CEBP Prevention Award Advances in Breast Cancer Research
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention 17, 706, March 1, 2008. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-0509
© 2008 American Association for Cancer Research
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bigenwald, R. Z.
Right arrow Articles by Yaffe, M. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bigenwald, R. Z.
Right arrow Articles by Yaffe, M. J.
Related Collections
Right arrow Early Detection
Right arrow Early Detection: Imaging

Short Communication

Is Mammography Adequate for Screening Women with Inherited BRCA Mutations and Low Breast Density?

Rachel Z. Bigenwald1, Ellen Warner1, Anoma Gunasekara2, Kimberley A. Hill1, Petrina A. Causer5, Sandra J. Messner4, Andrea Eisen1,4, Donald B. Plewes2,6, Steven A. Narod7, Liying Zhang3 and Martin J. Yaffe2,6

Divisions of 1 Medical Oncology, 2 Imaging Research, 3 Clinical Trials and Epidemiology, and 4 Preventive Oncology and Departments of 5 Medical Imaging and 6 Medical Biophysics, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and 7 Centre for Research in Women's Health, Women's College Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Requests for reprints: Ellen Warner, Toronto-Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Center, Toronto, Ontario M4N 3M5, Canada. Phone: 416-480-4617; Fax: 416-480-6002. E-mail: ellen.warner{at}sunnybrook.ca


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Background: Several observational studies have shown that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is significantly more sensitive than mammography for screening women over age 25 at high risk for hereditary breast cancer; however, MRI is more costly and less specific than mammography. We sought to determine the extent to which the low sensitivity of mammography is due to greater breast density.

Methods: Breast density was evaluated for all patients on a high-risk screening study who were diagnosed with breast cancer between November 1997 and July 2006. Density was measured in two ways: qualitatively using the four categories characterized by the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System and quantitatively using a computer-aided technique and classified as (a) ≤10%, (b) 11% to 25%, (c) 26% to 50%, and (d) >50% density. Comparison of sensitivity of mammography (and MRI) for each individual density category and after combining the highest two and lowest two density categories was done using Fisher's exact test.

Results: A total of 46 breast cancers [15 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and 31 invasive] were diagnosed in 45 women (42 with BRCA mutations). Mean age was 48.3 (range, 32-68) years. Overall, sensitivity of mammography versus MRI was 20% versus 87% for DCIS and 26% versus 90% for invasive cancer. There was a trend towards greater mammographic sensitivity for invasive cancer in women with fattier breasts compared with those with greater breast density (37-43% versus 8-12%; P = 0.1), but this trend was not seen for DCIS.

Conclusion: It is necessary to add MRI to mammography for screening women with BRCA mutations even if their breast density is low. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17(3):706–11)


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Until recently, annual mammography was recommended as the sole imaging modality for screening high-risk women, including those with inherited BRCA mutations, who have a 50% to 80% lifetime risk of developing breast cancer (1, 2). This recommendation was based on extrapolation of strong evidence for mortality reduction from screening mammography in the general population. However, reports of mammography-based screening of women with BRCA mutations showed a high percentage of interval cancers that were large and/or had already spread to axillary lymph nodes (3, 4).

Several prospective single and multicenter observational studies have shown that for screening women at very high risk for breast cancer based on genetic testing or family history, breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is significantly more sensitive than mammography (71-96% versus 28-43%; refs. 5-11). However, MRI is ~10 times more costly than mammography and has significantly lower specificity with accompanying higher rates of recalls, additional imaging, and biopsies for resolving ambiguous screening results (5-7, 9, 10).

Identifying specific subpopulations of very high risk women for whom mammography alone might be an adequate screening tool would be highly desirable. For screening the general population, the amount and percentage of radiodense breast parenchyma relative to fat is inversely correlated with mammographic sensitivity. The reported sensitivity of mammography for fatty breasts ranges from 80% to 92% compared to 30% to 69% for dense breasts (12-15). Based on these data, we sought to determine whether mammography would have acceptable sensitivity for screening very high risk women with low breast density.


