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

BMC Cancer

Sepideh Saadatmand³  Emiel J T Rutgers⁴  RobAEM Tollenaar¹  Hermien M Zonderland⁷  MargreetGEM Ausems²  KristienBMI Keymeulen⁶  Margreet S Schlooz-Vries⁵  Linetta B Koppert³  Eveline A M Heijnsdijk¹¹  Caroline Seynaeve⁸  Cees Verhoef³  Jan C Oosterwijk¹⁰  Inge-Marie Obdeijn⁹  Harry J de Koning¹¹  Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst³ 

[1] Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands

[2] Department of Medical Genetics, University Medical Centre, Utrecht, Netherlands

[3] Department of Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands

[4] Department of Surgery, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, Netherlands

[5] Department of Surgery, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands

[6] Department of Surgery, Academic Hospital, Maastricht, Netherlands

[7] Department of Radiology, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, Netherlands

[8] Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus University Medical Centre-Daniel den Hoed Cancer Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands

[9] Department of Radiology, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands

[10] Department of Genetics, University of Groningen, UMCG, Groningen, Netherlands

[11] Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands

关键词: Cost-effectiveness;    Breast density;    MRI;    Screening;    Familial risk;    Breast cancer;   

Others  :  1080169
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2407-12-440

 received in 2012-08-14, accepted in 2012-09-20,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

