Актуальность

oncotomsk

Сибирский онкологический журнал

Siberian journal of oncology

1814-48612312-3168

Tomsk National Research Medical Сепtеr of the Russian Academy of Sciences

10.21294/1814-4861-2021-20-4-99-107

oncotomsk-1871

Research Article

ОБЗОРЫ

REVIEWS

ВОЗМОЖНОСТИ СОВРЕМЕННЫХ ЛУЧЕВЫХ МЕТОДОВ ДОПОЛНИТЕЛЬНОЙ ВИЗУАЛИЗАЦИИ МОЛОЧНЫХ ЖЕЛЕЗ В СКРИНИНГЕ РАКА МОЛОЧНОЙ ЖЕЛЕЗЫ: ОБЗОР ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ

ROLE OF MODERN IMAGING TECHNIQUES IN ADDITIONAL VIZUALISATION OF BREAST CANCER: LITERATURE REVIEW

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1773-5145

Айнакулова

А. С.

Ainakulova

A. S.

кандидат медицинских наук; врач отделения лучевой диагностики

SPIN-код: 8029-7094. AuthorID (РИНЦ): 1070516

Казахстан, 050000, г. Алматы, пр. Абая, 91

Казахстан, 050012, г. Алматы, ул. Толе би, 94

MD, PhD

91, Abai Ave., 050000, Almaty, Kazakhstan

94a, Tole bi str., 050012, Almaty, Kazakhstan

kydyralievamadina28@gmail.com

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0969-5983

Кайдарова

Д. Р.

Kaidarova

D. R.

доктор медицинских наук, академик НАН РК; председатель правления

SPIN-код: 1534-7137. AuthorID (РИНЦ): 993287

Казахстан, 050000, г. Алматы, пр. Абая, 91

Казахстан, 050012, г. Алматы, ул. Толе би, 94

D, Professor, Member of the National Academy of Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan; Chairman of the Board

91, Abai Ave., 050000, Almaty, Kazakhstan

94a, Tole bi str., 050012, Almaty, Kazakhstan

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0553-9016

Жолдыбай

Ж. Ж.

Zholdybai

Zh. Zh.

доктор медицинских наук, профессор, заведующая кафедрой визуальной диагностики; заведующая отделением лучевой диагностики

Researcher ID (WOS): AAG-6647-2019

Казахстан, 050000, г. Алматы, пр. Абая, 91

Казахстан, 050012, г. Алматы, ул. Толе би, 94

MD, Professor, Head of Diagnostic Imaging Department

Researcher ID (WOS): AAG-6647-2019

91, Abai Ave., 050000, Almaty, Kazakhstan

94a, Tole bi str., 050012, Almaty, Kazakhstan

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0159-187X

Иноземцева

Н. И.

Inozemtceva

N. I.

врач отделения лучевой диагностики

SPIN-код: 7511-1059. AuthorID (РИНЦ): 1070824

Казахстан, 050000, г. Алматы, пр. Абая, 91

Казахстан, 050012, г. Алматы, ул. Толе би, 94

MD, Diagnostic Imaging Department

91, Abai Ave., 050000, Almaty, Kazakhstan

94a, Tole bi str., 050012, Almaty, Kazakhstan

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4993-4747

Габдуллина

М. О.

Gabdullina

M. O.

SPIN-код: 3437-2301. Researcher ID (WOS): AAN-4070-2020. AuthorID (РИНЦ): 1070226

Казахстан, 050000, г. Алматы, пр. Абая, 91

Researcher ID (WOS): AAN-4070-2020

91, Abai Ave., 050000, Almaty, Kazakhstan

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2280-2886

Карибаев

И. М.

Karibayev

I. M.

SPIN-код: 9283-1754. AuthorID (РИНЦ): 1070259

Казахстан, 050000, г. Алматы, пр. Абая, 91

91, Abai Ave., 050000, Almaty, Kazakhstan

Казахский научно-исследовательский институт онкологии и радиологии% Казахский национальный медицинский университет им. С.Д. АсфендияроваКазахстанAsfendiyarov Kazakh National Medical University; Kazakh Institute of Oncology and RadiologyKazakhstan

Казахский научно-исследовательский институт онкологии и радиологии; Казахский национальный медицинский университет им. С.Д. АсфендияроваКазахстанAsfendiyarov Kazakh National Medical University; Kazakh Institute of Oncology and RadiologyKazakhstan

Казахский научно-исследовательский институт онкологии и радиологииКазахстанKazakh Institute of Oncology and RadiologyKazakhstan

2021

27082021

20499107

2021

Айнакулова А.С., Кайдарова Д.Р., Жолдыбай Ж.Ж., Иноземцева Н.И., Габдуллина М.О., Карибаев И.М.

