Skip to main content
Top
Published in:

28-09-2022 | Magnetic Resonance Imaging | Breast Oncology

Screening MRI Does Not Increase Cancer Detection or Result in an Earlier Stage at Diagnosis for Patients with High-Risk Breast Lesions: A Propensity Score Analysis

Authors: Alison Laws, MD, MPH, Fisher Katlin, BA, Marybeth Hans, PA-C, Mary Graichen, NP, Olga Kantor, MD, MS, Christina Minami, MD, MS, Brittany L. Bychkovsky, MD, Lydia E. Pace, MD, MPH, Rochelle Scheib, MD, Judy E. Garber, MD, MPH, Tari A. King, MD

Published in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Issue 1/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Guidelines recommend consideration of screening MRI for patients with high-risk breast lesions (HRLs), acknowledging limited data for this moderate-risk population.

Methods

This study identified patients with atypical ductal/lobular hyperplasia (ADH/ALH), lobular carcinoma in situ, (LCIS) or both evaluated at our high-risk clinic. Patients were categorized as having received screening mammography (MMG) alone vs. MMG and breast MRI (MMG+MRI). Inverse probability weighting based on propensity scores (PS) representing likelihood of MRI use was applied to Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses to determine cancer detection and biopsy rates by screening group.

Results

Among 908 eligible patients, 699 (77%) patients with available follow-up data were analyzed (542 with ADH/ALH and 157 with LCIS). Of the 699 patients, 540 (77%) received MMG alone, and 159 (23%) received MMG + MRI. The median follow-up period was 25 months, during which a median of two MRIs were performed. After PS-weighting, the characteristics of each screening group were well-balanced with respect to age, race, body mass index (BMI), menopausal status, breast density, family history, HRL type, and chemoprevention use. The 4 year breast cancer detection rate was 3.6% with both MMG alone and MMG+MRI (p = 0.89). The breast biopsy rates were significantly higher with MMG+MRI (30.5% vs12.6%; hazard ratio [HR], 2.67; p < 0.001). All breast cancers were clinically node-negative and pathologic stage 0 or 1. Among five cancers in the MMG+MRI group, two were MRI-detected, two were MMG-detected, and one was detected on clinical exam.

