Abstract
Young women with Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) have a high risk of developing breast cancer and poorer survival following breast cancer diagnosis. International guidelines recommend commencing breast screening between 30 and 35 years; however, the optimal screening modality is unestablished, and previous reports suggest that breast imaging may be complicated by the presence of intramammary and cutaneous neurofibromas (cNFs). The aim of this study was to explore potential barriers to implementation of breast screening for young women with NF1.
Twenty-seven women (30–47 years) with NF1 completed breast screening with breast MRI, mammogram and breast ultrasound. Nineteen probably benign/suspicious lesions were detected across 14 women. Despite the presence of breast cNFs, initial biopsy rate for participants with NF1 (37%), were comparable to a BRCA pathogenic variant (PV) cohort (25%) (P = 0.311). No cancers or intramammary neurofibromas were identified. Most participants (89%) returned for second round screening.
The presence of cNF did not affect clinician confidence in 3D mammogram interpretation, although increasing breast density, frequently seen in young women, impeded confidence for 2D and 3D mammogram. Moderate or marked background parenchymal enhancement on MRI was higher in the NF1 cohort (70.4%) than BRCA PV carriers (47.3%), which is an independent risk factor for breast cancer.
Breast MRI was the preferred mode of screening over mammogram, as the majority (85%) with NF1 demonstrated breast density (BI-RADS 3C/4D), which hinders mammogram interpretation. For those with high breast density and high cNF breast coverage, 3D rather than 2D mammogram is preferred, if MRI is unavailable.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
Not available.
Code Availability
N/A.
References
Evans D, Howard E, Giblin C et al (2010) Birth incidence and prevalence of tumor-prone syndromes: estimates from a UK family genetic register service. Am J Med Genet Part A 152(2):327–332
Lammert M, Friedman JM, Kluwe L, Mautner VF (2005) Prevalence of neurofibromatosis 1 in german children at elementary school enrollment. Arch Dermatol 141(1):71–74. https://doi.org/10.1001/archderm.141.1.71
Kallionpaa RA, Uusitalo E, Leppavirta J, Poyhonen M, Peltonen S, Peltonen J (2018) Prevalence of neurofibromatosis type 1 in the finnish population. Genet Med 20(9):1082–1086. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2017.215
Poyhonen M, Kytola S, Leisti J (2000) Epidemiology of neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) in northern finland. J Med Genet 37(8):632–636. https://doi.org/10.1136/jmg.37.8.632
Legius E, Messiaen L, Wolkenstein P et al (2021) Revised diagnostic criteria for neurofibromatosis type 1 and Legius syndrome: an international consensus recommendation. Genet Med. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-021-01170-5
Friedman JM (2002) Neurofibromatosis 1: clinical manifestations and diagnostic criteria. J Child Neurol 17(8):548–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/088307380201700802. discussion 71-2, 646-51
Uusitalo E, Rantanen M, Kallionpaa RA et al (2016) Distinctive Cancer Associations in patients with neurofibromatosis type 1. J Clin Oncol 34(17):1978–1986. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.65.3576
Evans DG, O’Hara C, Wilding A et al (2011) Mortality in neurofibromatosis 1: in North West England: an assessment of actuarial survival in a region of the UK since 1989. Eur J Hum Genet 19(11):1187–1191. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2011.113
Wilding A, Ingham SL, Lalloo F et al (2012) Life expectancy in hereditary cancer predisposing diseases: an observational study. J Med Genet 49(4):264–269. https://doi.org/10.1136/jmedgenet-2011-100562
Rasmussen SA, Yang Q, Friedman JM (2001) Mortality in neurofibromatosis 1: an analysis using U.S. death certificates. Am J Hum Genet 68(5):1110–1118. https://doi.org/10.1086/320121
Uusitalo E, Kallionpaa RA, Kurki S et al (2017) Breast cancer in neurofibromatosis type 1: overrepresentation of unfavourable prognostic factors. Br J Cancer 116(2):211–217. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2016.403
Suarez-Kelly LP, Yu L, Kline D, Schneider EB, Agnese DM, Carson WE (2019) Increased breast cancer risk in women with neurofibromatosis type 1: a meta-analysis and systematic review of the literature. Hered Cancer Clin Pract 17:12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13053-019-0110-z
Walters S, Maringe C, Butler J et al (2013) Breast cancer survival and stage at diagnosis in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK, 2000–2007: a population-based study. Br J Cancer 108(5):1195–1208. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2013.6
Carton C, Evans DG, Blanco I et al (2023) ERN GENTURIS tumour surveillance guidelines for individuals with neurofibromatosis type 1. eClinicalMedicine 56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101818
eviQ Cancer Treatments Online (2023) Cancer Institute NSW, viewed 1 March 2023. https://www.eviq.org.au/
Daly MB, Pal T, AlHilli Z et al (2023) Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: breast, ovarian, and pancreatic, Version 3.2023, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 19(1)
Seminog OO, Goldacre MJ (2015) Age-specific risk of breast cancer in women with neurofibromatosis type 1. Br J Cancer 112(9):1546–1548. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2015.78
Sharif S, Moran A, Huson SM et al (2007) Women with neurofibromatosis 1 are at a moderately increased risk of developing breast cancer and should be considered for early screening. J Med Genet 44(8):481–484. https://doi.org/10.1136/jmg.2007.049346
