The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Efficacy of MRI and Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening in Women with a Familial or Genetic Predisposition
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The value of regular surveillance for breast cancer in women with a genetic or familial predisposition to breast cancer is currently unproven. We compared the efficacy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with that of mammography for screening in this group of high-risk women. METHODS: Women who had a cumulative lifetime risk of breast cancer of 15 percent or more were screened every six months with a clinical breast examination and once a year by mammography and MRI, with independent readings. The characteristics of the cancers that were detected were compared with the characteristics of those in two different age-matched control groups. RESULTS: We screened 1909 eligible women, including 358 carriers of germ-line mutations. Within a median follow-up period of 2.9 years, 51 tumors (44 invasive cancers, 6 ductal carcinomas in situ, and 1 lymphoma) and 1 lobular carcinoma in situ were detected. The sensitivity of clinical breast examination, mammography, and MRI for detecting invasive breast cancer was 17.9 percent, 33.3 percent, and 79.5 percent, respectively, and the specificity was 98.1 percent, 95.0 percent, and 89.8 percent, respectively. The overall discriminating capacity of MRI was significantly better than that of mammography (P<0.05). The proportion of invasive tumors that were 10 mm or less in diameter was significantly greater in our surveillance group (43.2 percent) than in either control group (14.0 percent [P<0.001] and 12.5 percent [P=0.04], respectively). The combined incidence of positive axillary nodes and micrometastases in invasive cancers in our study was 21.4 percent, as compared with 52.4 percent (P<0.001) and 56.4 percent (P=0.001) in the two control groups. CONCLUSIONS: MRI appears to be more sensitive than mammography in detecting tumors in women with an inherited susceptibility to breast cancer.
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
Breast Cancer after Prophylactic Bilateral Mastectomy in Women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutation
Meijers-Heijboer, H., van Geel, B., van Putten, W. L. J., Henzen-Logmans, S. C., Seynaeve, C., Menke-Pluymers, M. B. E., Bartels, C. C. M., Verhoog, L. C., van den Ouweland, A. M. W., Niermeijer, M. F., et al. (2001) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200107193450301 · Cited by 973 · cited 2×
“Posthysterectomy 3 (1) 48 (5) 24 (5) 75 (4)”
Self-citationEfficacy of Bilateral Prophylactic Mastectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Gene Mutation Carriers
Hartmann, L. C., Sellers, T. A., Schaid, D. J., Frank, T. S., Soderberg, C. L., Sitta, D. L., Frost, M. H., Grant, C. S., Donohue, J. H., Woods, J. E., et al. (2001) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/93.21.1633 · Cited by 743
Cited by
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
Self-citationMann, R. M., Cho, N., & Moy, L. (2019) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2019182947 · Cited by 917
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
Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Breast Prior to Biopsy
Bluemke, D. A. (2004) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.292.22.2735 · Cited by 513
MRI 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
- Kriege, M., Brekelmans, C. T. M., Boetes, C., Besnard, P. E., Zonderland, H. M., Obdeijn, I. M., Manoliu, R. A., Kok, T., Peterse, H., Tilanus-Linthorst, M. M. A., Muller, S. H., Meijer, S., Oosterwijk, J. C., Beex, L. V. A. M., Tollenaar, R. A. E. M., de Koning, H. J., Rutgers, E. J. T., & Klijn, J. G. M.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2004-07-29
- Volume
- 351
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 427-437
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2105722841
- Cited by
- 1,687
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 99.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Efficacy of MRI and Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening in Women with a Familial or Genetic Predisposition. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa031759
- The paper
- Kriege, M., Brekelmans, C. T. M., Boetes, C., Besnard, P. E., Zonderland, H. M., Obdeijn, I. M., Manoliu, R. A., Kok, T., Peterse, H., Tilanus-Linthorst, M. M. A., Muller, S. H., Meijer, S., Oosterwijk, J. C., Beex, L. V. A. M., Tollenaar, R. A. E. M., de Koning, H. J., Rutgers, E. J. T., & Klijn, J. G. M. (2004). Efficacy of MRI and Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening in Women with a Familial or Genetic Predisposition. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa031759
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.