Conclusions

Screening MRI did not improve cancer detection, and cancer characteristics were favorable whether screened with MMG alone or MMG + MRI. These findings question the benefit of MRI for patients with HRL, although longer-term follow-up study is needed.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Hartmann LC, Degnim AC, Santen RJ, Dupont WD, Ghosh K. Atypical hyperplasia of the breast: risk assessment and management options. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:78–89.CrossRef Hartmann LC, Degnim AC, Santen RJ, Dupont WD, Ghosh K. Atypical hyperplasia of the breast: risk assessment and management options. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:78–89.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference King TA, Reis-Filho JS. Lobular neoplasia. Surg Oncol Clin North Am. 2014;23:487–503.CrossRef King TA, Reis-Filho JS. Lobular neoplasia. Surg Oncol Clin North Am. 2014;23:487–503.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Bodian CA, Perzin KH, Lattes R. Lobular neoplasia: long-term risk of breast cancer and relation to other factors. Cancer. 1996;78:1024–34.CrossRef Bodian CA, Perzin KH, Lattes R. Lobular neoplasia: long-term risk of breast cancer and relation to other factors. Cancer. 1996;78:1024–34.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Page DL, Schuyler PA, Dupont WD, Jensen RA, Plummer WD Jr, Simpson JF. Atypical lobular hyperplasia as a unilateral predictor of breast cancer risk: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2003;361:125–9.CrossRef Page DL, Schuyler PA, Dupont WD, Jensen RA, Plummer WD Jr, Simpson JF. Atypical lobular hyperplasia as a unilateral predictor of breast cancer risk: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2003;361:125–9.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference King TA, Pilewskie M, Muhsen S, et al. Lobular carcinoma in situ: a 29-year longitudinal experience evaluating clinicopathologic features and breast cancer risk. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:3945–52.CrossRef King TA, Pilewskie M, Muhsen S, et al. Lobular carcinoma in situ: a 29-year longitudinal experience evaluating clinicopathologic features and breast cancer risk. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:3945–52.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Wong SM, King T, Boileau JF, Barry WT, Golshan M. Population-based analysis of breast cancer incidence and survival outcomes in women diagnosed with lobular carcinoma in situ. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24:2509–17.CrossRef Wong SM, King T, Boileau JF, Barry WT, Golshan M. Population-based analysis of breast cancer incidence and survival outcomes in women diagnosed with lobular carcinoma in situ. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24:2509–17.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Kuchenbaecker KB, Hopper JL, Barnes DR, et al. Risks of breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. JAMA. 2017;317:2402–16.CrossRef Kuchenbaecker KB, Hopper JL, Barnes DR, et al. Risks of breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. JAMA. 2017;317:2402–16.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, 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.CrossRef Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, 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.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, 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.CrossRef Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, 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.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Leach MO, Boggis CR, Dixon AK, 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;365:1769–78.CrossRef Leach MO, Boggis CR, Dixon AK, 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;365:1769–78.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Lehman CD, Blume JD, Weatherall P, et al. Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer. 2005;103:1898–905.CrossRef Lehman CD, Blume JD, Weatherall P, et al. Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer. 2005;103:1898–905.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA, et al. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA. 2004;292:1317–25.CrossRef Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA, et al. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA. 2004;292:1317–25.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Saadatmand S, Geuzinge HA, Rutgers EJT, et al. MRI versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women with familial risk (FaMRIsc): a multicentre, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:1136–47.CrossRef Saadatmand S, Geuzinge HA, Rutgers EJT, et al. MRI versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women with familial risk (FaMRIsc): a multicentre, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:1136–47.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Bakker MF, de Lange SV, Pijnappel RM, et al. Supplemental MRI screening for women with extremely dense breast tissue. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:2091–102.CrossRef Bakker MF, de Lange SV, Pijnappel RM, et al. Supplemental MRI screening for women with extremely dense breast tissue. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:2091–102.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Evans DG, Kesavan N, Lim Y, et al. MRI breast screening in high-risk women: cancer detection and survival analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;145:663–72.CrossRef Evans DG, Kesavan N, Lim Y, et al. MRI breast screening in high-risk women: cancer detection and survival analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;145:663–72.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Pan IW, Oeffinger KC, Shih YT. Cost-sharing and out-of-pocket cost for women who received MRI for breast cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Instit. 2022;114:254–62.CrossRef Pan IW, Oeffinger KC, Shih YT. Cost-sharing and out-of-pocket cost for women who received MRI for breast cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Instit. 2022;114:254–62.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Griebsch I, Brown J, Boggis C, 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;95:801–10.CrossRef Griebsch I, Brown J, Boggis C, 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;95:801–10.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Plevritis SK, Kurian AW, Sigal BM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of screening BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with breast magnetic resonance imaging. JAMA. 2006;295:2374–84.CrossRef Plevritis SK, Kurian AW, Sigal BM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of screening BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with breast magnetic resonance imaging. JAMA. 2006;295:2374–84.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57:75–89.CrossRef Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57:75–89.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Bevers TB, et al. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines): Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, Version 1.20121. 6 May 2021. Bevers TB, et al. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines): Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, Version 1.20121. 6 May 2021.