Evans DGR, Kallionpää RA, Clementi M et al (2020) Breast cancer in neurofibromatosis 1: survival and risk of contralateral breast cancer in a five country cohort study. Genet Sci 22(2):398–406
Howell SJ, Hockenhull K, Salih Z, Evans DG (2017) Increased risk of breast cancer in neurofibromatosis type 1: current insights. Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press) 9:531–536. https://doi.org/10.2147/BCTT.S111397
Da Silva AV, Rodrigues FR, Pureza M, Lopes VG, Cunha KS (2015) Breast cancer and neurofibromatosis type 1: a diagnostic challenge in patients with a high number of neurofibromas. BMC Cancer 15:183. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-015-1215-z
Zhou Y, Pan B, Mao F et al (2012) A hidden breast lump covered by nipple appendices in a patient with von recklinghausen disease: a case report and review of the literature. Clin Breast Cancer 12(1):71–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2011.07.005
Sharif S, Ferner R, Birch JM et al (2006) Second primary tumors in neurofibromatosis 1 patients treated for optic glioma: substantial risks after radiotherapy. J Clin Oncol 24(16):2570–2575. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.03.8349
Pijpe A, Andrieu N, Easton DF et al (2012) Exposure to diagnostic radiation and risk of breast cancer among carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations: retrospective cohort study (GENE-RAD-RISK). BMJ 345:e5660. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e5660
Gokalp G, Hakyemez B, Kizilkaya E, Haholu A (2007) Myxoid neurofibromas of the breast: mammographical, sonographical and MRI appearances. Br J Radiol 80(958):e234–e237. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/33539044
Thompson S, Kaplan SS, Poppiti RJ Jr, Collado-Mesa F, Rabinovich K (2012) Solitary neurofibroma of the breast. Radiol Case Rep 7(4):462. https://doi.org/10.2484/rcr.v7i4.462
Maani N, Westergard S, Yang J et al (2019) NF1 patients receiving breast Cancer screening: insights from the Ontario High Risk breast screening program. Cancers (Basel) 11(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers11050707
Wanders JO, Holland K, Veldhuis WB et al (2017) Volumetric breast density affects performance of digital screening mammography. Breast Cancer Res Treat 162(1):95–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-4090-7
Acciavatti RJ, Lee SH, Reig B et al (2023) Beyond breast density: risk measures for breast Cancer in multiple imaging modalities. Radiology 306(3):e222575. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.222575
Mautner VF, Granstrom S, Leark RA (2015) Impact of ADHD in adults with neurofibromatosis type 1: associated psychological and social problems. J Atten Disord 19(1):35–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054712450749
Ferner RE, Hughes RA, Weinman J (1996) Intellectual impairment in neurofibromatosis 1. J Neurol Sci 138(1–2): 125 – 33 DOI 10.1016/0022-510x(96)00022 – 6
Crawford HA, Barton B, Wilson MJ et al (2015) The impact of neurofibromatosis type 1 on the Health and Wellbeing of australian adults. J Genet Couns 24(6):931–944. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-015-9829-5
Biglia N, Bounous VE, Martincich L et al (2011) Role of MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) versus conventional imaging for breast cancer presurgical staging in young women or with dense breast. Eur J Surg Oncol (EJSO) 37(3):199–204
Salem DS, Kamal RM, Mansour SM, Salah LA, Wessam R (2013) Breast imaging in the young: the role of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer screening, diagnosis and follow-up. J Thorac Dis 5(Suppl 1):S9–S18. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2013.05.02
Lord SJ, Lei W, Craft P et al (2007) A systematic review of the effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as an addition to mammography and ultrasound in screening young women at high risk of breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 43(13):1905–1917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2007.06.007
Riedl CC, Luft N, Bernhart C et al (2015) Triple-modality screening trial for familial breast cancer underlines the importance of magnetic resonance imaging and questions the role of mammography and ultrasound regardless of patient mutation status, age, and breast density. J Clin Oncol 33(10):1128–1135. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.56.8626
Checka CM, Chun JE, Schnabel FR, Lee J, Toth H (2012) The relationship of mammographic density and age: implications for breast cancer screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198(3):W292–W295. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.6049
Kelemen LE, Pankratz VS, Sellers TA et al (2008) Age-specific trends in mammographic density: the Minnesota breast Cancer Family Study. Am J Epidemiol 167(9):1027–1036. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwn063
Crook A, Kwa R, Ephraums S et al (2021) The psychological impact and experience of breast cancer screening in young women with an increased risk of breast cancer due to neurofibromatosis type 1. Fam Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-021-00259-9
Radiology ACo, D’Orsi CJ (2013) ACR BI-RADS atlas: breast imaging reporting and data system; mammography, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, follow-up and outcome monitoring, data dictionary. ACR, American College of Radiology
Mall S, Noakes J, Kossoff M et al (2018) Can digital breast tomosynthesis perform better than standard digital mammography work-up in breast cancer assessment clinic? Eur Radiol 28(12):5182–5194
