Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25713430›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology2015

Triple-modality screening trial for familial breast cancer underlines the importance of magnetic resonance imaging and questions the role of mammography and ultrasound regardless of patient mutation status, age, and breast density.

Christopher C Riedl, Nikolaus Luft, Clemens Bernhart, Michael Weber, Maria Bernathova, Muy-Kheng M Tea, Margaretha Rudas, Christian F Singer, Thomas H Helbich

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 117 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
117citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
22.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

117 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 301 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Guideline
  5. Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. Guideline
  8. Trial
  9. Body Composition with Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry and Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis in Breast Cancer Survivors.Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · 2019
    Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Utility of Diffusion-weighted Imaging to Decrease Unnecessary Biopsies Prompted by Breast MRI: A Trial of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (A6702).Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2019
    Trial
  12. GuidedMorph: Two-Stage Deformable Registration for Breast MRI.IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics · 2026
    Article
  13. Ultrafast MRI in BI-RADS 4 Masses: The Fast Lane to Clarity.The Indian journal of radiology & imaging · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Diagnostic sensitivity of mammography and magnetic resonance imaging for ductal carcinomaChinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

57 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Christopher C RiedlAll authors: Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; and Christopher C. Riedl, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. christopher.riedl@medunwien.ac.at.
Nikolaus LuftAll authors: Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; and Christopher C. Riedl, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Clemens BernhartAll authors: Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; and Christopher C. Riedl, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Michael WeberAll authors: Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; and Christopher C. Riedl, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Maria BernathovaAll authors: Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; and Christopher C. Riedl, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Muy-Kheng M TeaAll authors: Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; and Christopher C. Riedl, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Margaretha RudasAll authors: Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; and Christopher C. Riedl, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Christian F SingerAll authors: Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; and Christopher C. Riedl, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Thomas H HelbichAll authors: Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; and Christopher C. Riedl, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the breast cancer screening efficacy of mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a high-risk population and in various population subgroups. PATIENTS AND

methodsIn a single-center, prospective, nonrandomized comparison study, BRCA mutation carriers and women with a high familial risk (> 20% lifetime risk) for breast cancer were offered screening with mammography, ultrasound, and MRI every 12 months. Diagnostic performance was compared between individual modalities and their combinations. Further comparisons were based on subpopulations dichotomized by screening rounds, mutation status, age, and breast density.

resultsThere were 559 women with 1,365 complete imaging rounds included in this study. The sensitivity of MRI (90.0%) was significantly higher (P < .001) than that of mammography (37.5%) and ultrasound (37.5%). Of 40 cancers, 18 (45.0%) were detected by MRI alone. Two cancers were found by mammography alone (a ductal carcinoma in situ [DCIS] with microinvasion and a DCIS with < 10-mm invasive areas). This did not lead to a significant increase of sensitivity compared with using MRI alone (P = .15). No cancers were detected by ultrasound alone. Similarly, of 14 DCISs, all were detected by MRI, whereas mammography and ultrasound each detected five DCISs (35.7%). Age, mutation status, and breast density had no influence on the sensitivity of MRI and did not affect the superiority of MRI over mammography and ultrasound.

conclusionMRI allows early detection of familial breast cancer regardless of patient age, breast density, or risk status. The added value of mammography is limited, and there is no added value of ultrasound in women undergoing MRI for screening.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBRCA1 ProteinBRCA2 ProteinBreastBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingEarly Detection of CancerGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMammographyMiddle AgedMultiphasic ScreeningMutationBAP1 protein, mouseBRCA1 ProteinBRCA2 ProteinTumor Suppressor ProteinsUbiquitin Thiolesterase

Identifiers

PMID25713430
PMCPMC5526626
OpenAlexW2134026526

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.