21.
go back to reference Monticciolo DL, Newell MS, Moy L, Niell B, Monsees B, Sickles EA. Breast cancer screening in women at higher-than-average risk: recommendations from the ACR. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018;15(3 Pt A):408–14.CrossRef Monticciolo DL, Newell MS, Moy L, Niell B, Monsees B, Sickles EA. Breast cancer screening in women at higher-than-average risk: recommendations from the ACR. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018;15(3 Pt A):408–14.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Pankratz VS, Hartmann LC, Degnim AC, et al. Assessment of the accuracy of the Gail model in women with atypical hyperplasia. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:5374–9.CrossRef Pankratz VS, Hartmann LC, Degnim AC, et al. Assessment of the accuracy of the Gail model in women with atypical hyperplasia. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:5374–9.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Boughey JC, Hartmann LC, Anderson SS, et al. Evaluation of the Tyrer-Cuzick (International Breast Cancer Intervention Study) model for breast cancer risk prediction in women with atypical hyperplasia. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3591–6.CrossRef Boughey JC, Hartmann LC, Anderson SS, et al. Evaluation of the Tyrer-Cuzick (International Breast Cancer Intervention Study) model for breast cancer risk prediction in women with atypical hyperplasia. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3591–6.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Valero MG, Zabor EC, Park A, et al. The Tyrer-Cuzick model inaccurately predicts invasive breast cancer risk in women with LCIS. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27:736–40.CrossRef Valero MG, Zabor EC, Park A, et al. The Tyrer-Cuzick model inaccurately predicts invasive breast cancer risk in women with LCIS. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27:736–40.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav Res. 2011;46:399–424.CrossRef Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav Res. 2011;46:399–424.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference King TA, Muhsen S, Patil S, et al. Is there a role for routine screening MRI in women with LCIS? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;142:445–53.CrossRef King TA, Muhsen S, Patil S, et al. Is there a role for routine screening MRI in women with LCIS? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;142:445–53.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Port ER, Park A, Borgen PI, Morris E, Montgomery LL. Results of MRI screening for breast cancer in high-risk patients with LCIS and atypical hyperplasia. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:1051–7.CrossRef Port ER, Park A, Borgen PI, Morris E, Montgomery LL. Results of MRI screening for breast cancer in high-risk patients with LCIS and atypical hyperplasia. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:1051–7.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Sippo DA, Burk KS, Mercaldo SF, et al. Performance of screening breast MRI across women with different elevated breast cancer risk indications. Radiology. 2019;292:51–9.CrossRef Sippo DA, Burk KS, Mercaldo SF, et al. Performance of screening breast MRI across women with different elevated breast cancer risk indications. Radiology. 2019;292:51–9.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Chikarmane SA, Giess CS. Screening breast MRI in patients with history of atypia or lobular neoplasia. Breast J. 2019;25:484–7.CrossRef Chikarmane SA, Giess CS. Screening breast MRI in patients with history of atypia or lobular neoplasia. Breast J. 2019;25:484–7.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Friedlander LC, Roth SO, Gavenonis SC. Results of MR imaging screening for breast cancer in high-risk patients with lobular carcinoma in situ. Radiology. 2011;261:421–7.CrossRef Friedlander LC, Roth SO, Gavenonis SC. Results of MR imaging screening for breast cancer in high-risk patients with lobular carcinoma in situ. Radiology. 2011;261:421–7.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Lehman CD, Arao RF, Sprague BL, et al. National performance benchmarks for modern screening digital mammography: update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Radiology. 2017;283:49–58.CrossRef Lehman CD, Arao RF, Sprague BL, et al. National performance benchmarks for modern screening digital mammography: update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Radiology. 2017;283:49–58.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Minami CA, Zabor EC, Gilbert E, et al. Do body mass index and breast density impact cancer risk among women with lobular carcinoma in situ? Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27:1844–51.CrossRef Minami CA, Zabor EC, Gilbert E, et al. Do body mass index and breast density impact cancer risk among women with lobular carcinoma in situ? Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27:1844–51.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Tice JA, O’Meara ES, Weaver DL, Vachon C, Ballard-Barbash R, Kerlikowske K. Benign breast disease, mammographic breast density, and the risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Instit. 2013;105:1043–9.CrossRef Tice JA, O’Meara ES, Weaver DL, Vachon C, Ballard-Barbash R, Kerlikowske K. Benign breast disease, mammographic breast density, and the risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Instit. 2013;105:1043–9.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Vierkant RA, Degnim AC, Radisky DC, et al. Mammographic breast density and risk of breast cancer in women with atypical hyperplasia: an observational cohort study from the Mayo Clinic Benign Breast Disease (BBD) cohort. BMC Cancer. 2017;17:84.CrossRef Vierkant RA, Degnim AC, Radisky DC, et al. Mammographic breast density and risk of breast cancer in women with atypical hyperplasia: an observational cohort study from the Mayo Clinic Benign Breast Disease (BBD) cohort. BMC Cancer. 2017;17:84.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Screening MRI Does Not Increase Cancer Detection or Result in an Earlier Stage at Diagnosis for Patients with High-Risk Breast Lesions: A Propensity Score Analysis
Authors
Alison Laws, MD, MPH
Fisher Katlin, BA
Marybeth Hans, PA-C
Mary Graichen, NP
Olga Kantor, MD, MS
Christina Minami, MD, MS
Brittany L. Bychkovsky, MD
Lydia E. Pace, MD, MPH
Rochelle Scheib, MD
Judy E. Garber, MD, MPH
Tari A. King, MD
Publication date
28-09-2022
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Issue 1/2023
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Electronic ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-022-12568-z
SPONSORED

Mastering chronic pancreatitis pain: A multidisciplinary approach and practical solutions

Severe pain is the most common symptom of chronic pancreatitis. In this webinar, experts share the latest insights in pain management for chronic pancreatitis patients. Experts from a range of disciplines discuss pertinent cases and provide practical suggestions for use within clinical practice.

Sponsored by:
  • Viatris
Developed by: Springer Healthcare
Watch now
Video