Porter GJ, Evans AJ, Lee AH, Hamilton LJ, James JJ (2006) Unusual benign breast lesions. Clin Radiol 61(7):562–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2006.02.008
Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA et al (2004) Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA 292(11):1317–1325. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.292.11.1317
Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W et al (2007) American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin 57(2):75–89. https://doi.org/10.3322/canjclin.57.2.75
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2022) BreastScreen Australia monitoring report 2022. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
Warner E, Messersmith H, Causer P, Eisen A, Shumak R, Plewes D (2008) Systematic review: using magnetic resonance imaging to screen women at high risk for breast cancer. Ann Intern Med 148(9):671–679. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-148-9-200805060-00007
Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ et al (2007) Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 356(3):227–236. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa062790
Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL et al (2000) Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval-and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 92(13):1081–1087
Wanders JOP, Holland K, Karssemeijer N et al (2017) The effect of volumetric breast density on the risk of screen-detected and interval breast cancers: a cohort study. Breast Cancer Res 19(1):67. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-017-0859-9
Vachon CM, van Gils CH, Sellers TA et al (2007) Mammographic density, breast cancer risk and risk prediction. Breast Cancer Res 9(6):217. https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr1829
Ziv E, Tice J, Smith-Bindman R, Shepherd J, Cummings S, Kerlikowske K (2004) Mammographic density and estrogen receptor status of breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 13(12):2090–2095
McCormack VA, dos Santos Silva I (2006) Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15(6):1159–1169. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0034
Rebolj M, Assi V, Brentnall A, Parmar D, Duffy SW (2018) Addition of ultrasound to mammography in the case of dense breast tissue: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Cancer 118(12):1559–1570. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-018-0080-3
Assi V, Warwick J, Cuzick J, Duffy SW (2012) Clinical and epidemiological issues in mammographic density. Nat Reviews Clin Oncol 9(1):33–40. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2011.173
Chiarelli AM, Prummel MV, Muradali D et al (2014) Effectiveness of screening with annual magnetic resonance imaging and mammography: results of the initial screen from the ontario high risk breast screening program. J Clin Oncol 32(21):2224–2230. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.52.8331
Narayan AK, Visvanathan K, Harvey SC (2016) Comparative effectiveness of breast MRI and mammography in screening young women with elevated risk of developing breast cancer: a retrospective cohort study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 158(3):583–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-3912-y
Kuhl C, Weigel S, Schrading S et al (2010) Prospective multicenter cohort study to refine management recommendations for women at elevated familial risk of breast cancer: the EVA trial. J Clin Oncol 28(9):1450–1457. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.23.0839
Arasu VA, Miglioretti DL, Sprague BL et al (2019) Population-Based Assessment of the Association between magnetic resonance imaging background parenchymal enhancement and future primary breast Cancer Risk. J Clin Oncol 37(12):954–963. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.18.00378
Grimm LJ, Anderson AL, Baker JA et al (2015) Interobserver variability between breast imagers using the Fifth Edition of the BI-RADS MRI Lexicon. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204(5):1120–1124. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.13047
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the patients and clinicians who gave their time and supported this study. In addition, we wish to thank Dr Rachel O’Connell for providing statistical support for the analysis of our early findings.
Funding
This study was funded by the Children’s Tumour Foundation and The Honourable Brad Hazzard, NSW Minister for Health and Medical Research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception, design, material preparation, data collection and analysis. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Mathilda Wilding and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Ethics approval
The study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This study was approved by the Northern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (NSLHD HREC) REGIS 2020/ ETH00762.
Consent to participate
Informed consent was obtained from all individuals included in the study.
Consent to publish
The authors affirm that patients signed informed consent regarding publishing their data and photographs.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Wilding, M., Fleming, J., Moore, K. et al. Clinical and imaging modality factors impacting radiological interpretation of breast screening in young women with neurofibromatosis type 1. Familial Cancer 22, 499–511 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-023-00340-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-023-00340-5