[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.197.65.227. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Citations 0
Letters
February 23, 2005

Surveillance of

Author Affiliations
 

Letters Section Editor: Robert M. Golub, MD, Senior Editor.

JAMA. 2005;293(8):931. doi:10.1001/jama.293.8.931-a

To the Editor: The study by Dr Warner and colleagues1 comparing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), mammography, ultrasound, and clinical breast examination in screening BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers for breast cancer has several potential limitations that could affect their conclusions.

First, the study compared prevalent cancer screening by MRI with incident cancer screening by mammography. This may bias against mammography since prevalent screening generally detects more cancer than incident screening. The sensitivity of MRI in prevalent screen 1 was better than its performance in subsequent incident screens, with sensitivity decreasing from 85% to 71% and 50% on annual screens 1, 2, and 3, respectively. This same pattern was observed by Kriege et al2 with MRI sensitivity decreasing from 79% at screen 1 to 62% at screen 2.

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×