   Materials and Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Study Population
Between November 1997 and July 2006, 507 very high risk women ages 25 to 65 (395 with confirmed BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations) were enrolled in the single center Toronto MRI Screening Study. Patient eligibility was restricted to women unaffected or with a past history of breast cancer who (a) were known BRCA mutation carriers, (b) were untested first-degree relatives of a BRCA mutation carrier, or (c) had three relatives on the same side of the family with breast cancer diagnosed before age 50 or epithelial ovarian cancer. The study was approved by the Human Subjects Review Board of Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, and informed consent was obtained from all patients.

Screening Protocol
An in-depth description of study methodology can be found in previous publications (5, 16). Eligible women were screened annually with film-screen mammography, MRI, and ultrasound and semiannually with clinical breast examination. All three annual imaging modalities were done successively on the same day at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. Ultrasound screening was discontinued in May 2005 due to inadequate sensitivity and specificity.

Mammograms, ultrasound, and MRI examinations were classified using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) as follows: 0, needs further workup; 1, negative; 2, benign finding; 3, probably benign finding, short-term follow-up; 4, suspicious abnormality, biopsy should be considered; and 5, highly suggestive of malignancy (17). Biopsy was suggested if at least one screening modality was suspicious for malignancy (5).

Mammographic Density Measurement
The mammographic density of the ipsilateral breast of all women diagnosed with breast cancer in the study was categorized (a) qualitatively and (b) quantitatively. The ipsilateral breast was chosen for consistency across the patient population; the contralateral breast mammogram was not available/appropriate for patients with previous contralateral breast cancer and a previous ipsilateral mammogram was not available for all patients. Qualitative categorization determined by one of seven radiologists, who were experienced in breast imaging, was one of four BI-RADS categories: 1, mostly fatty (<25% dense); 2, scattered fibroglandular tissue (25-50% dense); 3, heterogeneously dense (51-75% dense); and 4, extremely dense (>75% dense; ref. 17). Interobserver variability was not formally assessed.

Quantitative breast density categorization has been described in detail in a publication by Byng et al. (18) and is shown in Fig. 1 . In this study, the cranio-caudal view of the ipsilateral mammogram from the most recent round of screening was digitized using a Lumisys 85 digitizer at 260 µm pixel size and 12 bits precision. All mammograms were presented to an observer blinded to clinical data, including method of detection. Using the computer program Cumulus, the observer selected two threshold gray-level values: one to identify the overall breast area and the other for classifying the dense area (18, 19). Cumulus calculated only those pixels above the threshold values chosen. Percentage of mammographic density was defined as the area of dense tissue divided by the overall breast area multiplied by 100 (Fig. 1).


Figure 1
View larger version (61K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 1. Computer-aided density quantification of a mammographic image. Pixels in red define the outline of the breast, whereas those in green outline pixel values above the density threshold. The percentage density is the ratio of the total number of "dense pixels" to the total number of pixels in the breast multiplied by 100.

 
Statistical Analysis
Qualitative and quantitative density categorizations were compared using linear regression analysis. Midpoints of the standard numerical density ranges of the BI-RADS categories (e.g., 12% we used for category 1 representing <25% dense) were used as the qualitative density value. These were correlated with percent densities calculated using the quantitative technique. Linear regression analysis was also used to plot the relationship between quantitative breast density and patient age.

To compute the sensitivity of mammography and MRI for different density categories, the following quantitative categories were defined: ≤10%, 11% to 25%, 26% to 50%, and >50% dense. Although different from the BI-RADS quartiles, these categories were created based on our data set in which there were only eight women with a quantitative breast density of >50%.

