Lenoir GM, Lasset C (2002) Pretest prediction of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation by risk counselors and the computer model BRCAPRO. J Natl Cancer Inst 94:1583–1584

    Google Scholar 

  80. Berg WA (2004) Image-guided breast biopsy and management of high-risk lesions. Radiol Clin North Am 42:935–946

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Sewell CW (2004) Pathology of high-risk breast lesions and ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiol Clin North Am 42:821–830

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Dershaw DD (2000) Mammographic screening of the high-risk woman. Am J Surg 180:288–289

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Burke W, Daly M, Garber J et al (1997) Recommendations for follow-up care of individuals with an inherited predisposition to breast cancer. II. BRCA1 and BRCA2. Cancer genetics studies consortium. JAMA 227:997–1003

    Google Scholar 

  84. Chart PL, Franssen E (1997) Management of women at increased risk for breast cancer: preliminary results from a new program. CMAJ 157:1235–1242

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Lalloo F, Boggis CR, Evans DG, Shenton A, Threlfall AG, Howell A (1998) Screening by mammography, women with a family history of breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 34:937–940

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Kollias J, Sibbering DM, Blamey RW et al (1998) Screening women aged less than 50 years with a familial history of breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 34:878–883

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Macmillan RD (2000) Screening women with a family history of breast cancer—results from the british familial breast cancer group. Eur J Surg Oncol 26:149–152

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Brekelmans CT, Seynaeve C, Bartels CC et al (2001) Effectiveness of breast cancer surveillance in BRCA1/2 gene mutation carriers and women with high familial risk. J Clin Oncol 19:924–930

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Scheuer L, Kauff N, Robson M et al (2002) Outcome of preventive surgery and screening for breast and ovarian cancer in BRCA mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol 20:1260–1268

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Den Otter W, Merchant TE, Beijerinck D et al (1996) Breast cancer induction due to mammography screening in hereditarily affected women. Anticancer Res 16:3173–3175

    Google Scholar 

  91. Law J (1997) Cancer detected and induced in mammographic screening: new screening schedules and younger women with family history. Br J Radiol 70:62–69

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Sharan SK, Morimatsu M, Albrecht U et al (1997) Embryonic lethality and radiation hypersensitivity mediated by Rad51 in mice lacking Brca2. Nature 386:804–810

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Beemsterboer PM, Warmerdam PG, Boer R, de Koning HJ (1998) Radiation risk of mammography related to benefit in screening programmes: a favourable balance? J Med Screen 5:81–87

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. Mettler FA, Upton AC, Kelsey CA, Ashby RN, Rosenberg RD, Linver MN (1996) Benefits versus risks from mammography: a critical reassessment. Cancer 77:903–909

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. van Leeuwen FE, Klokman WJ, Hagenbeek A et al (1994) Second cancer risk following Hodgkin disease: a 20-year follow-up study. J Clin Oncol 12:312–325

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. O’Brien PC, Barton MB, Fisher R (1995) Breast cancer following treatment for Hodgkin’s disease: the need for screening in a young population. Australasian radiation oncology lymphoma group (AROLG). Australas Radiol 39:271–276

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. Boice JD Jr, Land CE, Shore RE, Norman JE, Tokunaga M (1979) Risk of breast cancer following low-dose radiation exposure. Radiology 131:589–597

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH (2002) Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 225:165–175

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Berg WA (2004) Supplemental screening sonography in dense breasts. Radiol Clin North Am 42:845–851

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Pennisi VR, Capozzi A (1989) Subcutaneous mastectomy data: a final statistical analysis of 1500 patients. Aesthetic Plast Surg 13:15–21

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Geiger AM, Yu O, Herrinton LJ (2005) A population-based study of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy efficacy in women at elevated risk of breast cancer in community practices. Arch Intern Med 165:516–520

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Meijers-Heijboer H, van Geel B, van Putten WL et al (2001) Breast cancer after prophylactic bilateral mastectomy in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. N Engl J Med 345:159–164

