Dataset Information

Experiences, expectations and preferences regarding MRI and mammography as breast cancer screening tools in women at familial risk.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Several studies have investigated MRI breast cancer screening in women at increased risk, but little is known about their preferences. In this study, experiences, expectations and preferences for MRI and mammography were evaluated among women undergoing screening with MRI and/or mammography in the randomized FaMRIsc trial.

Methods

A 17-item questionnaire was sent to 412 women in the FaMRIsc trial. Participants were aged 30-55 years, had a ?20% cumulative lifetime risk, but no BRCA1/2 or TP53 gene variant, and were screened outside the population-based screening program. Women received annual mammography (mammography-group), or annual MRI and biennial mammography (MRI-group). We asked whether women trust the screening outcome, what they consider as (dis)advantages, which screening they prefer and what they expect of the early detection by the screening tools.

Results

255 (62%) women completed our questionnaire. The high chance of early cancer detection was the most important advantage of MRI screening (MRI-group: 95%; mammography-group: 74%), while this was also the main advantage of mammography (MRI-group: 57%; mammography-group: 72%). Most important disadvantages of MRI were the small tunnel and the contrast fluid (for 23-36%), and of mammography were its painfulness and X-radiation (for 48-60%). Almost the whole MRI-group and half the mammography-group preferred screening with MRI (either alone or with mammography).

Discussion

Most women would prefer screening with MRI. The way women think of MRI and mammography is influenced by the screening strategy they are undergoing. Our outcomes can be used for creating information brochures when MRI will be implemented for more women.

SUBMITTER: Geuzinge HA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7847961 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Experiences, expectations and preferences regarding MRI and mammography as breast cancer screening tools in women at familial risk.

Geuzinge H Amarens HA Heijnsdijk Eveline A M EAM Obdeijn Inge-Marie IM de Koning Harry J HJ Tilanus-Linthorst Madeleine M A MMA

Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) 20210118

<h4>Background</h4>Several studies have investigated MRI breast cancer screening in women at increased risk, but little is known about their preferences. In this study, experiences, expectations and preferences for MRI and mammography were evaluated among women undergoing screening with MRI and/or mammography in the randomized FaMRIsc trial.<h4>Methods</h4>A 17-item questionnaire was sent to 412 women in the FaMRIsc trial. Participants were aged 30-55 years, had a ≥20% cumulative lifetime risk, ...[more]

PMID: 33515770

Similar Datasets

Project description:Guidelines recommend individualizing screening mammography decisions for women aged 75 years and older. However, little pragmatic guidance is available to help counsel patients.To provide an evidence-based approach for individualizing decision-making about screening mammography in older women.We searched PubMed for English-language studies in peer-reviewed journals published from January 1, 1990, to February 1, 2014, to identify risk factors for late-life breast cancer in women aged 65 years and older and to quantify the benefits and harms of screening mammography for women aged 75 years and older.Age is the major risk factor for developing and dying from breast cancer. Breast cancer risk factors that reflect hormonal exposures in the distant past, such as age at first birth or age at menarche, are less predictive of late-life breast cancer than factors indicating recent hormonal exposures such as high bone mass or obesity. Randomized trials of the benefits of screening mammography did not include women older than 74 years. Thus it is not known if screening mammography benefits older women. Observational studies favor extending screening mammography to older women who have a life expectancy of more than 10 years. Modeling studies estimate 2 fewer breast cancer deaths/1000 women who in their 70s continue biennial screening for 10 years instead of stopping screening at age 69. Potential harms of continued screening over 10 years include false-positive mammograms in approximately 200/1000 women screened and overdiagnosis (ie, finding breast cancer that would not have clinically surfaced otherwise) in approximately 13/1000 women screened. Providing information about life expectancy along with potential benefits and harms of screening may help older women's decision-making about screening mammography.For women with less than a 10-year life expectancy, recommendations to stop screening mammography should emphasize increased potential harms from screening and highlight health promotion measures likely to be beneficial over the short term. For women with a life expectancy of more than 10 years, deciding whether potential benefits of screening outweigh harms becomes a value judgment for patients, requiring a realistic understanding of screening outcomes.