Ainakulova A.S., Kaidarova D.R., Zholdybai Z.Z., Inozemtceva N.I., Gabdullina M.O., Karibayev I.M.

Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://www.siboncoj.ru/jour/article/view/1871

Актуальность

Актуальность. Рак молочной железы (РМЖ) занимает первое место в структуре онкологической заболеваемости женского населения во всем мире. Несмотря на успехи в его лечении, ранняя диагностика РМЖ ограничена возможностями скрининговой маммографии и зачастую требует дополнительной визуализации молочных желез.

Цель исследования – обобщение и анализ имеющихся данных о современных лучевых методах дополнительной визуализации молочных желез, применяемых для усовершенствования скрининга РМЖ.

Материал и методы

Материал и методы. В обзор включены данные рандомизированных контролируемых исследований (РКИ) и метаанализов об эффективности лучевых методов визуализации молочных желез в ранней диагностике РМЖ, опубликованные за последние 7 лет. Поиск производился в системах pubmed, Web of science, scopus, the cochrane library. Всего было найдено 100 литературных источников, посвященных анализу эффективности лучевых методов в скрининге РМЖ, из которых 51 использован в представленном обзоре.

Результаты

Результаты. Скрининг РМЖ с применением различных методов визуализации в мире проводится более 30 лет, и за последние 10 лет достигнут значительный прогресс в усовершенствовании рентгенологических, ультразвуковых и магнитно-резонансных технологий в ранней диагностике РМЖ. На данный момент перед организаторами здравоохранения стоит вопрос выбора вектора усовершенствования программы скрининга РМЖ путем внедрения цифрового томосинтеза, контрастной спектральной маммографии или ускоренной МРТ. Согласно текущим результатам анализа данных литературы, наиболее высокой чувствительностью обладают контрастная спектральная маммография и ускоренная МРТ, но исследования чувствительности, специфичности, положительного и отрицательного прогностических значений (ppV, NpV) продолжаются.

Заключение

Заключение. Представленные данные подтверждают актуальность поиска вектора усовершенствования программы скрининга РМЖ, для чего требуется еще больше многоцентровых проспективных исследований с целью определения оптимального метода улучшения программы скрининга РМЖ.

Background

Background. Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide. Despite advances in treatment of breast cancer, early-stage breast cancer detection is limited by screening mammography and often requires additional breast imaging.

The purpose of the study was to analyze available data on modern imaging techniques of additional breast visualization used for improving breast cancer screening.

Material and methods

Material and methods. The review includes data from randomized controlled trials and meta-analyzes on the effectiveness of breast imaging techniques for early-stage breast cancer detection. The search was carried out in pubmed, Web of science, scopus and cochrane library databases. Out of 100 publications published over the past 7 years, 51 were included in the presented review.

Results

Results. Breast cancer screening using various imaging techniques has been carried out in the world for more than 30 years, and over the past 10 years significant progress has been made in improving X-ray, ultrasound and magnetic resonance technologies in the early breast cancer detection. At present, healthcare organizers are faced with the question of choosing a vector for improving the breast cancer screening program by introducing digital tomosynthesis, contrast spectral mammography, or accelerated mri. According to the current results of the analysis of literature data, contrast spectral mammography and accelerated mri have the highest sensitivity, but studies of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (ppv, npv) are ongoing.

Conclusion

Conclusion. The data presented in the review confirm the necessity for finding the vector for improving the breast cancer screening program using multicenter prospective trials.

рак молочной железыскринингранняя диагностикацифровая маммографиятомосинтезконтрастная спектральная маммографияМРТ молочных желез

breast cancerscreeningearly diagnosisdigital mammographytomosynthesiscontrast spectral mammographybreast MRI

References1

Siu A.L.; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Ann Intern Med. 2016 Feb 16; 164(4): 279–96. doi: 10.7326/M15-2886.