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

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Saadatmand et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Claus EB, Risch N, Thompson WD: Autosomal dominant inheritance of early-onset breast cancer. Implications for risk prediction. Cancer 1994, 73(3):643-651.
• [2]Brandt A, Bermejo JL, Sundquist J, Hemminki K: Age of onset in familial breast cancer as background data for medical surveillance. Br J Cancer 2010, 102(1):42-47.
• [3]Margolin S, Johansson H, Rutqvist LE, Lindblom A, Fornander T: Family history, and impact on clinical presentation and prognosis, in a population-based breast cancer cohort from the Stockholm County. Fam Cancer 2006, 5(4):309-321.
• [4]Sant M, Allemani C, Capocaccia R, Hakulinen T, Aareleid T, Coebergh JW, Coleman MP, Grosclaude P, Martinez C, Bell J, et al.: Stage at diagnosis is a key explanation of differences in breast cancer survival across Europe. Int J Cancer 2003, 106(3):416-422.
• [5]Maurice A, Evans DG, Affen J, Greenhalgh R, Duffy SW, Howell A: Surveillance of women at increased risk of breast cancer using mammography and clinical breast examination: Further evidence of benefit. Int J Cancer 2012, 131(2):417-425.
• [6]teams FHc: Mammographic surveillance in women younger than 50 years who have a family history of breast cancer: tumour characteristics and projected effect on mortality in the prospective, single-arm, FH01 study. Lancet Oncol 2010, 11(12):1127-1134.
• [7]Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Bartels CC, Obdeijn AI, Oudkerk M: Earlier detection of breast cancer by surveillance of women at familial risk. Eur J Cancer 2000, 36(4):514-519.
• [8]Hagen AI, Kvistad KA, Maehle L, Holmen MM, Aase H, Styr B, Vabo A, Apold J, Skaane P, Moller P: Sensitivity of MRI versus conventional screening in the diagnosis of BRCA-associated breast cancer in a national prospective series. Breast 2007, 16(4):367-374.
• [9]Kuhl C, Weigel S, Schrading S, Arand B, Bieling H, Konig R, Tombach B, Leutner C, Rieber-Brambs A, Nordhoff D, et al.: Prospective multicenter cohort study to refine management recommendations for women at elevated familial risk of breast cancer: the EVA trial. J Clin Oncol 2010, 28(9):1450-1457.
• [10]Leach MO, Boggis CR, Dixon AK, Easton DF, Eeles RA, Evans DG, Gilbert FJ, Griebsch I, Hoff RJ, Kessar P, et al.: 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 2005, 365(9473):1769-1778.
• [11]Rijnsburger AJ, Obdeijn IM, Kaas R, Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Boetes C, Loo CE, Wasser MN, Bergers E, Kok T, Muller SH, et al.: BRCA1-associated breast cancers present differently from BRCA2-associated and familial cases: long-term follow-up of the Dutch MRISC Screening Study. J Clin Oncol 2010, 28(36):5265-5273.
• [12]Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA, Causer PA, Zubovits JT, Jong RA, Cutrara MR, DeBoer G, Yaffe MJ, Messner SJ, et al.: Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA 2004, 292(11):1317-1325.
• [13]van der Velden AP S, Schlooz-Vries MS, Boetes C, Wobbes T: Magnetic resonance imaging of ductal carcinoma in situ: what is its clinical application? A review. Am J Surg 2009, 198(2):262-269.
• [14]Griebsch I, Brown J, Boggis C, Dixon A, Dixon M, Easton D, Eeles R, Evans DG, Gilbert FJ, Hawnaur J, et al.: Cost-effectiveness of screening with contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging vs X-ray mammography of women at a high familial risk of breast cancer. Br J Cancer 2006, 95(7):801-810.
• [15]Lee JM, McMahon PM, Kong CY, Kopans DB, Ryan PD, Ozanne EM, Halpern EF, Gazelle GS: Cost-effectiveness of breast MR imaging and screen-film mammography for screening BRCA1 gene mutation carriers. Radiology 2010, 254(3):793-800.
• [16]Plevritis SK, Kurian AW, Sigal BM, Daniel BL, Ikeda DM, Stockdale FE, Garber AM: Cost-effectiveness of screening BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with breast magnetic resonance imaging. JAMA 2006, 295(20):2374-2384.
• [17] : Richtlijn mammacarcinoom.  ,  ;  . http://www.oncoline.nl/uploaded/docs/mammacarcinoom/mammacdiagscr.pdf webcite
• [18]Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, Harms S, Leach MO, Lehman CD, Morris E, Pisano E, Schnall M, Sener S, et al.: American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin 2007, 57(2):75-89.
• [19]Kerlikowske K: The mammogram that cried Wolfe. N Engl J Med 2007, 356(3):297-300.
• [20]Mitchell G, Antoniou AC, Warren R, Peock S, Brown J, Davies R, Mattison J, Cook M, Warsi I, Evans DG, et al.: Mammographic density and breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Cancer Res 2006, 66(3):1866-1872.
• [21]Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, Sun L, Stone J, Fishell E, Jong RA, Hislop G, Chiarelli A, Minkin S, et al.: Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007, 356(3):227-236.
• [22]Thompson DJ, Leach MO, Kwan-Lim G, Gayther SA, Ramus SJ, Warsi I, Lennard F, Khazen M, Bryant E, Reed S, et al.: Assessing the usefulness of a novel MRI-based breast density estimation algorithm in a cohort of women at high genetic risk of breast cancer: the UK MARIBS study. Breast Cancer Res 2009, 11(6):R80. BioMed Central Full Text
