Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26908327›Full record

SynthesisBritish journal of cancer2016

Contribution of mammography to MRI screening in BRCA mutation carriers by BRCA status and age: individual patient data meta-analysis.

Xuan-Anh Phi, Sepideh Saadatmand, Geertruida H De Bock, Ellen Warner, Francesco Sardanelli, Martin O Leach, Christopher C Riedl, Isabelle Trop, Maartje J Hooning, Rodica Mandel and 6 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in British journal of cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
11.7field-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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 116 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Article
  5. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System v2025: Key Updates in Mammography.Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2026
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Diagnostic sensitivity of mammography and magnetic resonance imaging for ductal carcinomaChinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Advances in Risk Management and Screening for Women at Increased Risk of Breast Cancer: The Role of MR Imaging and Personalised Approaches.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

16 authors at 14 institutions in 6 countries.

Xuan-Anh PhiDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Postbus 30 001, 9700RB Groningen, The Netherlands.
Sepideh SaadatmandDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Groene Hilledijk 301, 3075EA Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Geertruida H De BockDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Postbus 30 001, 9700RB Groningen, The Netherlands.
Ellen WarnerDepartment of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, 2075 Bayview Avenua, Toronto, ON, Canada M4N 3M5.
Francesco SardanelliOn behalf of the HIBCRIT-1 Study, Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, University of Milan School of Medicine, Scientific Institute (IRCCS) Policlinico San Donato, Unit of Radiology, Via Morandi 30, San Donato Milanese, Milan 20097, Italy.
Martin O LeachOn behalf of the MARIBS Study, CRUK Cancer Imaging Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, 123 Old Brompton Road, London SW7 3RP, UK.
Christopher C RiedlDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Medical University Vienna, Spitalgasse 23 Vienna 1090, Austria.
Isabelle TropDepartment of Radiology, Breast Imaging Division, Centre Hospitalier of the University of Montreal (CHUM), Montreal, Tour viger, Pavillion R, 900 Saint Denis Street, Montreal, QC, Canada H2X 0A9.
Maartje J HooningDepartment of Medical Oncology, Family Cancer Clinic, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Groene Hilledijk 301, 3075EA Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Rodica MandelDepartment of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, 2075 Bayview Avenua, Toronto, ON, Canada M4N 3M5.
Filippo SantoroOn behalf of the HIBCRIT-1 Study, Department of Cell Biology and Neurosciences, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Viale Regina Elena 299, 00161 Rome, Italy.
Gek Kwan-LimOn behalf of the MARIBS Study, CRUK Cancer Imaging Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, 123 Old Brompton Road, London SW7 3RP, UK.
Thomas H HelbichDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Medical University Vienna, Spitalgasse 23 Vienna 1090, Austria.
Madeleine M A Tilanus-LinthorstOn behalf of MRISC Study, Department of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Groene Hilledijk 301, 3075EA Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Edwin R van den HeuvelDepartment of Mathematics and Computer Science, Eindhoven University of Technology, Den Dolech 2, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Nehmat HoussamiScreening and Test Evaluation Program (STEP), School of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Edward Ford Building (A27), Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Erasmus MC · NLMedical University of Vienna · ATEindhoven University of Technology · NLErasmus MC Cancer Institute · NLInstitute of Cancer Research · GBIstituto Superiore di Sanità · ITRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust · GBSunnybrook Health Science Centre · CAUniversité de Montréal · CAUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NLUniversity of Groningen · NLUniversity of Milan · ITUniversity of Sydney · AUUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16464
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe investigated the additional contribution of mammography to screening accuracy in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers screened with MRI at different ages using individual patient data from six high-risk screening trials.

methodsSensitivity and specificity of MRI, mammography and the combination of these tests were compared stratified for BRCA mutation and age using generalised linear mixed models with random effect for studies. Number of screens needed (NSN) for additional mammography-only detected cancer was estimated.

resultsIn BRCA1/2 mutation carriers of all ages (BRCA1 = 1,219 and BRCA2 = 732), adding mammography to MRI did not significantly increase screening sensitivity (increased by 3.9% in BRCA1 and 12.6% in BRCA2 mutation carriers, P > 0.05). However, in women with BRCA2 mutation younger than 40 years, one-third of breast cancers were detected by mammography only. Number of screens needed for mammography to detect one breast cancer not detected by MRI was much higher for BRCA1 compared with BRCA2 mutation carriers at initial and repeat screening.

conclusionsAdditional screening sensitivity from mammography above that from MRI is limited in BRCA1 mutation carriers, whereas mammography contributes to screening sensitivity in BRCA2 mutation carriers, especially those ⩽ 40 years. The evidence from our work highlights that a differential screening schedule by BRCA status is worth considering.

Indexed as

Genes, BRCA1Genes, BRCA2MutationAdultAge FactorsBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMammographyMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID26908327
PMCPMC4800299
OpenAlexW2299537488

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.