Project description:ObjectivesQuality assurance (QA) of image interpretation plays a key role in screening and diagnostic mammography, maintaining minimum standards and supporting continuous improvement in interpreting images. However, the QA structure across Europe shows considerable variation. The European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) conducted a survey among the members to collect information on radiologists' preferences regarding QA measures in mammography.Materials and methodsAn anonymous online survey consisting of 25 questions was distributed to all EUSOBI members and national breast radiology bodies in Europe. The questions were designed to collect demographic characteristics, information on responders' mammography workload and data about QA measures currently used in their country. Data was analysed using descriptive statistical analysis, the χ2 test, linear regression, and Durbin-Watson statistic test.ResultsIn total, 251 breast radiologists from 34 countries completed the survey. Most respondents were providing both screening and symptomatic services (137/251, 54.6%), working in an academic hospital (85/251, 33.9%) and reading 1000-4999 cases per year (109/251, 43.4%). More than half of them (133/251, 53%) had established QA measures in their workplace. Although less than one-third (71/251, 28.3%) had to participate in regular performance testing, the vast majority (190/251, 75.7%) agreed that a mandatory test would be helpful to improve their skills.ConclusionQA measures were in place for more than half of the respondents working in screening and diagnostic mammography to evaluate their breast imaging performance. Although there were substantial differences between countries, the importance of having QA in the workplace and implemented was widely acknowledged by radiologists.Clinical relevance statementAlthough several quality assurance (QA) measures of image interpretation are recommended by European bodies or national organisations, the QA in mammography is quite heterogenous between countries and reporting settings, and not always actively implemented across Europe.Key pointsThe first survey that presents radiologists' preferences regarding QA measures of image interpretation in mammography. Quality assurance measures in the workplace are better-established for breast screening compared to diagnostic mammography. Radiologists consider that performance tests would help to improve their mammography interpretation skills.

Project description:ContextAnnual ultrasound screening may detect small, node-negative breast cancers that are not seen on mammography. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may reveal additional breast cancers missed by both mammography and ultrasound screening.ObjectiveTo determine supplemental cancer detection yield of ultrasound and MRI in women at elevated risk for breast cancer.Design, setting, and participantsFrom April 2004-February 2006, 2809 women at 21 sites with elevated cancer risk and dense breasts consented to 3 annual independent screens with mammography and ultrasound in randomized order. After 3 rounds of both screenings, 612 of 703 women who chose to undergo an MRI had complete data. The reference standard was defined as a combination of pathology (biopsy results that showed in situ or infiltrating ductal carcinoma or infiltrating lobular carcinoma in the breast or axillary lymph nodes) and 12-month follow-up.Main outcome measuresCancer detection rate (yield), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV3) of biopsies performed and interval cancer rate.ResultsA total of 2662 women underwent 7473 mammogram and ultrasound screenings, 110 of whom had 111 breast cancer events: 33 detected by mammography only, 32 by ultrasound only, 26 by both, and 9 by MRI after mammography plus ultrasound; 11 were not detected by any imaging screen. Among 4814 incidence screens in the second and third years combined, 75 women were diagnosed with cancer. Supplemental incidence-screening ultrasound identified 3.7 cancers per 1000 screens (95% CI, 2.1-5.8; P < .001). Sensitivity for mammography plus ultrasound was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.65-0.85); specificity, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.83-0.85); and PPV3, 0.16 (95% CI, 0.12-0.21). For mammography alone, sensitivity was 0.52 (95% CI, 0.40-0.64); specificity, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.90-0.92); and PPV3, 0.38 (95% CI, 0.28-0.49; P < .001 all comparisons). Of the MRI participants, 16 women (2.6%) had breast cancer diagnosed. The supplemental yield of MRI was 14.7 per 1000 (95% CI, 3.5-25.9; P = .004). Sensitivity for MRI and mammography plus ultrasound was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.79-1.00); specificity, 0.65 (95% CI, 0.61-0.69); and PPV3, 0.19 (95% CI, 0.11-0.29). For mammography and ultrasound, sensitivity was 0.44 (95% CI, 0.20-0.70, P = .004); specificity 0.84 (95% CI, 0.81-0.87; P < .001); and PPV3, 0.18 (95% CI, 0.08 to 0.34; P = .98). The number of screens needed to detect 1 cancer was 127 (95% CI, 99-167) for mammography; 234 (95% CI, 173-345) for supplemental ultrasound; and 68 (95% CI, 39-286) for MRI after negative mammography and ultrasound results.ConclusionThe addition of screening ultrasound or MRI to mammography in women at increased risk of breast cancer resulted in not only a higher cancer detection yield but also an increase in false-positive findings.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00072501.

Dataset Information

Experiences, expectations and preferences regarding MRI and mammography as breast cancer screening tools in women at familial risk.

Background

Methods

Results

Discussion

Publications

Experiences, expectations and preferences regarding MRI and mammography as breast cancer screening tools in women at familial risk.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets