AUTHOR=Liu Jiaqi , Wang Xin , Dong Lin , Huang Xin , Zhao Hengqiang , Li Jiaxin , Huang Shengkai , Yuan Pei , Wang Wenyan , Wang Jie , Xing Zeyu , Jia Ziqi , Ming Yue , Li Xiao , Qin Ling , Liu Gang , Wu Jiang , Li Yiqun , Zhang Menglu , Feng Kexin , Ying Jianming , Wang Xiang TITLE=The Distinct Performances of Ultrasound, Mammograms, and MRI in Detecting Breast Cancer in Patients With Germline Pathogenic Variants in Cancer Predisposition Genes JOURNAL=Frontiers in Oncology VOLUME=11 YEAR=2021 URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/oncology/articles/10.3389/fonc.2021.710156 DOI=10.3389/fonc.2021.710156 ISSN=2234-943X ABSTRACT=

A proportion of up to 10% of breast cancer resulted from hereditary germline pathogenic variants (GPVs) in cancer predisposition genes (CPGs), which been demonstrated distinct clinical features and imaging manifestations. However, the performance of imaging modalities for breast cancer surveillance in CPG mutation-carriers is still unclear, especially in Asian women. A population of 3002 breast cancer patients who received germline genetic testing of CPGs was enrolled from three hospitals in China. In total, 343 (11.6%) patients were found to harbor GPVs in CPGs, including 137 (4.6%) in BRCA1 and 135 (4.6%) in BRCA2. We compared the performances of ultrasound, mammograms, MRI, and the combining strategies in CPG mutation carriers and non-carriers. As a result, the ultrasound showed a higher detection rate compared with mammograms regardless of the mutation status. However, its detection rate was lower in CPG mutation carriers than in non-carriers (93.2% vs 98.0%, P=2.1×10-4), especially in the BRCA1 mutation carriers (90.9% vs 98.0%, P=2.0×10-4). MRI presented the highest sensitivity (98.5%) and the lowest underestimation rate (14.5%) in CPG mutation carriers among ultrasound, mammograms, and their combination. Supplemental ultrasound or mammograms would add no significant value to MRI for detecting breast cancer (P>0.05). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, the family or personal cancer history could not replace the mutation status as the impact factor for the false-negative result and underestimation. In summary, clinicians and radiologists should be aware of the atypical imaging presentation of breast cancer in patients with GPVs in CPGs.