Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Breast Cancer
Published in: Breast Cancer 5/2019

Open Access 01-09-2019 | Breast Cancer | Original Article

The clinical impact of MRI screening for BRCA mutation carriers: the first report in Japan

Authors: Wakana Murakami, Mitsuhiro Tozaki, Seigo Nakamura, Yoshimi Ide, Mayuko Inuzuka, Yuko Hirota, Kouzou Murakami, Noritsugu Takahama, Yoshimitsu Ohgiya, Takehiko Gokan

Published in: Breast Cancer | Issue 5/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

There is no consensus on the appropriate surveillance for high-risk women with breast cancer in Japan. We investigated their imaging features and pathological characteristics to build a proper surveillance system for asymptomatic high-risk individuals in the future.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 93 female (median age 43 years) BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers from our institutional clinical database from 2011 to 2017. The study population was composed of 112 breast cancers. Mammography and MRI were reviewed by examiners blinded to patients’ clinical history. Final surgical or biopsy histopathology served as the reference standard in all the patients.

Results

Fifty-nine breast cancers met selection criteria; of these, 30 were BRCA1-associated tumors, and 29 were BRCA2-associated tumors. Invasive ductal carcinoma was the most prevalent type in both BRCA1 and BRCA2. There were statistically significant differences in phenotype, nuclear grade, and Ki-67 labeling index between BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Additionally, imaging findings on mammography and MRI were statistically different. Tumors in BRCA2 carriers demonstrated mammographic calcifications more frequently, while those in BRCA1 carriers demonstrated a mass or architectural distortion (P < 0.001). Enhancement pattern on MRI also significantly differed between the two subgroups (P = 0.006). The size of MRI-detected lesions was statistically smaller than the size of those detected by other modalities (P = 0.004).

