This article evaluates the breast cancer (BC) screening efficacy of biannual ultrasound (US) in three different risk categories. In a single-center, prospective, nonrandomized comparison study, BRCA mutation carriers and women with high risk (HR) or intermediate risk (IR) received mammography (MMG), ultrasound, (US) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), scheduled according to the risk categories. Single and combined sensitivity were evaluated in specific groups of risk and the US performance at six-monthly interval was notably considered. Among 2,313 asymptomatic women at different risk (136 mutation carriers, 1,749 at HR and 428 at IR) 211 developed a BC, of which 193 (91.5%) were screen detected BC (SDBC) and 18 (8.5%) were interval BC (IBC). The SDBC detection rate (DR) was 11.2 per 1.000 person-years (37.9, 8.5 and 16.1 for BRCA, HR and IR, respectively); 116 BC were detected by MMG (DR = 6.6 × 1,000 persons-years), 62 by US (DR = 3.6 × 1,000 persons-years) and 15 by MRI, that was applied only in 60 BRCA women (DR = 37 × 1,000 persons-years). At the six-monthly US, 52 BC were detected (DR = 3.0 × 1,000 persons/years), of which 8 were BRCA-related. The most sensitive technique was MRI (93.7%) followed by MMG (55%) and US (29.4%). Combined sensitivity for MMG plus US was 100% in HR and 80.4% for IR women (p < 0.01). In BRCA mutated patients, MRI alone with annual US performed after six months, could be offered. In HR patients, MMG plus biannual US provide the most sensitive diagnosis and for IR group an annual MMG could be sufficient.

Breast ultrasonography (BU) in the screening protocol for women at hereditary-familial risk of breast cancer: has the time come to rethink the role of BU according to different risk categories? / Cortesi, Laura; Canossi, Barbara; Battista, Rachele; Pecchi, Annarita; Drago, Antonella; Dal Molin, Chiara; Toss, Angela; De Matteis, Elisabetta; Marchi, Isabella; Torricelli, Pietro; Cascinu, Stefano. - In: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER. - ISSN 0020-7136. - 144:5(2019), pp. 1001-1009. [10.1002/ijc.31794]

Breast ultrasonography (BU) in the screening protocol for women at hereditary-familial risk of breast cancer: has the time come to rethink the role of BU according to different risk categories?

Pecchi, Annarita;Toss, Angela;De Matteis, Elisabetta;Torricelli, Pietro;Cascinu, Stefano
2019

Abstract

This article evaluates the breast cancer (BC) screening efficacy of biannual ultrasound (US) in three different risk categories. In a single-center, prospective, nonrandomized comparison study, BRCA mutation carriers and women with high risk (HR) or intermediate risk (IR) received mammography (MMG), ultrasound, (US) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), scheduled according to the risk categories. Single and combined sensitivity were evaluated in specific groups of risk and the US performance at six-monthly interval was notably considered. Among 2,313 asymptomatic women at different risk (136 mutation carriers, 1,749 at HR and 428 at IR) 211 developed a BC, of which 193 (91.5%) were screen detected BC (SDBC) and 18 (8.5%) were interval BC (IBC). The SDBC detection rate (DR) was 11.2 per 1.000 person-years (37.9, 8.5 and 16.1 for BRCA, HR and IR, respectively); 116 BC were detected by MMG (DR = 6.6 × 1,000 persons-years), 62 by US (DR = 3.6 × 1,000 persons-years) and 15 by MRI, that was applied only in 60 BRCA women (DR = 37 × 1,000 persons-years). At the six-monthly US, 52 BC were detected (DR = 3.0 × 1,000 persons/years), of which 8 were BRCA-related. The most sensitive technique was MRI (93.7%) followed by MMG (55%) and US (29.4%). Combined sensitivity for MMG plus US was 100% in HR and 80.4% for IR women (p < 0.01). In BRCA mutated patients, MRI alone with annual US performed after six months, could be offered. In HR patients, MMG plus biannual US provide the most sensitive diagnosis and for IR group an annual MMG could be sufficient.
2019
4-ott-2018
144
5
1001
1009
Breast ultrasonography (BU) in the screening protocol for women at hereditary-familial risk of breast cancer: has the time come to rethink the role of BU according to different risk categories? / Cortesi, Laura; Canossi, Barbara; Battista, Rachele; Pecchi, Annarita; Drago, Antonella; Dal Molin, Chiara; Toss, Angela; De Matteis, Elisabetta; Marchi, Isabella; Torricelli, Pietro; Cascinu, Stefano. - In: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER. - ISSN 0020-7136. - 144:5(2019), pp. 1001-1009. [10.1002/ijc.31794]
Cortesi, Laura; Canossi, Barbara; Battista, Rachele; Pecchi, Annarita; Drago, Antonella; Dal Molin, Chiara; Toss, Angela; De Matteis, Elisabetta; Marchi, Isabella; Torricelli, Pietro; Cascinu, Stefano
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
ijc.31794.pdf

Accesso riservato

Tipologia: Versione pubblicata dall'editore
Dimensione 517.36 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
517.36 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Licenza Creative Commons
I metadati presenti in IRIS UNIMORE sono rilasciati con licenza Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal, mentre i file delle pubblicazioni sono rilasciati con licenza Attribuzione 4.0 Internazionale (CC BY 4.0), salvo diversa indicazione.
In caso di violazione di copyright, contattare Supporto Iris

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11380/1170869
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 8
  • Scopus 15
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 12
social impact