Oeffinger K.C., Fontham E.T., Etzioni R., Herzig A., Michaelson J.S., Shih Y.C., Walter L.C., Church T.R., Flowers C.R., LaMonte S.J., Wolf A.M., DeSantis C., Lortet-Tieulent J., Andrews K., Manassaram-Baptiste D., Saslow D., Smith R.A., Brawley O.W., Wender R.; American Cancer Society. Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Average Risk: 2015 Guideline Update From the American Cancer Society. JAMA. 2015 Oct 20; 314(15): 1599–614. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.12783.

Weigel S., Heindel W., Heidrich J., Hense H.W., Heidinger O. Digital mammography screening: sensitivity of the programme dependent on breast density. Eur Radiol. 2017; 27(7): 2744–51. doi: 10.1007/s00330-016-4636-4.

Vourtsis A., Berg W.A. Breast density implications and supplemental screening. Eur Radiol. 2019; 29(4): 1762–1777. doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5668-8.

Lehman C.D., Arao R.F., Sprague B.L., Lee J.M., Buist D.S., Kerlikowske K., Henderson L.M., Onega T., Tosteson A.N., Rauscher G.H., Miglioretti D.L. National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Screening Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Radiology. 2017 Apr; 283(1): 49–58. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2016161174.

McDonald E.S., McCarthy A.M., Akhtar A.L., Synnestvedt M.B., Schnall M., Conant E.F. Baseline Screening Mammography: Performance of Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis. Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Nov; 205(5): 1143–8. doi: 10.2214/AJR.15.14406.

Niell B.L., Freer P.E., Weinfurtner R.J., Arleo E.K., Drukteinis J.S. Screening for Breast Cancer. Radiol Clin North Am. 2017 Nov; 55(6): 1145–1162. doi: 10.1016/j.rcl.2017.06.004.

Bonneux L. Advantages and disadvantages of breast cancer screening: time for evidence-based information. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2009; 153: A887.

Shen S., Zhou Y., Xu Y., Zhang B., Duan X., Huang R., Li B., Shi Y., Shao Z., Liao H., Jiang J., Shen N., Zhang J., Yu C., Jiang H., Li S., Han S., Ma J., Sun Q. A multi-centre randomised trial comparing ultrasound vs mammography for screening breast cancer in high-risk Chinese women. Br J Cancer. 2015 Mar 17; 112(6): 998–1004. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2015.33.

Rebolj M., Assi V., Brentnall A., Parmar D., Duffy S.W. Addition of ultrasound to mammography in the case of dense breast tissue: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Cancer. 2018 ; 118(12): 1559–70. doi: 10.1038/s41416-018-0080-3.

Berg W.A., Bandos A.I., Mendelson E.B., Lehrer D., Jong R.A., Pisano E.D. Ultrasound as the Primary Screening Test for Breast Cancer: Analysis From ACRIN 6666. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015 Dec 28; 108(4): djv367. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djv367.

Weigert J.M. The Connecticut Experiment; The Third Installment: 4 Years of Screening Women with Dense Breasts with Bilateral Ultrasound. Breast J. 2017 Jan; 23(1): 34–39. doi: 10.1111/tbj.12678.

Ohuchi N., Suzuki A., Sobue T., Kawai M., Yamamoto S., Zheng Y.F., Shiono Y.N., Saito H., Kuriyama S., Tohno E., Endo T., Fukao A., Tsuji I., Yamaguchi T., Ohashi Y., Fukuda M., Ishida T.; J-START investigator groups. Sensitivity and specificity of mammography and adjunctive ultrasonography to screen for breast cancer in the Japan Strategic Anti-cancer Randomized Trial (J-START): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016 Jan 23; 387(10016): 341–348. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00774-6.

Health Quality Ontario. Ultrasound as an Adjunct to Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening: A Health Technology Assessment. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2016 Jul 1; 16(15): 1–71.

Kim W.H., Chang J.M., Lee J., Chu A.J., Seo M., Gweon H.M., Koo H.R., Lee S.H., Cho N., Bae M.S., Shin S.U., Song S.E., Moon W.K. Diagnostic performance of tomosynthesis and breast ultrasonography in women with dense breasts: a prospective comparison study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017 Feb; 162(1): 85–94. doi: 10.1007/s10549-017-4105-z.

