ArticleBritish journal of cancer2012
Long-term results of screening with magnetic resonance imaging in women with BRCA mutations.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
59 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Contribution of mammography to MRI screening in BRCA mutation carriers by BRCA status and age: individual patient data meta-analysis.British journal of cancer · 2016Pooled it
- Risk-Reducing Mastectomy inJournal of breast cancer · 2026Review
- Diagnostic sensitivity of mammography and magnetic resonance imaging for ductal carcinomaChinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2025Article
- Development of an Automated CAD System for Lesion Detection in DCE-MRI.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
- Fertility Preservation in BRCA1/2 Germline Mutation Carriers: An Overview.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- MRI Surveillance and Breast Cancer Mortality in Women With BRCA1 and BRCA2 Sequence Variations.JAMA oncology · 2024Article
- The Japanese breast cancer society clinical practice guidelines for breast cancer screening and diagnosis, 2022 edition.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2024Article
- Specialty Care and Counselling about Hereditary Cancer Risk Improves Adherence to Cancer Screening and Prevention in Newfoundland and Labrador Patients withCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Article
- Current and new frontiers in hereditary cancer surveillance: Opportunities for liquid biopsy.American journal of human genetics · 2023Review
- Personalized medicine with germline pathogenic variants: Importance of population- and region-wide evidence.Cancer science · 2023Review
- An apparent quandary: adoption of polygenics and gene panels for personalised breast cancer risk stratification.BJC reports · 2023Review
- Deep learning for predicting future lesion emergence in high-risk breast MRI screening: a feasibility study.European radiology experimental · 2023Article
- Low-Risk Women with Suspicious Microcalcifications in Mammography-Can an Additional Breast MRI Reduce the Biopsy Rate?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Controversies and Open Questions in Management of Cancer-Free Carriers of Germline Pathogenic Variants inCancers · 2022Review
- Prevalent versus incident breast cancers: benefits of clinical and radiological monitoring in women with pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2022Article
- Article
- Disparities between Uptake of GermlineJournal of Korean medical science · 2021Article
- Current update on the molecular genetics and management of hereditary ovarian cancers: a primer for radiologists.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2021Review
- Management of patients with BRCA mutation from the point of view of a breast surgeon.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2021Review
- Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Breast: Standardization of Image Acquisition and Interpretation.Korean journal of radiology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe addition of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to screening mammography for women with BRCA mutations significantly increases sensitivity, but there is little data on clinical outcomes. We report screening performance, cancer stage, distant recurrence rate, and breast cancer-specific mortality in our screening study.
methodsFrom 1997 to 2009, 496 women aged 25 to 65 years with a known BRCA1/2 mutation, of whom 380 had no previous cancer history, were enrolled in a prospective screening trial that included annual MRI and mammography.
resultsIn 1847 screening rounds, 57 cancers were identified (53 screen-detected, 1 interval, and 3 incidental at prophylactic mastectomy), of which 37 (65%) were invasive. Sensitivity of MRI vs mammography was 86% vs 19% over the entire study period (P<0.0001), but was 74% vs 35% from 1997 to 2002 (P=0.02) and 94% vs 9% from 2003 to 2009 (P<0.0001), respectively. The relative sensitivities of MRI and mammography did not differ by mutation, age, or invasive vs non-invasive disease. Of the incident cancers, 97% were Stage 0 or 1. Of 28 previously unaffected women diagnosed with invasive cancer, 1 BRCA1 mutation carrier died following relapse of a 3 cm, node-positive breast cancer diagnosed on her first screen at age 48 (annual breast cancer mortality rate=0.5%). Three patients died of other causes. None of the 24 survivors has had a distant recurrence at a median follow-up of 8.4 years since diagnosis.
conclusionMagnetic resonance imaging surveillance of women with BRCA1/2 mutations will detect the majority of breast cancers at a very early stage. The absence of distant recurrences of incident cancers to date is encouraging. However, longer follow-up is needed to confirm the safety of breast surveillance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.