The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: A prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS)

Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: A prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS)
Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: A prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS)
Background Women genetically predisposed to breast cancer often develop the disease at a young age when dense breast tissue reduces the sensitivity of X-ray mammography. Our aim was, therefore, to compare contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE MRI) with mammography for screening.
Methods We did a prospective multicentre cohort study in 649 women aged 35–49 years with a strong family history of breast cancer or a high probability of a BRCA1, BRCA2, or TP53 mutation. We recruited participants from 22 centres in the UK, and offered the women annual screening with CE MRI and mammography for 2–7 years.
Findings We diagnosed 35 cancers in the 649 women screened with both mammography and CE MRI (1881 screens): 19 by CE MRI only, six by mammography only, and eight by both, with two interval cases. Sensitivity was significantly higher for CE MRI (77%, 95% CI 60–90) than for mammography (40%, 24–58; p=0·01), and was 94% (81–99) when both methods were used. Specificity was 93% (92–95) for mammography, 81% (80–83) for CE MRI (p<0·0001), and 77% (75–79) with both methods. The difference between CE MRI and mammography sensitivities was particularly pronounced in BRCA1 carriers (13 cancers; 92% vs 23%, p=0·004).
Interpretation Our findings indicate that CE MRI is more sensitive than mammography for cancer detection. Specificity for both procedures was acceptable. Despite a high proportion of grade 3 cancers, tumours were small and few women were node positive. Annual screening, combining CE MRI and mammography, would detect most tumours in this risk group.
0140-6736
1769-1778
Leach, M.O.
4e96d11e-583e-4eb5-a045-f485b71488a1
Boggis, C.R.
5b59bc73-11c9-4cf0-a9d5-7a8e523eee23
Dixon, A.K.
25435826-34da-4557-82d9-6ef531707b7e
Easton, D.F.
ef4b7694-86fa-4568-969f-d0ee512127fc
Eeles, R.A.
b4d711ae-9a55-4557-ad7a-1071488185bb
Evans, D.G.
b58c99fc-4da0-4d7e-b140-f22307befe5e
Gilbert, F.J.
e4ce6e25-e57a-44b7-84de-20ddf05d90aa
Griebsch, I.
86fba01d-f0c9-4896-8f24-1731377b424a
Hoff, R.J.
27602b5a-7050-4ee5-8cf3-6b9f3f84e6b3
Kessar, P.
5fa2db03-2614-4500-8e29-8c8455dc1535
Lakhani, S.R.
b9216f82-f2f2-4e44-b8ce-339f837726de
Moss, S.M.
b30870e0-5f3d-4950-9224-dd0bc9303392
Nerurkar, A.
328a6621-9c04-4a1c-8cc6-192982d93152
Padhani, A.R.
34aafaad-44d9-4c8a-8ef8-92844310b91f
Pointon, L.J.
00c21dc4-aeda-413c-8a0b-931947d8f1f8
Thompson, D.
f02914bc-43d6-4944-91f6-6ee85e697788
Warren, R.M.
f3cfd6b8-abd2-4e50-8fd3-828895cbdc17
MARIBS, study group
7c020afd-078a-411c-a8ad-cac7d9820349
Leach, M.O.
4e96d11e-583e-4eb5-a045-f485b71488a1
Boggis, C.R.
5b59bc73-11c9-4cf0-a9d5-7a8e523eee23
Dixon, A.K.
25435826-34da-4557-82d9-6ef531707b7e
Easton, D.F.
ef4b7694-86fa-4568-969f-d0ee512127fc
Eeles, R.A.
b4d711ae-9a55-4557-ad7a-1071488185bb
Evans, D.G.
b58c99fc-4da0-4d7e-b140-f22307befe5e
Gilbert, F.J.
e4ce6e25-e57a-44b7-84de-20ddf05d90aa
Griebsch, I.
86fba01d-f0c9-4896-8f24-1731377b424a
Hoff, R.J.
27602b5a-7050-4ee5-8cf3-6b9f3f84e6b3
Kessar, P.
5fa2db03-2614-4500-8e29-8c8455dc1535
Lakhani, S.R.
b9216f82-f2f2-4e44-b8ce-339f837726de
Moss, S.M.
b30870e0-5f3d-4950-9224-dd0bc9303392
Nerurkar, A.
328a6621-9c04-4a1c-8cc6-192982d93152
Padhani, A.R.
34aafaad-44d9-4c8a-8ef8-92844310b91f
Pointon, L.J.
00c21dc4-aeda-413c-8a0b-931947d8f1f8
Thompson, D.
f02914bc-43d6-4944-91f6-6ee85e697788
Warren, R.M.
f3cfd6b8-abd2-4e50-8fd3-828895cbdc17
MARIBS, study group
7c020afd-078a-411c-a8ad-cac7d9820349

Leach, M.O., Boggis, C.R., Dixon, A.K., Easton, D.F., Eeles, R.A., Evans, D.G., Gilbert, F.J., Griebsch, I., Hoff, R.J., Kessar, P., Lakhani, S.R., Moss, S.M., Nerurkar, A., Padhani, A.R., Pointon, L.J., Thompson, D., Warren, R.M. and MARIBS, study group (2005) Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: A prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS). The Lancet, 365 (9473), 1769-1778. (doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66481-1).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background Women genetically predisposed to breast cancer often develop the disease at a young age when dense breast tissue reduces the sensitivity of X-ray mammography. Our aim was, therefore, to compare contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE MRI) with mammography for screening.
Methods We did a prospective multicentre cohort study in 649 women aged 35–49 years with a strong family history of breast cancer or a high probability of a BRCA1, BRCA2, or TP53 mutation. We recruited participants from 22 centres in the UK, and offered the women annual screening with CE MRI and mammography for 2–7 years.
Findings We diagnosed 35 cancers in the 649 women screened with both mammography and CE MRI (1881 screens): 19 by CE MRI only, six by mammography only, and eight by both, with two interval cases. Sensitivity was significantly higher for CE MRI (77%, 95% CI 60–90) than for mammography (40%, 24–58; p=0·01), and was 94% (81–99) when both methods were used. Specificity was 93% (92–95) for mammography, 81% (80–83) for CE MRI (p<0·0001), and 77% (75–79) with both methods. The difference between CE MRI and mammography sensitivities was particularly pronounced in BRCA1 carriers (13 cancers; 92% vs 23%, p=0·004).
Interpretation Our findings indicate that CE MRI is more sensitive than mammography for cancer detection. Specificity for both procedures was acceptable. Despite a high proportion of grade 3 cancers, tumours were small and few women were node positive. Annual screening, combining CE MRI and mammography, would detect most tumours in this risk group.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: 2005
Organisations: Cancer Sciences

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 40670
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/40670
ISSN: 0140-6736
PURE UUID: ceec0b10-7ecf-4968-ad0a-31f4ccb4ff42
ORCID for C.R. Boggis: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-9935-3169

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 07 Jul 2006
Last modified: 16 Mar 2024 02:39

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: M.O. Leach
Author: C.R. Boggis ORCID iD
Author: A.K. Dixon
Author: D.F. Easton
Author: R.A. Eeles
Author: D.G. Evans
Author: F.J. Gilbert
Author: I. Griebsch
Author: R.J. Hoff
Author: P. Kessar
Author: S.R. Lakhani
Author: S.M. Moss
Author: A. Nerurkar
Author: A.R. Padhani
Author: L.J. Pointon
Author: D. Thompson
Author: R.M. Warren
Author: study group MARIBS

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×