Tagliafico A.S., Calabrese M., Mariscotti G., Durando M., Tosto S., Monetti F., Airaldi S., Bignotti B., Nori J., Bagni A., Signori A., Sormani M.P., Houssami N. Adjunct Screening With Tomosynthesis or Ultrasound in Women With Mammography-Negative Dense Breasts: Interim Report of a Prospective Comparative Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2016 Jun 1; 34(16): 1882–1888. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.4147.

US Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services Digital Accreditation [Internet]. URL: https://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/MammographyQualityStandardsActandProgram/FacilityCertificationandInspection/ucm114148.htm (cited 26 December 2017).

Rafferty E.A., Park J.M., Philpotts L.E., Poplack S.P., Sumkin J.H., Halpern E.F., Niklason L.T. Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology. 2013 Jan; 266(1): 104–13. doi: 10.1148/radiol.12120674.

Skaane P., Bandos A.I., Gullien R., Eben E.B., Ekseth U., Haakenaasen U., Izadi M., Jebsen I.N., Jahr G., Krager M., Niklason L.T., Hofvind S., Gur D. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2013 Apr; 267(1): 47–56. doi: 10.1148/radiol.12121373.

Friedewald S.M., Rafferty E.A., Rose S.L., Durand M.A., Plecha D.M., Greenberg J.S., Hayes M.K., Copit D.S., Carlson K.L., Cink T.M., Barke L.D., Greer L.N., Miller D.P., Conant E.F. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA. 2014 Jun 25; 311(24): 2499–507. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.6095.

Vourtsis A., Berg W.A. Breast density implications and supplemental screening. Eur Radiol. 2019; 29(4): 1762–1777. doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5668-8.

Lalji U.C., Jeukens C.R., Houben I., Nelemans P.J., van Engen R.E., van Wylick E., Beets-Tan R.G., Wildberger J.E., Paulis L.E., Lobbes M.B. Evaluation of low-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography images by comparing them to full-field digital mammography using EUREF image quality criteria. Eur Radiol. 2015 Oct; 25(10): 2813–20. doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-3695-2.

Fallenberg E.M., Dromain C., Diekmann F., Renz D.M., Amer H., Ingold-Heppner B., Neumann A.U., Winzer K.J., Bick U., Hamm B., Engelken F. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: Does mammography provide additional clinical benefits or can some radiation exposure be avoided? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014; 146(2): 371–81. doi: 10.1007/s10549-014-3023-6.

Francescone M.A., Jochelson M.S., Dershaw D.D., Sung J.S., Hughes M.C., Zheng J., Moskowitz C., Morris E.A. Low energy mammogram obtained in contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) is comparable to routine full-field digital mammography (FFDM). Eur J Radiol. 2014 Aug; 83(8): 1350–5. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.05.015.

Lobbes M.B., Lalji U., Houwers J., Nijssen E.C., Nelemans P.J., van Roozendaal L., Smidt M.L., Heuts E., Wildberger J.E. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in patients referred from the breast cancer screening programme. Eur Radiol. 2014; 24(7): 1668–76. doi: 10.1007/s00330-014-3154-5.

Travieso-Aja M.D.M., Maldonado-Saluzzi D., Naranjo-Santana P., Fernández-Ruiz C., Severino-Rondón W., Rodríguez Rodríguez M., Vega Benítez V., Pérez-Luzardo O. Diagnostic performance of contrastenhanced dual-energy spectral mammography (CESM): a retrospective study involving 644 breast lesions. Radiol Med. 2019; 124(10): 1006–1017. doi: 10.1007/s11547-019-01056-2.

Diekmann F., Freyer M., Diekmann S., Fallenberg E.M., Fischer T., Bick U., Pöllinger A. Evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Eur J Radiol. 2011 Apr; 78(1): 112–21. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.10.002.

Cheung Y.C., Lin Y.C., Wan Y.L., Yeow K.M., Huang P.C., Lo Y.F. Tsai H.P., Ueng S.H., Chang C.J. Diagnostic performance of dual-energy contrast-enhanced subtracted mammography in dense breasts compared to mammography alone: interobserver blind-reading analysis. Eur Radiol. 2014 Oct; 24(10): 2394–403. doi: 10.1007/s00330-014-3271-1.

