Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS)

Background Women genetically predisposed to breast cancer often develop the disease at a young age when dense breast tissue reduces the sensitivity of X-ray mammography. Our aim was, therefore, to compare contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE MRI) with mammography for screening. Methods We did a prospective multicentre cohort study in 649 women aged 35-49 years with a strong family history of breast cancer or a high probability of a BRCA1, BRCA2, or TP53 mutation. We recruited participants from 22 centres in the UK, and offered the women annual screening with CE MRI and mammography for 2-7 years. Findings We diagnosed 35 cancers in the 649 women screened with both mammography and CE MRI (1881 screens): 19 by CE MRI only, six by mammography only, and eight by both, with two interval cases. Sensitivity was significantly higher for CE MRI (77%, 95% CI 60-90) than for mammography (40%, 24-58; p=0.01), and was 94% (81-99) when both methods were used. Specificity was 93% (92-95) for mammography, 81% (80-83) for CE MRI (p

Cost-effectiveness of screening with contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging vs X-ray mammography of women at a high familial risk of breast cancer

Contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE MRI) is the most sensitive tool for screening women who are at high familial risk of breast cancer. Our aim in this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of X-ray mammography (XRM), CE MRI or both strategies combined. In total, 649 women were enrolled in the MARIBS study and screened with both CE MRI and mammography resulting in 1881 screens and 1-7 individual annual screening events. Women aged 35-49 years at high risk of breast cancer, either because they have a strong family history of breast cancer or are tested carriers of a BRCA1, BRCA2 or TP53 mutation or are at a 50% risk of having inherited such a mutation, were recruited from 22 centres and offered annual MRI and XRM for between 2 and 7 years. Information on the number and type of further investigations was collected and specifically calculated unit costs were used to calculate the incremental cost per cancer detected. The numbers of cancer detected was 13 for mammography, 27 for CE MRI and 33 for mammography and CE MRI combined. In the subgroup of BRCA1 (BRCA2) mutation carriers or of women having a first degree relative with a mutation in BRCA1 (BRCA2) corresponding numbers were 3 (6), 12 (7) and 12 (11), respectively. For all women, the incremental cost per cancer detected with CE MRI and mammography combined was 28 pound 284 compared to mammography. When only BRCA1 or the BRCA2 groups were considered, this cost would be reduced to 11 pound 731 (CE MRI vs mammography) and 15 pound 302 (CE MRI and mammography vs mammography). Results were most sensitive to the unit cost estimate for a CE MRI screening test. Contrast-enhanced MRI might be a cost-effective screening modality for women at high risk, particularly for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 subgroups. Further work is needed to assess the impact of screening on mortality and health-related quality of life.

A Test of Performance of Breast MRI Interpretation in a Multicentre Screening Study

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the consistency and performance of radiologists interpreting breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations. Materials and Methods: Two test sets of eight cases comprising cancers, benign disease, technical problems and parenchymal enhancement were prepared from two manufacturers' equipment (X and Y) and reported by 15 radiologists using the recording form and scoring system of the UK MRI breast screening study [(MAgnetic Resonance Imaging in Breast Screening (MARIBS)]. Variations in assessments of morphology, kinetic scores and diagnosis were measured by assessing intraobserver and interobserver variability and agreement. The sensitivity and specificity of reporting performances was determined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Results: Intraobserver variation was seen in 13 (27.7%) of 47 of the radiologists' conclusions (four technical and seven pathological differences). Substantial interobserver variation was observed in the scores recorded for morphology, pattern of enhancement, quantification of enhancement and washout pattern. The overall sensitivity of breast MRI was high [88.6%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 77.4-94.7%], combined with a specificity of 69.2% (95% CI 60.5-76.7%). The sensitivities were similar for the two test sets (P=.3), but the specificity was significantly higher for the Manufacturer X dataset (P

Multiphoton high-resolution 3D imaging of Langerhans cells and keratinocytes in the mouse skin model adopted for epidermal powdered immunization

Langerhans cells (LCs) can be targeted with DNA-coated gold micro-projectiles ("Gene Gun") to induce potent cellular and humoral immune responses. It is likely that the relative volumetric distribution of LCs and keratinocytes within the epidermis impacts on the efficacy of Gene Gun immunization protocols. This study quantified the three-dimensional (3D) distribution of LCs and keratinocytes in the mouse skin model with a near-infrared multiphoton laser-scanning microscope (NIR-MPLSM). Stratum corneum (SC) and viable epidermal thickness measured with MPLSM was found in close agreement with conventional histology. LCs were located in the vertical plane at a mean depth of 14.9 mum, less than 3 mum above the dermo-epidermal boundary and with a normal histogram distribution. This likely corresponds to the fact that LCs reside in the suprabasal layer (stratum germinativum). The nuclear volume of keratinocytes was found to be approximately 1.4 times larger than that of resident LCs (88.6 mum3). Importantly, the ratio of LCs to keratinocytes in mouse ear skin (1:15) is more than three times higher than that reported for human breast skin (1:53). Accordingly, cross-presentation may be more significant in clinical Gene Gun applications than in pre-clinical mouse studies. These interspecies differences should be considered in pre-clinical trials using mouse models.