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  103. Hartmann LC, Sellers TA, Schaid DJ et al (2001) Efficacy of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 93:1633–1637

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. Kauff ND, Satagopan JM, Robson ME et al (2002) Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. N Engl J Med 346:1609–1615

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Rebbeck TR, Lynch HT, Neuhausen SL et al (2002) Prophylactic oophorectomy in carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. N Engl J Med 346:1616–1622

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Calderon-Margalit R, Paltiel O (2004) Prevention of breast cancer in women who carry BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations: a critical review of the literature. Int J Cancer 112:357–364

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  107. King MC, Wieand S, Hale K et al (2001) Tamoxifen and breast cancer incidence among women with inherited mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2: National surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project (NSABP-P1) Breast cancer prevention trial. JAMA 286:2251–2256

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  108. Caines JS, Schaller GH, Iles SE et al (2005) Ten years of breast screening in the Nova Scotia Breast Screening Program, 1991–2001 experience: use of an adaptable stereotactic device in the diagnosis of screening-detected abnormalities. Can Assoc Radiol J 56:82–93

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Kuhl CK, Schild HH, Morakkabati N (2005) Dynamic bilateral contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast: trade-off between spatial and temporal resolution. Radiology 236:789–800

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Sardanelli F, Podo F (2005) Women with history of breast cancer excluded from screening programs: is it the right choice? (letter). Radiology 234:971–972

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Bernstein JL, Thompson WD, Risch N, Holford TR (1992) Risk factors predicting the incidence of second primary breast cancer among women diagnosed with a first primary breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol 136:925–936

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  112. Robson M, Gilewski T, Haas B et al (1998) BRCA-associated breast cancer in young women. J Clin Oncol 16:1642–1649

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  113. Metcalfe KA, Semple JL, Narod SA (2005) Time to reconsider subcutaneous mastectomy for breast-cancer prevention? Lancet Oncol 6:431–434

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Stefanek ME, Helzlsouer KJ, Wilcox PM, Houn F (1995) Predictors of and satisfaction with bilateral prophylactic mastectomy. Prev Med 24:412–419

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  115. Meyer L, Ringberg A (1986) A prospective study of psychiatric and psychosocial sequelae of bilateral subcutaneous mastectomy. Scan J Plast Reconstr Surg 20:101–107

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  116. Goin MK, Goin JM (1982) Pyschological reactions to prophylactic mastectomy synchronous with contralateral breast reconstruction Plast Reconstr Surg 70:355–359

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  117. Heinig A, Lampe D, Kolbl H, Beck R, Heywang-Kobrunner SH (2002) Suppression of unspecific enhancement on breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) by antiestrogen medication. Tumori 88:215–223

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  118. Rosenberg RD, Hunt WC, Williamson MR et al (1998) Effects of age, breast density, ethnicity, and estrogen replacement therapy on screening mammographic sensitivity and cancer stage at diagnosis: review of 183,134 screening mammograms in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Radiology 209:511–518

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  119. Armes JE, Venter DJ (2002) The pathology of inherited breast cancer. Pathology 34:309–314

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Sun CC, Lenoir G, Lynch H, Narod SA (1996) In-situ breast cancer and BRCA1. Lancet 348:408

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  121. Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Kriege M, Boetes C et al (2005) Hereditary breast cancer growth rates and its impact on screening policy. Eur J Cancer 41:1610–1617

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This paper has been written as a consequence of the experience of both authors in coordinating the High Breast Cancer Risk Italian Trial (HiBCRIT) of the Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy (Responsible Investigator, Franca Podo; funding by Ministero Salute, Ricerca Finalizzata 1% N. 98/JT/T and Instituto Superiore di Sanità, Ricerca Corrente C3A3/2004).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesco Sardanelli.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sardanelli, F., Podo, F. Breast MR imaging in women at high-risk of breast cancer. Is something changing in early breast cancer detection?. Eur Radiol 17, 873–887 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-006-0389-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-006-0389-9

Keywords

Navigation