Sung J.S., Jochelson M.S., Lee C.H., Bernstein J.L., Reiner A.S., Morris E.A. SSJ01-05 comparison of contrast enhanced digital mammography and whole breast screening ultrasound for supplemental breast cancer screening. RSNA, Chicago, IL, 2016.

Klang E., Krosser A., Amitai M.M., Sorin V., Halshtok Neiman O., Shalmon A., Gotlieb M., Sklair-Levy M. Utility of routine use of breast ultrasound following contrast-enhanced spectral mammography. Clin Radiol. 2018 Oct; 73(10): 908.e11–908.e16. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2018.05.031.

Jochelson M.S., Dershaw D.D., Sung J.S., Heerdt A.S., Thornton C., Moskowitz C.S., Ferrara J., Morris E.A. Bilateral contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography: feasibility and comparison with conventional digital mammography and MR imaging in women with known breast carcinoma. Radiology. 2013 Mar; 266(3): 743–51. doi: 10.1148/radiol.12121084.

Fallenberg E.M., Dromain C., Diekmann F., Engelken F., Krohn M., Singh J.M., Ingold-Heppner B., Winzer K.J., Bick U., Renz D.M. Contrastenhanced spectral mammography versus MRI: Initial results in the detection of breast cancer and assessment of tumour size. Eur Radiol. 2014 Jan; 24(1): 256–64. doi: 10.1007/s00330-013-3007-7.

Jochelson M.S., Pinker K., Dershaw D.D., Hughes M., Gibbons G.F., Rahbar K., Robson M.E., Mangino D.A., Goldman D., Moskowitz C.S., Morris E.A., Sung J.S. Comparison of screening CEDM and MRI for women at increased risk for breast cancer: A pilot study. Eur J Radiol. 2017 Dec; 97: 37–43. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.10.001.

Sardanelli F., Fallenberg E.M., Clauser P., Trimboli R.M., CampsHerrero J., Helbich T.H., Forrai G.; European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI), with language review by Europa Donna–The European Breast Cancer Coalition. Mammography: an update of the EUSOBI recommendations on information for women. Insights Imaging. 2017; 8(1): 11–8. doi: 10.1007/s13244-016-0531-4.

Sumkin J.H., Berg W.A., Carter G.J., Bandos A.I., Chough D.M., Ganott M.A., Hakim C.M., Kelly A.E., Zuley M.L., Houshmand G., Anello M.I., Gur D. Diagnostic Performance of MRI, Molecular Breast Imaging, and Contrast-enhanced Mammography in Women with Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer. Radiology. 2019 Dec; 293(3): 531–540. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019190887.

Covington M.F., Rhodes D.J., Pizzitola V.J. Molecular Breast Imaging and the 2016 Update to the ACR Appropriateness Criteria for Breast Cancer Screening. J Am Coll Radiol. 2016; 13(12 Pt A): 1408. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2016.09.017.

Chou C.P., Lewin J.M., Chiang C.L., Hung B.H., Yang T.L., Huang J.S., Liao J.B., Pan H.B. Clinical evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography and contrast enhanced tomosynthesis – Comparison to contrast-enhanced breast MRI. Eur J Radiol. 2015; 84(12): 2501–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.09.019.

Cheung Y.C., Tsai H.P., Lo Y.F., Ueng S.H., Huang P.C., Chen S.C. Clinical utility of dual-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for breast microcalcifications without associated mass: a preliminary analysis. Eur Radiol. 2016 Apr; 26(4): 1082–9. doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-3904-z.

Hobbs M.M., Taylor D.B., Buzynski S., Peake R.E. Contrastenhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and contrast enhanced MRI (CEMRI): Patient preferences and tolerance. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2015 Jun; 59(3): 300–5. doi: 10.1111/1754-9485.12296.

Phillips J., Miller M.M., Mehta T.S., Fein-Zachary V., Nathanson A., Hori W., Monahan-Earley R., Slanetz P.J. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) versus MRI in the high-risk screening setting: patient preferences and attitudes. Clin Imaging. 2017; 42: 193–7. doi: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2016.12.011.

