You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 293 No. 8, February 23, 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Letters
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related articles
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Oncology
 •Breast Cancer
 •Radiologic Imaging
 •Women's Health
 •Women's Health, Other
 •Magnetic Resonance Imaging
 •Mammography
 •Genetics
 •Genetic Disorders
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Carriers

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: The study by Dr Warner and colleagues1 comparing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), mammography, ultrasound, and clinical breast examination in screening BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers for breast cancer has several potential limitations that could affect their conclusions.

First, the study compared prevalent cancer screening by MRI with incident cancer screening by mammography. This may bias against mammography since prevalent screening generally detects more cancer than incident screening. The sensitivity of MRI in prevalent screen 1 was better than its performance in subsequent incident screens, with sensitivity decreasing from 85% to 71% and 50% on annual screens 1, 2, and 3, respectively. This same pattern was observed by Kriege et al2 with MRI sensitivity decreasing from 79% at screen 1 to 62% at screen 2.

Second, different interpretive threshold behaviors for mammography vs MRI may have biased the reported sensitivities. The positive predictive value for mammography was much . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Mark Helvie, MD
mahelvie@umich.edu
Division of Breast Imaging
University of Michigan Health System
Ann Arbor



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLES

Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers With Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Ultrasound, Mammography, and Clinical Breast Examination
, , , , , , , , , , , , and
JAMA. ;292():1317-1325.
FULL TEXT  

Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Carriers--Reply
, , , , and
JAMA. ;293():931-931.
FULL TEXT  






HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2005 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.