For both qualitative and quantitative categories, the two lower and two higher density categories were collapsed due to very low numbers in the highest and lowest categories. Sensitivity was defined as the number of cancers detected by an imaging modality divided by the total number of cancers detected in the study. Using Fisher's exact tests, the sensitivities of mammography and MRI in the higher and the lower density categories were compared as were the overall sensitivities of both modalities.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
Forty-eight cancers were diagnosed in 507 women between November 1997 and July 2006. Two cases were excluded from density analysis because diagnostic mammograms done at the time of diagnosis were irretrievable. Two cancers developed in one woman while being followed on study. The demographics of these 45 women, of whom 42 had BRCA mutations, are shown in Table 1 . Nine (45%) of 20 cancers in women with BRCA2 mutations were ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) compared with 5 (22%) of 23 cancers in women with BRCA1 mutations.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1. Patients and cancers

 
Linear regression analysis comparing qualitative and quantitative breast density categorization showed a moderate correlation (R2 = 0.47; P < 0.0001; Fig. 2 ). The quantitative density measurements were generally lower than the qualitative BIRADS. Comparison of age and ipsilateral percent breast density showed an inverse relationship (R2 = 0.18; P = 0.0032).


Figure 2
View larger version (8K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 2. Correlation between qualitative and quantitative breast density categorization.

 
By quantitative measurement, mean breast density of all 45 women was 26.7%. The mean density for women with BRCA1 mutations was 28.8% (range, 2.8-78.9%), not significantly different from the mean density for women with BRCA2 mutations, which was 23.2% (range, 4.4-71.6%).

Overall, as reported by others, mammography was significantly less sensitive than MRI for detecting breast cancer (24% versus 89%; P < 0.001; refs. 5-11). For women with BRCA1 versus BRCA2 mutations, the relative sensitivities of mammography and MRI were very similar (25% versus 25% for mammography and 84% versus 92% for MRI).

As illustrated in Table 2 , the sensitivity of mammography was 33%, 33%, 16%, and 33% for BI-RADS categories 1 to 4, respectively. Using quantitative categorization, sensitivity was 31%, 27%, 20%, and 12.5% for lowest to highest density categories, respectively.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2. Sensitivity of MRI versus mammography by density

 
In contrast, MRI sensitivity was high for all density categories, ranging from 100% (BIRADS 1) to 88% (BIRADS 3) and detecting 2 of 3 (67%) BIRADS 4 cases. With the quantitative measurement MRI sensitivity was 92%, 87%, 100%, and 75% for categories 1 to 4, respectively (Table 2). There was no statistically significant effect of density on MRI sensitivity.

After collapsing the four categories into two (low density and high density) for both density measurement methods, comparisons were made between the mammographic sensitivities in the low density and high density categories (Fig. 3 ). The sensitivity of mammography for women with low density was not significantly greater than for women with high density as measured by either quantitative analysis (P = 0.49) or qualitative analysis (P = 0.30).


Figure 3
View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 3. Mammographic screening sensitivities for low versus high density: (A) all cancers, (B) DCIS, (C) invasive cancers, (D) age <50 years, and (E) age ≥50 years. Note that mammography did not detect any cases of DCIS in women with low breast density measured by either method (B) nor any cases of either DCIS or invasive cancer in women over age 50 with dense breasts (E).

 
The relative sensitivities of mammography versus MRI were almost identical for DCIS (20% versus 87%) and for invasive cancer (26% versus 90%). There was a trend towards lower mammographic sensitivity with increasing density for invasive cancers with both methods of density measurement (qualitative: 43% low density versus 12% high density, P = 0.11; quantitative: 37% low density versus 8% high density, P = 0.10). The opposite trend was seen for DCIS probably due to chance because of very small numbers (qualitative: 0% low density versus 28% high density, P = 0.52; semiquantitative: 0% low density versus 50% high density, P = 0.53).


   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
In this study, we found that in a population of women at very high risk for hereditary breast cancer, although there was a trend towards higher sensitivity of screening mammography for detecting invasive cancer in women with fattier breasts, mammographic sensitivity was still far lower than that of MRI (Fig. 4 ). The sensitivity of mammography for detecting DCIS was very low even in women with fatty breasts. Findings were similar regardless of how density was measured.


