Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
203,952 studies31 sourcesUpdated just now
Peer-reviewedCC BY 4.0JAMA Network Open

Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Mammography Outcomes by Advanced Breast Cancer Risk

  • Karla Kerlikowske1,2
  • Linn Abraham3
  • Weiwei Zhu3
  • Brian L. Sprague4
  • Anna N. A. Tosteson5
  • Erin J. Aiello Bowles3
  • Christoph I. Lee6
  • Diana L. Miglioretti3,7
7 affiliations
  1. 1Departments of Medicine and Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco
  2. 2General Internal Medicine Section, Department of Veterans Affairs, University of California, San Francisco
  3. 3Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle
  4. 4Departments of Surgery and Radiology, University of Vermont, Burlington
  5. 5The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice and Dartmouth Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire
  6. 6Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison
  7. 7Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis
Open at sourceDOICite

Abstract

Importance: Few studies have examined advanced breast cancer rates in women undergoing routine mammography and/or breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Objective: To compare screening outcomes of breast MRI vs mammography by advanced breast cancer risk and screening round.

Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included women aged 40 to 74 years who had a screening MRI performed with or without a screening film, digital, or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) mammogram within 12 months (MRI group) or a screening digital or DBT mammogram (mammography-only group) performed at breast imaging facilities participating in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2021, and breast cancers diagnosed between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2022. Data analysis was performed from April 2025 to August 2026.

Exposures: MRI and mammography; advanced breast cancer risk score calculated using the BCSC advanced cancer risk model and categorized as low (0% to <0.172%), average (0.172% to <0.3797%), intermediate (0.3797% to <0.6582%), or higher (≥0.6582%).

Main Outcomes and Measures: Advanced (prognostic stage II or higher) and screen-detected early-stage (prognostic stage I) invasive cancer and false-positive biopsy recommendation rates per 1000 examinations adjusting for registry, examination year, age, race and ethnicity, family history, prior breast biopsy, and breast density.

Results: A total of 172 865 examinations performed in 105 532 women (median [IQR] age, 52 [46-59] years) were studied. After mammography, the intermediate to high vs low to average risk group had significantly higher advanced cancer (0.6 vs 0.3; difference, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.1-0.6), screen-detected early-stage cancer (2.8 vs 1.8; difference, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.5-1.7), and false-positive biopsy recommendation (18.1 vs 14.7; difference, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.7-5.2) rates per 1000 examinations. In the MRI group, rates per 1000 examinations of advanced cancer (0.8 vs 1.1; difference, −0.3; 95% CI, −1.3 to 0.7), screen-detected early-stage disease (10.3 vs 11.4; difference, −1.1; 95% CI, −4.9 to 2.7), and false-positive biopsy recommendation (94.0 vs 93.3; difference, 0.7; 95% CI, −9.9 to 11.3) were not significantly different between intermediate to high and low to average advanced cancer risk groups. Advanced cancer rates were not significantly different for MRI vs mammography between risk groups (difference, 0.6; 95% CI, −0.4 to 1.6). Screen-detected early-stage rates were significantly higher for MRI vs mammography for low to average risk (11.4 vs 1.8; difference, 9.6; 95% CI, 7.3-12.0) and intermediate to high risk (10.3 vs 2.8; difference, 7.5; 95% CI, 4.9-10.1) groups as were false-positive biopsy recommendation rates for low to average risk (93.3 vs 14.7; difference, 78.6; 95% CI, 72.5-84.8) and intermediate to high risk (94.0 vs 18.1; difference, 75.9; 95% CI, 68.3-83.5) groups. Women who underwent subsequent vs first MRIs had significantly lower advanced cancer rates (0.4 vs 2.0; difference, 1.6; 95% CI, 0.3-2.8) and higher advanced cancer risk (median [IQR] BCSC advanced cancer risk score, 0.348 [0.238 to 0.490] vs 0.301 [0.213 to 0.429]; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, intermediate to high advanced breast cancer risk was associated with higher advanced cancer rates with screening mammography. MRI screening was associated with higher screen-detected early-stage cancer rates compared with mammography but not lower advanced cancer rates, except among women who underwent repeat MRIs. These results suggest that women with elevated advanced cancer risk should discuss MRI screening with their physician.