• [23]Lehman CD, Gatsonis C, Kuhl CK, Hendrick RE, Pisano ED, Hanna L, Peacock S, Smazal SF, Maki DD, Julian TB, et al.: MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007, 356(13):1295-1303.
• [24]Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Obdeijn IM, Hop WC, Causer PA, Leach MO, Warner E, Pointon L, Hill K, Klijn JG, Warren RM, et al.: BRCA1 mutation and young age predict fast breast cancer growth in the Dutch, United Kingdom, and Canadian magnetic resonance imaging screening trials. Clin Cancer Res 2007, 13(24):7357-7362.
• [25]Checka CM, Chun JE, Schnabel FR, Lee J, Toth H: The relationship of mammographic density and age: implications for breast cancer screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012, 198(3):W292-W295.
• [26]Zonderland HM, Coerkamp EG, Hermans J, van de Vijver MJ, van Voorthuisen AE: Diagnosis of breast cancer: contribution of US as an adjunct to mammography. Radiology 1999, 213(2):413-422.
• [27]van Asperen CJ, Jonker MA, Jacobi CE, van Diemen-Homan JE, Bakker E, Breuning MH, van Houwelingen JC, de Bock GH: Risk estimation for healthy women from breast cancer families: new insights and new strategies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2004, 13(1):87-93.
• [28] : Familial breast cancer: the classification and care of women at risk of famial breast cancer in primary, secondary and tertiary care. Clinical Guideline 14.  ,  ;  . http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/10994/30247/30247.pdf webcite
• [29]Mann RM, Kuhl CK, Kinkel K, Boetes C: Breast MRI: guidelines from the European Society of Breast Imaging. Eur Radiol 2008, 18(7):1307-1318.
• [30] : ACR practice guideline for the performance of contrastenhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast.  ,  ;  . [ http://www.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenuCategories/quality_safety/guidelines/breast/mri_breast.aspx webcite]
• [31]Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, Besnard PE, Zonderland HM, Obdeijn IM, Manoliu RA, Kok T, Peterse H, Tilanus-Linthorst MM, et al.: Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med 2004, 351(5):427-437.
• [32]Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, Morakkabati-Spitz N, Wardelmann E, Fimmers R, Kuhn W, Schild HH: Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005, 23(33):8469-8476.
• [33]Warner E, Messersmith H, Causer P, Eisen A, Shumak R, Plewes D: Systematic review: using magnetic resonance imaging to screen women at high risk for breast cancer. Ann Intern Med 2008, 148(9):671-679.
• [34]Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Bieling HB, Wardelmann E, Leutner CC, Koenig R, Kuhn W, Schild HH: MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study. Lancet 2007, 370(9586):485-492.
• [35]Eilertsen AL, Karssemeijer N, Skaane P, Qvigstad E, Sandset PM: Differential impact of conventional and low-dose oral hormone therapy, tibolone and raloxifene on mammographic breast density, assessed by an automated quantitative method. BJOG 2008, 115(6):773-779.
• [36]van Engeland S, Snoeren PR, Huisman H, Boetes C, Karssemeijer N: Volumetric breast density estimation from full-field digital mammograms. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2006, 25(3):273-282.
• [37]Boetes C, Stoutjesdijk M: MR imaging in screening women at increased risk for breast cancer. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2001, 9(2):357-372. vii
• [38]de Koning HJ: Mammographic screening: evidence from randomised controlled trials. Ann Oncol 2003, 14(8):1185-1189.
• [39]Groenewoud JH, Pijnappel RM, van den Akker-Van Marle ME, Birnie E, Buijs-van der Woude T, Mali WP, de Koning HJ, Buskens E: Cost-effectiveness of stereotactic large-core needle biopsy for nonpalpable breast lesions compared to open-breast biopsy. Br J Cancer 2004, 90(2):383-392.
• [40]Rijnsburger AJ, van Oortmarssen GJ, Boer R, Draisma G, To T, Miller AB, de Koning HJ: Mammography benefit in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study-2: a model evaluation. Int J Cancer 2004, 110(5):756-762.
• [41](NETB) NETfBcs: National evaluation of breast cancer screening in the Netherlands - eleventh evaluation report. Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam; 2005.
• [42]Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK, Fryback DG, Clarke L, Zelen M, Mandelblatt JS, Yakovlev AY, Habbema JD, Feuer EJ, et al.: Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005, 353(17):1784-1792.
• [43]Bjurstam N, Bjorneld L, Warwick J, Sala E, Duffy SW, Nystrom L, Walker N, Cahlin E, Eriksson O, Hafstrom LO, et al.: The Gothenburg Breast Screening Trial. Cancer 2003, 97(10):2387-2396.
• [44]Nystrom L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Frisell J, Nordenskjold B, Rutqvist LE: Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 2002, 359(9310):909-919.
• [45]Tabar L, Yen MF, Vitak B, Chen HH, Smith RA, Duffy SW: Mammography service screening and mortality in breast cancer patients: 20-year follow-up before and after introduction of screening. Lancet 2003, 361(9367):1405-1410.