Figure 4
View larger version (72K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 4. MRI only visible 7 mm infiltrating duct carcinoma of the left breast of a 63-year-old woman with a BRCA2 mutation. The tumor was diagnosed at MRI-guided vacuum assisted biopsy. A, contrast-enhanced sagittal T1-weighted 3D-FSPGR FS (50/4.2; flip angle, 50°) image shows a 7 mm heterogeneous ductal lesion with marked early enhancement (arrow). B, mammogram (cranio-caudal and mediolateral oblique views of left breast) done on the same day showing a mostly fatty breast with no evidence of malignancy.

 
It is plausible that mammographic detection of early invasive cancer is adversely affected by breast density, whereas early detection of DCIS is not. This is because mammographic detection of invasive cancer is generally dependent on the ability to visualize a mass or architectural distortion, features often obscured by background breast density. Mammographic detection of DCIS, however, is generally due to visibility of malignant calcifications, which is less affected by breast density. In fact, MRI detected the majority of DCIS cases in this series before the development of malignant calcifications. Similarly, in a recent series of 33 cases of pure DCIS in women who underwent both MRI and mammography at diagnosis, only 9 of the cases were detected by mammography, with 8 of the 9 detected due to the presence of calcifications. In addition, the ability of mammography to detect DCIS was not found to be related to breast density (7).

One might argue that our study overestimates the benefits of MRI, as over time these DCIS lesions might have developed calcifications, enabling them to be detected by mammography before the development of invasion on subsequent screening. However, this seems unlikely given the universally low prevalence of DCIS without invasion reported in women with BRCA (particularly BRCA1) mutations not screened with MRI (3, 4, 20, 21).

The sensitivity of mammography for women in this study was generally poor (24%) compared with the ~50% sensitivity reported when screening women with BRCA mutations using mammography without MRI. This is due, in part, to the much smaller size (and earlier stage) of the invasive cancers detected by MRI in this study (mean, 1.0 cm) compared with the size reported with mammography alone (mean, 1.3-1.7 cm; refs. 3, 20, 21). Some of the cancers detected by MRI, while still mammographically occult, would likely have been detected by mammography on a subsequent screen but at a larger size.

In our study, there was only a moderate correlation between qualitative and quantitative methods of breast density assessment with generally lower density values found with the quantitative technique. For example, using qualitative assessment, 27 of 45 cancers were rated as having >50% breast density, whereas the quantitative method identified only 8 cancers with this degree of density. This is not surprising in that the quantitative method is a simple binary threshold technique, whereas with the qualitative method the radiologist can take into account the degree of intensity of the densities and areas with density that is just below the quantitative threshold. On the other hand, the BI-RADS method of density assessment is limited, except at absolute extremes (that is, completely fatty or breasts composed entirely of dense fibroglandular tissue) due to its inherent nonquantitative techniques. In a recent report by Martin et al., although there was good correlation between quantitative estimates of breast density by trained radiologists and by an automated mammography density estimation program, there was poor correlation between the quantitative estimates and the qualitative assessments using BI-RADS categories (22).

One potential criticism of our study is that because the ipsilateral breast was used for density measurements, the presence of a tumor might have falsely elevated the measured density. However, because the mean tumor size was only 1 cm, such an effect was unlikely to have been significant. Moreover, similar results were obtained upon repetition of our analysis using the density of the contralateral breast for those patients without a history of contralateral breast cancer.

Corroborating our findings is a recent study by Lehman et al., investigating the sensitivity of MRI for detecting clinically and mammographically occult cancer in the contralateral breast at the time of a breast cancer diagnosis (23). In that study, MRI was just as likely to detect mammographically occult cancer in women with fatty breasts (9 of 299 = 3%) as in women with dense breasts (20 of 666 = 3%).

In conclusion, although mammography may be somewhat more sensitive for detecting invasive cancers in very high risk women with fatty breasts than in those with greater breast density, even in women with low breast density sensitivity was <50%, which is clearly inadequate. It is, therefore, appropriate to recommend MRI screening for all women with BRCA mutations regardless of their breast density.


