Performance Measures of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Plus Mammography in the High Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program. (24th June 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Chiarelli, Anna M; Blackmore, Kristina M; Muradali, Derek; Done, Susan J; Majpruz, Vicky; Weerasinghe, Ashini; Mirea, Lucia; Eisen, Andrea; Rabeneck, Linda; Warner, Ellen
• Is Part Of: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Volume 112:Number 2(2020)
• Page Start: 136
• Page End: 144
• Publication Date: 2019-06-24
• Subjects: Cancer -- Periodicals; Cancer -- Research -- Periodicals; 616.994
• DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djz079
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0027-8874

Abstract

Abstract: Background: The Ontario Breast Screening Program expanded in July 2011 to screen high-risk women age 30–69 years with annual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and digital mammography. This study examined the benefits of screening with mammography and MRI by age and risk criteria. Methods: This prospective cohort study included 8782 women age 30–69 years referred to the High Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program from July 2011 to June 2015, with final results to December 2016. Cancer detection rates, sensitivity, and specificity of MRI and mammography combined were compared with each modality individually within risk groups stratified by age using generalized estimating equation models. Prognostic features of screen-detected breast cancers were compared by modality using Fisher exact test. All P values are two-sided. Results: Among 20 053 screening episodes, there were 280 screen-detected breast cancers (cancer detection rate = 14.0 per 1000, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 12.4 to 15.7). The sensitivity of mammography was statistically significantly lower than that of MRI plus mammography (40.8%, 95% CI = 29.3% to 53.5% vs 96.0%, 95% CI = 92.2% to 98.0%, P < .001). In mutation carriers age 30–39 years, sensitivity of the combination was comparable with MRI alone (100.0% vs 96.8%, 95% CI = 79.2% to 100.0%, P = .99) but with statistically significantly decreased specificity (78.0%, 95% CI = 74.7% to 80.9% vs 86.2%, 95% CI = 83.5% to 88.5%, P < .001). In women age 50–69 years, combining MRI and mammography statistically significantly increased sensitivity compared with MRI alone (96.3%, 95% CI = 90.6% to 98.6% vs 90.9%, 95% CI = 83.6% to 95.1%, P = .02), with a small but statistically significant decrease in specificity (84.2%, 95% CI = 83.1% to 85.2% vs 90.0%, 95% CI = 89.2% to 90.9%, P < .001). Conclusions: Screening high risk women age 30–39 years with annual MRI only may be sufficient for cancer detection and should be evaluated further, particularly for mutation carriers. Among women age 50–69 years, detection is most effective when mammography is included with annual MRI.