 |
|
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
RELATED ARTICLES
Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Carriers—Reply
Ellen Warner, Roberta Jong, Donald Plewes, Martin Yaffe, and Steven Narod
JAMA. 2005;293(8):931.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers With Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Ultrasound, Mammography, and Clinical Breast Examination
Ellen Warner, Donald B. Plewes, Kimberley A. Hill, Petrina A. Causer, Judit T. Zubovits, Roberta A. Jong, Margaret R. Cutrara, Gerrit DeBoer, Martin J. Yaffe, Sandra J. Messner, Wendy S. Meschino, Cameron A. Piron, and Steven A. Narod
JAMA. 2004;292(11):1317-1325.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