Jeukens C.R., Lalji U.C., Meijer E., Bakija B., Theunissen R., Wildberger J.E., Lobbes M.B. Radiation exposure of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography compared with full-field digital mammography. Invest Radiol. 2014 Oct; 49(10): 659–65. doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000068.

James J.R., Pavlicek W., Hanson J.A., Boltz T.F., Patel B.K. Breast Radiation Dose With CESM Compared With 2D FFDM and 3D Tomosynthesis Mammography. Am J Roentgenol. 2017; 208(2): 362–72. doi: 10.2214/AJR.16.16743.

Houben I.P.L., Van de Voorde P., Jeukens C.R.L.P.N., Wildberger J.E., Kooreman L.F., Smidt M.L., Lobbes M.B.I. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography as work-up tool in patients recalled from breast cancer screening has low risks and might hold clinical benefits. Eur J Radiol. 2017 Sep; 94: 31–37. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.07.004.

Sung J.S., Stamler S., Brooks J., Kaplan J., Huang T., Dershaw D.D., Lee C.H., Morris E.A., Comstock C.E. Breast Cancers Detected at Screening MR Imaging and Mammography in Patients at High Risk: Method of Detection Reflects Tumor Histopathologic Results. Radiology. 2016 Sep; 280(3): 716–22. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2016151419.

Warner E., Hill K., Causer P., Plewes D., Jong R., Yaffe M., Foulkes W.D., Ghadirian P., Lynch H., Couch F., Wong J., Wright F., Sun P., Narod S.A. Prospective study of breast cancer incidence in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation under surveillance with and without magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Oncol. 2011; 29(13): 1664–9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.27.0835.

Heijnsdijk E.A., Warner E., Gilbert F.J., Tilanus-Linthorst M.M., Evans G., Causer P.A., Eeles R.A., Kaas R., Draisma G., Ramsay E.A., Warren R.M., Hill K.A., Hoogerbrugge N., Wasser M.N., Bergers E., Oosterwijk J.C., Hooning M.J., Rutgers E.J., Klijn J.G., Plewes D.B., Leach M.O., de Koning H.J. Differences in natural history between breast cancers in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers and effects of MRI screening-MRISC, MARIBS, and Canadian studies combined. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012 Sep; 21(9): 1458–68. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-11-1196.

Rijnsburger A.J., Obdeijn I.M., Kaas R., Tilanus-Linthorst M.M., Boetes C., Loo C.E., Wasser M.N., Bergers E., Kok T., Muller S.H., Peterse H., Tollenaar R.A., Hoogerbrugge N., Meijer S., Bartels C.C., Seynaeve C., Hooning M.J., Kriege M., Schmitz P.I., Oosterwijk J.C., de Koning H.J., Rutgers E.J., Klijn J.G. BRCA1-associated breast cancers present differently from BRCA2-associated and familial cases: long-term follow-up of the Dutch MRISC Screening Study. J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28(36): 5265–73. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.27.2294.

Kuhl C.K., Schrading S., Strobel K., Schild H.H., Hilgers R.D., Bieling H.B. Abbreviated breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): first postcontrast subtracted images and maximum-intensity projection-a novel approach to breast cancer screening with MRI. J Clin Oncol. 2014 Aug 1; 32(22): 2304–10. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.52.5386.

Mango V.L., Morris E.A., David Dershaw D., Abramson A., Fry C., Moskowitz C.S., Hughes M., Kaplan J., Jochelson M.S. Abbreviated protocol for breast MRI: are multiple sequences needed for cancer detection? Eur J Radiol. 2015 Jan; 84(1): 65–70. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.10.004.

Harvey S.C., Di Carlo P.A., Lee B., Obadina E., Sippo D., Mullen L. An Abbreviated Protocol for High-Risk Screening Breast MRI Saves Time and Resources. J Am Coll Radiol. 2016 Nov; 13(11S): R74–R80. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2016.09.031.

van Zelst J.C.M., Vreemann S., Witt H.J., Gubern-Merida A., Dorrius M.D., Duvivier K., Lardenoije-Broker S., Lobbes MB.I., Loo C., Veldhuis W., Veltman J., Drieling D., Karssemeijer N., Mann R.M. Multireader Study on the Diagnostic Accuracy of Ultrafast Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Breast Cancer Screening. Invest Radiol. 2018 Oct; 53(10): 579–586. doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000494.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.