Related

  1. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Simulation of the Skull Base, Oral Cavity, Pharynx, and Larynx: Advanced Imaging Protocol for a Radiation Oncology Center
    N. A. West, L. McCullum, J. T. Cheruvelil +11
    medRxivPreprintCC BYFull textMedical imaging & radiologymedRxiv
  2. Advanced Imaging of the Right Heart and Pulmonary Circulation: The Role of Echocardiography and Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance
    Marta Kościuk, Karol Adam Kaminski, Remigiusz Kazimierczyk
    Journal of Clinical MedicinePeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textGeneral medicineCrossrefEurope PMC
  3. Long-Term Outcomes of a Prospective Study on Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Whole-Gland Salvage High-Dose-Rate Prostate Brachytherapy for Locally Recurrent Prostate Cancer
    Hsin-Pei Hu, Gerard Morton, Andrew Loblaw +10
    Advances in Radiation OncologyPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-ND 4.0Full textGeneral medicinePMCEurope PMC
  4. Left ventricular function and volumes from cardiac magnetic resonance and gated [13N]-ammonia positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with ischemia with no obstructive coronary arteries: a prospective head-to-head comparison using hybrid positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance
    Runze Wen, Qiang Xie, Ming Ni +5
    Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgeryPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-NDFull textMedical imaging & radiologyEurope PMC
  5. Correlation Between Magnetic Resonance Imaging Biomarkers and Blood Biomarkers in Acute Ischemic Stroke
    Neurology internationalPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@article{kerlikowske2026magnetic,
  title = {{Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Mammography Outcomes by Advanced Breast Cancer Risk}},
  author = {Karla Kerlikowske and Linn Abraham and Weiwei Zhu and Brian L. Sprague and Anna N. A. Tosteson and Erin J. Aiello Bowles and Christoph I. Lee and Diana L. Miglioretti},
  journal = {JAMA Network Open},
  year = {2026},
  month = nov,
  doi = {10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.42398},
  url = {https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2856324},
  note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Mammography Outcomes by Advanced Breast Cancer Risk
AU  - Karla Kerlikowske
AU  - Linn Abraham
AU  - Weiwei Zhu
AU  - Brian L. Sprague
AU  - Anna N. A. Tosteson
AU  - Erin J. Aiello Bowles
AU  - Christoph I. Lee
AU  - Diana L. Miglioretti
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/11/06
JO  - JAMA Network Open
DO  - 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.42398
UR  - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2856324
AB  - Importance: Few studies have examined advanced breast cancer rates in women undergoing routine mammography and/or breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).  Objective: To compare screening outcomes of breast MRI vs mammography by advanced breast cancer risk and screening round.  Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included women aged 40 to 74 years who had a screening MRI performed with or without a screening film, digital, or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) mammogram within 12 months (MRI group) or a screening digital or DBT mammogram (mammography-only group) performed at breast imaging facilities participating in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2021, and breast cancers diagnosed between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2022. Data analysis was performed from April 2025 to August 2026.  Exposures: MRI and mammography; advanced breast cancer risk score calculated using the BCSC advanced cancer risk model and categorized as low (0% to <0.172%), average (0.172% to <0.3797%), intermediate (0.3797% to <0.6582%), or higher (≥0.6582%).  Main Outcomes and Measures: Advanced (prognostic stage II or higher) and screen-detected early-stage (prognostic stage I) invasive cancer and false-positive biopsy recommendation rates per 1000 examinations adjusting for registry, examination year, age, race and ethnicity, family history, prior breast biopsy, and breast density.  Results: A total of 172 865 examinations performed in 105 532 women (median [IQR] age, 52 [46-59] years) were studied. After mammography, the intermediate to high vs low to average risk group had significantly higher advanced cancer (0.6 vs 0.3; difference, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.1-0.6), screen-detected early-stage cancer (2.8 vs 1.8; difference, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.5-1.7), and false-positive biopsy recommendation (18.1 vs 14.7; difference, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.7-5.2) rates per 1000 examinations. In the MRI group, rates per 1000 examinations of advanced cancer (0.8 vs 1.1; difference, −0.3; 95% CI, −1.3 to 0.7), screen-detected early-stage disease (10.3 vs 11.4; difference, −1.1; 95% CI, −4.9 to 2.7), and false-positive biopsy recommendation (94.0 vs 93.3; difference, 0.7; 95% CI, −9.9 to 11.3) were not significantly different between intermediate to high and low to average advanced cancer risk groups. Advanced cancer rates were not significantly different for MRI vs mammography between risk groups (difference, 0.6; 95% CI, −0.4 to 1.6). Screen-detected early-stage rates were significantly higher for MRI vs mammography for low to average risk (11.4 vs 1.8; difference, 9.6; 95% CI, 7.3-12.0) and intermediate to high risk (10.3 vs 2.8; difference, 7.5; 95% CI, 4.9-10.1) groups as were false-positive biopsy recommendation rates for low to average risk (93.3 vs 14.7; difference, 78.6; 95% CI, 72.5-84.8) and intermediate to high risk (94.0 vs 18.1; difference, 75.9; 95% CI, 68.3-83.5) groups. Women who underwent subsequent vs first MRIs had significantly lower advanced cancer rates (0.4 vs 2.0; difference, 1.6; 95% CI, 0.3-2.8) and higher advanced cancer risk (median [IQR] BCSC advanced cancer risk score, 0.348 [0.238 to 0.490] vs 0.301 [0.213 to 0.429]; P < .001).  Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, intermediate to high advanced breast cancer risk was associated with higher advanced cancer rates with screening mammography. MRI screening was associated with higher screen-detected early-stage cancer rates compared with mammography but not lower advanced cancer rates, except among women who underwent repeat MRIs. These results suggest that women with elevated advanced cancer risk should discuss MRI screening with their physician.
SN  - 2574-3805
ER  -