The DOI matches its Crossref record.
First experiences in screening women at high risk for breast cancer with MR imaging
Open accessAbstract
Women with a genetic predisposition for breast cancer are often advised surveillance with physical examination twice a year and mammography once a year from 25 years onwards. However, the sensitivity of the mammography decreases when breast tissue is dense and this is seen in 40-50% of women under 50 years. We therefore investigated whether magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in addition to the normal surveillance could detect cancers otherwise missed. In 109 women with over 25% risk of breast cancer, MRI was performed because over 50% dense breast tissue was seen at mammography and no suspect lesion was seen at the previous screening. MRI detected breast cancers in three patients (2.8%) occult at mammography and with no new palpable tumor, twice at stage T1bN0 and T1cN0 once. Two cancers were expected. MRI was false positive in six women, resulting in two benign local excisions because ultrasound or fine needle examination confirmed suspicion. We had no false negative MRI results. MRI proved true benign in four BRCA 1/2 gene mutation carriers at histologic examination. Preoperative wire localization of the malignancies detected at MRI proved necessary as the tumor was not palpable in the lumpectomy specimen nor visible at specimen radiology. The extra cost of breast MRI in addition to mammography and physical examination was [symbol: see text]uro13.930 per detected cancer. The cost of the detection of one breast cancer patient in our national screening program is [symbol: see text]uro9000. During follow-up of patients with a familial risk in whom the first breast cancer was detected at MRI, MRI detected two recurrent cancers in stage T1bN0 and T1cN0 and one contralateral cancer T1aNo. Breast MRI is promising in screening young women at high risk for breast cancer, as it can advance the detection of cancers still occult at mammography and physical examination; but the cost may be considerable.
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
Cited by
American Cancer Society Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening: Update 2003
Smith, R. A., Saslow, D., Andrews Sawyer, K., Burke, W., Costanza, M. E., Evans, W. P., Foster, R. S., Hendrick, E., Eyre, H. J., & Sener, S. (2003) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/canjclin.53.3.141 · Cited by 770
Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging
Lehman, C. D., Blume, J. D., Weatherall, P., Thickman, D., Hylton, N., Warner, E., Pisano, E., Schnitt, S. J., Gatsonis, C., Schnall, M., et al. (2005) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/cncr.20971 · Cited by 401
Lee, J. M., Kopans, D. B., McMahon, P. M., Halpern, E. F., Ryan, P. D., Weinstein, M. C., & Gazelle, G. S. (2008) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2463070224 · Cited by 45
Vencken, P. M. L. H., Kriege, M., Hooning, M., Menke‐Pluymers, M. B., Heemskerk‐Gerritsen, B. A. M., van Doorn, L. C., Collée, M. M., Jager, A., van Montfort, C., Burger, C. W., et al. (2013) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/cncr.27839 · Cited by 40
Metadata
- Authors
- Tilanus-Linthorst, M. M. A., Obdeijn, I. M. M., Bartels, K. C. M., de Koning, H. J., & Oudkerk, M.
- Venue
- Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
- Published
- 2000-09
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 53-60
- ISSN
- 0167-6806 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-7217
- OpenAlex
- W2062117150
- Cited by
- 216
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: First experiences in screening women at high risk for breast cancer with MR imaging. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1023/a:1006480106487
- The paper
- Tilanus-Linthorst, M. M. A., Obdeijn, I. M. M., Bartels, K. C. M., de Koning, H. J., & Oudkerk, M. (2000). First experiences in screening women at high risk for breast cancer with MR imaging. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. https://doi.org/10.1023/a%3A1006480106487
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.