The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Surveillance of <EMPH TYPE="ITAL">BRCA1</EMPH> and <EMPH TYPE="ITAL">BRCA2</EMPH> Mutation Carriers With Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Ultrasound, Mammography, and Clinical Breast Examination
Abstract
CONTEXT: Current recommendations for women who have a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation are to undergo breast surveillance from age 25 years onward with mammography annually and clinical breast examination (CBE) every 6 months; however, many tumors are detected at a relatively advanced stage. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound may improve the ability to detect breast cancer at an early stage. OBJECTIVE: To compare the sensitivity and specificity of 4 methods of breast cancer surveillance (mammography, ultrasound, MRI, and CBE) in women with hereditary susceptibility to breast cancer due to a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A surveillance study of 236 Canadian women aged 25 to 65 years with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations who underwent 1 to 3 annual screening examinations, consisting of MRI, mammography, and ultrasound at a single tertiary care teaching hospital between November 3, 1997, and March 31, 2003. On the day of imaging and at 6-month intervals, CBE was performed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity and specificity of each of the 4 surveillance modalities, and sensitivity of all 4 screening modalities vs mammography and CBE. RESULTS: Each imaging modality was read independently by a radiologist and scored on a 5-point Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System scale. All lesions with a score of 4 or 5 (suspicious or highly suspicious for malignancy) were biopsied. There were 22 cancers detected (16 invasive and 6 ductal carcinoma in situ). Of these, 17 (77%) were detected by MRI vs 8 (36%) by mammography, 7 (33%) by ultrasound, and 2 (9.1%) by CBE. The sensitivity and specificity (based on biopsy rates) were 77% and 95.4% for MRI, 36% and 99.8% for mammography, 33% and 96% for ultrasound, and 9.1% and 99.3% for CBE, respectively. There was 1 interval cancer. All 4 screening modalities combined had a sensitivity of 95% vs 45% for mammography and CBE combined. CONCLUSIONS: In BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, MRI is more sensitive for detecting breast cancers than mammography, ultrasound, or CBE alone. Whether surveillance regimens that include MRI will reduce mortality from breast cancer in high-risk women requires further investigation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Burke, W. (1997) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.277.12.997 · Cited by 955
Cited by
Practice Bulletin No. 183: postpartum hemorrhage
(2017) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000002351 · Cited by 1,406
Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: Recommendations from the EUSOMA working group
Sardanelli, F., Boetes, C., Borisch, B., Decker, T., Federico, M., Gilbert, F. J., Helbich, T., Heywang-Köbrunner, S. H., Kaiser, W. A., Kerin, M. J., et al. (2010) · European Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2010.02.015 · Cited by 992
Rebbeck, T. R., Kauff, N. D., & Domchek, S. M. (2009) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djn442 · Cited by 939
Systematic Review: Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Screen Women at High Risk for Breast Cancer
Warner, E., Messersmith, H., Causer, P., Eisen, A., Shumak, R., & Plewes, D. (2008) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-148-9-200805060-00007 · Cited by 564
Self-citationMRI for breast cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment
Morrow, M., Waters, J., & Morris, E. (2011) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(11)61350-0 · Cited by 448
Metadata
- Authors
- Warner, E.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2004-09-15
- Volume
- 292
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1317
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2121935084
- Cited by
- 1,168
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 38.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Surveillance of <EMPH TYPE="ITAL">BRCA1</EMPH> and <EMPH TYPE="ITAL">BRCA2</EMPH> Mutation Carriers With Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Ultrasound, Mammography, and Clinical Breast Examination. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.292.11.1317
- The paper
- Warner, E. (2004). Surveillance of <EMPH TYPE="ITAL">BRCA1</EMPH> and <EMPH TYPE="ITAL">BRCA2</EMPH> Mutation Carriers With Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Ultrasound, Mammography, and Clinical Breast Examination. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.292.11.1317
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.