   Footnotes
 
Grant support: Canadian Breast Cancer Research Alliance 012345 and private donation from Florence and Maury Rosenblatt.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Note: Some of the cases in this article have been reported previously with regard to relative sensitivity of MRI versus mammography (5, 16); however, breast density was not described or included as a variable.

Received 6/ 4/07; revised 12/12/07; accepted 12/18/07.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Ford D, Easton DF, Stratton M, et al. Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families. Am J Hum Genet 1998;62:676–89.[CrossRef][Medline]
  2. Chen S, Parmigiani G. Meta-analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 penetrance. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:1329–33.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Komenaka IK, Ditkoff B, Joseph K, et al. The development of interval breast malignancies in patients with BRCA mutations. Cancer 2004;100:2079–83.[CrossRef][Medline]
  4. Brekelmans CTM, Seynaeve C, Bartels CCM, et al. Effectiveness of breast cancer surveillance in BRCA1/2 gene mutation carriers and women with high familial risk. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:924–30.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA, et al. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA 2004;292:1317–25.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Leach MO, Boggis GRM, Dixon AK, et al. Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS). Lancet 2005;365:1769–78.[CrossRef][Medline]
  7. Menell JH, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, Abramson, AF, Brogi, E, Liberman, L. Determination of the presence and extent of pure ductal carcinoma in situ by mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Breast J 2005;11:382–90.[CrossRef][Medline]
  8. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, et al. Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:8469–76.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Lehman CD, Blume JD, Weatherall P, et al. Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer 2005;103:1898–905.[CrossRef][Medline]
  10. Kriege M, Brekelmans CTM, Boetes C, et al. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med 2004;351:427–37.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Podo F, Sardanelli F, Canese R, et al. The Italian multi-centre project on evaluation of MRI and other imaging modalities in early detection of breast cancer in subjects at high risk. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2002;21:115–24.[Medline]
  12. Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1081–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Saarenmaa I, Salminen T, Geiger U, et al. The effect of age and density of the breast on the sensitivity of breast cancer diagnostic by mammography and ultrasonography. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2001;67:117–23.[CrossRef][Medline]
  14. Fenton JJ, Taplin SH, Carney PA, et al. Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography. N Engl J Med 2007;356:1399–409.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1773–83.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Warner E, Plewes DB, Shumak RS, et al. Comparison of breast magnetic resonance imaging, mammography and ultrasound for surveillance of women at high risk for hereditary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:3524–31.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. American College of Radiology. American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). 4th ed. Reston (VA): American College of Radiology; 2003.
  18. Byng JW, Boyd NF, Fishell E, Jong RA, Yaffe MJ. The quantitative analysis of mammographic densities. Phys Med Biol 1994;39:1629–38.[CrossRef][Medline]
  19. Boyd NF, Byng JW, Jong RA, et al. Quantitative classification of mammographic densities and breast cancer risk: results from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87:670–5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Vasen HFA, Tesfay E, Boonstra H, et al. Early detection of breast and ovarian cancer in families with BRCA mutations. Eur J Cancer 2005;41:549–54.[CrossRef][Medline]
  21. Scheuer L, Kauff N, Robson M, et al. Outcome of preventative surgery and screening for breast and ovarian cancer in BRCA mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:1260–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Martin KE, Helvie MA, Zhou C, et al. Mammographic density measured with quantitative computer-aided method: comparison with radiologists' estimates and BI-RADS categories. Radiology 2006;240:656–65.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Lehman CD, Gatsonis C, Kuhl CK, et al. MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007;356:1295–303.[Abstract/Free Full Text]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
W. A. Berg
Tailored Supplemental Screening for Breast Cancer: What Now and What Next?
Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2009; 192(2): 390 - 399.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bigenwald, R. Z.
Right arrow Articles by Yaffe, M. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bigenwald, R. Z.
Right arrow Articles by Yaffe, M. J.
Related Collections
Right arrow Early Detection
Right arrow Early Detection: Imaging

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online