prev next front |1 |2 |3 |4 |5 |6 |7 |8 |9 |10 |11 |12 |13 |14 |15 |16 |17 |18 |19 |20 |21 |22 |23 |24 |25 |26 |27 |28 |29 |30 |31 |32 |33 |34 |35 |36 |37 |38 |39 |40 |41 |42 |review
These 6 studies are similar in several important ways which will allow future meta-analysis, and subgroup analyses. They are all non-randomized, not restricted to mutation carriers, and all include annual mammography and MRI done at most a few days apart.

But these studies are also differ enough from each other for each to be interesting in their own right, specifically with respect to the number of centres involved, whether women with cancer are included, age range, whether ultrasound or clinical breast examination are included and the MRI technique.
Interim results of two of these studies were published this year and I’d like to show these in some detail.