Conclusions

The imaging and histological characteristics of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers were consistent with other countries’ studies. MRI-detected lesions were significantly smaller than lesions detected by non-MRI modality. All lesions in BRCA1 mutation carriers could be detected by MRI.
Literature
1.
Sugano K, Nakamura S, Ando J, Takayama S, Kamata H, Sekiguchi I, et al. Cross-sectional analysis of germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in Japanese patients suspected to have hereditary breast/ovarian cancer. Cancer Sci. 2008;99:1967–76.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Ha SM, Chae EY, Cha JH, Kim HH, Shin HJ, Choi WJ. Association of BRCA mutation types, imaging features, and pathologic findings in patients with breast cancer with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. Am J Roentgenol. 2017;209:920–8.CrossRef
3.
Krammer J, Pinker-Domenig K, Robson ME, Gönen M, Bernard-Davila B, Morris EA, et al. Breast cancer detection and tumor characteristics in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;163:565–71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, Harms S, Leach MO, Lehman CD, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57:75–89.CrossRefPubMed
5.
American College of Radiology. ACR BI- RADS Atlas. 5th ed. Reston: American College of Radiology; 2013.
6.
Kanda Y. Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software “EZR” for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013;48:452–8.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Tozaki M, Nakamura S, Kitagawa D, Iwase T, Horii R, Akiyama F, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ detected during prospective MR imaging screening of a woman with a BRCA2 mutation: the first case report in Japan. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2017;16:265–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Kuhl C, Weigel S, Schrading S, Arand B, Bieling H, König R, 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;28:1450–7.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Tozaki M, Yamashiro N, Suzuki T, Kawano N, Ozaki S, Sakamoto N, et al. MR-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: is it an essential technique? Breast Cancer. 2009;16:121–5.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Tozaki M, Yamashiro N, Sakamoto M, Sakamoto N, Mizuuchi N, Fukuma E. Magnetic resonance-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: results in 100 Japanese women. Jpn J Radiol. 2010;28:527–33.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Sakamoto N, Tozaki M, Higa K, Abe S, Ozaki S, Fukuma E. False-negative ultrasound-guided vacuum-assisted biopsy of the breast: difference with US-detected and MRI-detected lesions. Breast Cancer. 2010;17:110–7.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Boughey JC, Khakpour N, Meric-Bernstam F, Ross MI, Kuerer HM, Singletary SE, et al. Selective use of sentinel lymph node surgery during prophylactic mastectomy. Cancer. 2006;107:1440–7.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Lehman CD, Gatsonis C, Kuhl CK, Hendrick RE, Pisano ED, Hanna L, et al. MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1295–303.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Pediconi F, Catalano C, Roselli A, Padula S, Altomari F, Moriconi E, et al. Contrast-enhanced MR mammography for evaluation of the contralateral breast in patients with diagnosed unilateral breast cancer or high-risk lesions. Radiology. 2007;243:670–80.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Podo F, Santoro F, Di Leo G, Manoukian S, De Giacomi C, Corcione S, et al. Triple-negative versus non-triple-negative breast cancers in high-risk women: phenotype features and survival from the HIBCRIT-1 MRI-including screening study. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22:895–904.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Rijnsburger AJ, Obdeijn IM, Kaas R, Tilanus-Linthorst MMA, Boetes C, Loo CE, 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;28:5265–73.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Nakamura S, Takahashi M, Tozaki M, Nakayama T, Nomizu T, Miki Y, et al. Prevalence and differentiation of hereditary breast and ovarian cancers in Japan. Breast Cancer. 2015;22:462–8.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Vreemann S, Gubern-Mérida A, Schlooz-Vries MS, Bult P, van Gils CH, Hoogerbrugge N, et al. Influence of risk category and screening round on the performance of an MR imaging and mammography screening program in carriers of the BRCA mutation and other women at increased risk. Radiology. 2018;286:443–51.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Kuchenbaecker KB, Hopper JL, Barnes DR, Phillips K-A, Mooij TM, Roos-Blom M-J, et al. Risks of breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. JAMA. 2017;317:2402–16.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Schrading S, Kuhl CK. Mammographic, US, and MR imaging phenotypes of familial breast cancer. Radiology. 2008;246:58–70.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Kriege M, Brekelmans CTM, Boetes C, Besnard PE, Zonderland HM, Obdeijn IM, et al. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:427–37.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Sardanelli F, Podo F, D’Agnolo G, Verdecchia A, Santaquilani M, Musumeci R, et al. Multicenter comparative multimodality surveillance of women at genetic-familial high risk for breast cancer (HIBCRIT study): interim results. Radiology. 2007;242:698–715.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Lowry KP, Lee JM, Kong CY, McMahon PM, Gilmore ME, Cott Chubiz JE, et al. Annual screening strategies in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers: a comparative effectiveness analysis. Cancer. 2012;118:2021–30.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Phi X, Saadatmand S, De Bock GH, Warner E, Sardanelli F, Leach MO, et al. Contribution of mammography to MRI screening in BRCA mutation carriers by BRCA status and age: individual patient data meta-analysis. Br J Cancer. 2016;114:631–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Crest AB, Aiello EJ, Anderson ML, Buist DSM. Varying levels of family history of breast cancer in relation to mammographic breast density (United States). Cancer Causes Control. 2006;17:843–50.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Sawada T, Akashi S, Nakamura S, Kuwayama T, Enokido K, Yoshida M, et al. Digital volumetric measurement of mammographic density and the risk of overlooking cancer in Japanese women. Breast Cancer. 2017;24:708–13.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Boyd NF, Rommens JM, Vogt K, Lee V, Hopper JL, Yaffe MJ, et al. Mammographic breast density as an intermediate phenotype for breast cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6:798–808.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Maskarinec G, Pagano I, Lurie G, Wilkens LR, Kolonel LN. Mammographic density and breast cancer risk: the multiethnic cohort study. Am J Epidemiol. 2005;162:743–52.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Dai H, Yan Y, Wang P, Liu P, Cao Y, Xiong L, et al. Distribution of mammographic density and its influential factors among Chinese women. Int J Epidemiol. 2014;43:1240–51.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Puliti D, Zappa M, Giorgi Rossi P, Pierpaoli E, Manneschi G, Ambrogetti D, et al. Volumetric breast density and risk of advanced cancers after a negative screening episode: a cohort study. Breast Cancer Res. 2018;20:95.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, Morakkabati-Spitz N, Wardelmann E, Fimmers R, et al. Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:8469–76.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA, Causer PA, Zubovits JT, Jong RA, et al. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA. 2004;292:1317–25.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Lehman CD, Isaacs C, Schnall MD, Pisano ED, Ascher SM, Weatherall PT, et al. Cancer yield of mammography, MR, and US in high-risk women: prospective multi-institution breast cancer screening study. Radiology. 2007;244:381–8.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Vreemann S, van Zelst JCM, Schlooz-Vries M, Bult P, Hoogerbrugge N, Karssemeijer N, et al. The added value of mammography in different age-groups of women with and without BRCA mutation screened with breast MRI. Breast Cancer Res. 2018;20:84.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Bieling HB, Wardelmann E, Leutner CC, Koenig R, et al. MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study. Lancet. 2007;370:485–92.CrossRefPubMed
36.
van Zelst JCM, Mus RDM, Woldringh G, Rutten MJCM, Bult P, Vreemann S, et al. Surveillance of women with the BRCA 1 or BRCA 2 mutation by using biannual automated breast US, MR imaging, and mammography. Radiology. 2017;285:376–88.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Narayan AK, Visvanathan K, Harvey SC. Comparative effectiveness of breast MRI and mammography in screening young women with elevated risk of developing breast cancer: a retrospective cohort study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;158:583–9.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Pijpe A, Andrieu N, Easton DF, Kesminiene A, Cardis E, Noguès C, et al. Exposure to diagnostic radiation and risk of breast cancer among carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations: retrospective cohort study (GENE-RAD-RISK). BMJ. 2012;345:e5660.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
Kim WH, Han W, Chang JM, Cho N, Park IA, Moon WK. Location of triple-negative breast cancers: comparison with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancers on MR imaging. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0116344.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Perlet C, Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Heinig A, Sittek H, Casselman J, Anderson I, et al. Magnetic resonance-guided, vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: results from a European multicenter study of 538 lesions. Cancer. 2006;106:982–90.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
The clinical impact of MRI screening for BRCA mutation carriers: the first report in Japan
Authors
Wakana Murakami
Mitsuhiro Tozaki
Seigo Nakamura
Yoshimi Ide
Mayuko Inuzuka
Yuko Hirota
Kouzou Murakami
Noritsugu Takahama
Yoshimitsu Ohgiya
Takehiko Gokan
Publication date
01-09-2019
Publisher
Springer Japan
Published in
Breast Cancer / Issue 5/2019
Print ISSN: 1340-6868
Electronic ISSN: 1880-4233
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-019-00955-6

Other articles of this Issue 5/2019

Breast Cancer 5/2019 Go to the issue

Original Article

Novel tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes ultrasonography score based on ultrasonic tissue findings predicts tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in breast cancer

Original Article

Neutropenia management with palbociclib in Japanese patients with advanced breast cancer

Original Article

Oncologic outcomes and radiation safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy with intraoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer

Correction

Correction to: Breast cancer cell motility is promoted by 14-3-3γ

Original Article

Relationships among personality, coping, and concurrent health-related quality of life in women with breast cancer

Original Article

PIM1 is responsible for IL-6-induced breast cancer cell EMT and stemness via c-myc activation
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits