Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance mammography: does it affect surgical decision-making in patients with breast cancer?

  • Clinical Trial
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Diagnostic imaging in women with suspected breast cancer should accurately detect and diagnose malignant tumors and facilitate the correct choice of therapy. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance mammography (CE-MRM) is potentially the imaging modality of choice for accurate patient management decisions.

Methods

A total of 164 women with suspected breast cancer based on clinical examination, conventional mammography and/or ultrasound each underwent preoperative bilateral CE-MRM using an axial 3D dynamic T1-weighted gradient-echo sequence and gadobenate dimeglumine as contrast agent. Images were evaluated by two readers in consensus. Histological evaluation of detected lesions was performed on samples from core biopsy or surgery. Determinations were made of the sensitivity, accuracy and positive predictive value of CE-MRM compared to mammography/ultrasound for the detection of malignant lesions and of the impact of CE-MRM for surgical decision-making.

Findings

Conventional mammography/ultrasound detected 175 lesions in the 164 evaluated patients. CE-MRM revealed 51 additional lesions in 34/164 patients; multifocal and multicentric cancer was detected in 7 and 4 additional patients, respectively, contralateral foci in 21 additional patients and pectoral muscle infiltration in 2 additional patients. CE-MRM also confirmed the absence or benignity of 3 and 1 lesions suspected of malignancy on mammography/ultrasound. The sensitivity and accuracy for malignant lesion detection and identification was 100% and 93.4%, respectively, for CE-MRM compared to 77.3% and 72.1% for mammography/ultrasound, respectively. Patient management was altered for 32/164 (19.5%) patients as a result of CE-MRM.

Interpretation

CE-MRM positively impacts patient management decisions and should be performed in all women with suspected breast cancer based on clinical examination, mammography and/or ultrasound.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fischer U, Kopka L, Grabbe E (1999) Breast carcinoma: effect of preoperative contrast-enhanced MR imaging on the therapeutic approach. Radiology 213:881–888

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Lee JM, Orel SG, Czerniecki BJ, Solin LJ, Schnall MD (2004) MRI before re-excision surgery in patients with breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 182:473–480

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fisher B, Redmond C, Poisson R et al (1989) Eight-year results of a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy and lumpectomy with or without irradiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 320:822–828. Erratum in: N Engl J Med 1994; 330:1467

    Google Scholar 

  4. van Dongen JA, Bartelink H, Fentiman IS et al (1992) Factors influencing local relapse and survival and results of salvage treatment after breast-conserving therapy in operable breast cancer: EORTC trial 10801, breast conservation compared with mastectomy in TNM stage I and II breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 28A:801–805

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Veronesi U, Luini A, Galimberti V, Zurrida S (1994) Conservation approaches for the management of stage I/II carcinoma of the breast: Milan Cancer Institute trials. World J Surg 18:70–75

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Fisher B, Anderson S, Redmond CK, Wolmark N, Wickerham DL, Cronin WM (1995) Reanalysis and results after 12 years of follow-up in a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy with lumpectomy with or without irradiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 333:1456–1461

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Jacobson JA, Danforth DN, Cowan KH et al (1995) Ten-year results of a comparison of conservation with mastectomy in the treatment of stage I and II breast cancer. N Engl J Med 332:907–911

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Arriagada R, Le MG, Rochard F, Contesso G (1996) Conservative treatment versus mastectomy in early breast cancer: patterns of failure with 15 years of follow-up data. Institut Gustave-Roussy Breast Cancer Group. J Clin Oncol 14:1558–1564

    Google Scholar 

  9. Van Dongen JA, Voogd AC, Fentiman IS et al (2000) Long-term results of a randomized trial comparing breast-conserving therapy with mastectomy: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 10801 trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:1143–1150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dershaw DD (2002) Breast imaging and the conservative treatment of breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 40:501–516 Review

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Morrow M, Strom EA, Bassett LW et al (2002) Standard for breast conservation therapy in the management of invasive breast carcinoma. CA Cancer J Clin 52:277–300 Review

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V (1996) Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA 276:33–38

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 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 92:1081–1087

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Malur S, Wurdinger S, Moritz A, Michels W, Schneider A (2001) Comparison of written reports of mammography, sonography and magnetic resonance mammography for preoperative evaluation of breast lesions, with special emphasis on magnetic resonance mammography. Breast Cancer Res 3:55–60

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH (2002) Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 225:165–175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Warner E, Plewes DB, Shumak RS et al (2001) Comparison of breast magnetic resonance imaging, mammography, and ultrasound for surveillance of women at high risk for hereditary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 19:3524–3531

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS et al (2004) Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology 233:830–849

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Van Goethem M, Schelfout K, Dijckmans L et al (2004) MR mammography in the pre-operative staging of breast cancer in patients with dense breast tissue: comparison with mammography and ultrasound. Eur Radiol 14:809–816

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kuhl CK (2000) MRI of breast tumors. Eur Radiol 10:46–58

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Morris EA. (2001) Review of breast MRI: indications and limitations. Semin Roentgenol 36:226–237

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Orel SG, Schnall MD (2001) MR imaging of the breast for the detection, diagnosis and staging of breast cancer. . Radiology 220:13–30

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Sardanelli F, Giuseppetti GM, Panizza P et al (2004) Sensitivity of MRI versus mammography for detecting foci of multifocal, multicentric breast cancer in fatty and dense breasts using the whole-breast pathologic examination as a gold standard. AJR Am J Roentgenol 183:1149–1157

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kriege M, Brekelmans CTM, Boetes C et al (2004) Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. . N Engl J Med 351:427–437

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC et al (2005) Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:8469–8476

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Esserman L, Hylton N, Yassa L, Barclay J, Frankel S, Sickles E (1999) Utility of magnetic resonance imaging in the management of breast cancer: evidence for improved preoperative staging. J Clin Oncol 17:110–119

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Tillman GF, Orel SG, Schnall MD, Schultz DJ, Tan JE, Solin LJ (2002) Effect of breast magnetic resonance imaging on the clinical management of women with early-stage breast carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 20:3413–3423

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Thibault F, Nos C, Meunier M et al (2004) MRI for surgical planning in patients with breast cancer who undergo preoperative chemotherapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 183:1159–1168

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Knopp MV, Bourne MW, Sardanelli F et al (2003) Gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI of the breast: analysis of dose response and comparison with gadopentetate dimeglumine. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181:663–676

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Pediconi F, Catalano C, Occhiato R et al (2005) Breast lesion detection and characterization at contrast-enhanced MR mammography: gadobenate dimeglumine versus gadopentetate dimeglumine. Radiology 237:45–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sardanelli F, Iozzelli A, Fausto A, Carriero A, Kirchin MA (2005) Gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MR imaging breast vascular maps: association between invasive cancer and ipsilateral increased vascularity. Radiology 235:791–797

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Philpotts LE (2005) Science to practice: will improved vascular mapping achieved with gadobenate dimeglumine aid in interpretation of breast MR images Radiology 235:717–718

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. American College of Radiology (ACR) (2003) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas (BI-RADS Atlas), 4th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA

  33. Morrow M (2005) Limiting breast surgery to the proper minimum. Breast 14:523–526 Review

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Wallace AM, Daniel BL, Jeffrey SS et al (2005) Rates of reexcision for breast cancer after magnetic resonance imaging-guided bracket wire localization. J Am Coll Surg 200:527–537

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Echevarria JJ, Martin M, Saiz A et al (2006) Overall breast density in MR mammography: diagnostic and therapeutic implications in breast cancer. J Comput Assist Tomogr 30:140–147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Gilles R, Zafrani B, Guinebretiere JM et al (1995) Ductal carcinoma in situ: MR imaging-histopathologic correlation. Radiology 96:415–419

    Google Scholar 

  37. Boetes C, Strijk SP, Holland R, Barentsz JO, Van Der Sluis RF, Ruijs JH (1997) False-negative MR imaging of malignant breast tumors. Eur Radiol 7:1231–1234

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Orel SG, Mendonca MH, Reynolds C, Schnall MD, Solin LJ, Sullivan DC (1997) MR imaging of ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiology 202:413–420

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Zuiani C, Francescutti GE, Londero V, Zunnui I, Bazzocchi M (2002) Ductal carcinoma in situ: is there a role for MRI? J Exp Clin Cancer Res 21(3 Suppl):89–95

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Shiraishi A, Kurosaki Y, Maehara T, Suzuki M, Kurosumi M (2003) Extension of ductal carcinoma in situ: histopathological association with MR imaging and mammography. Magn Reson Med Sci 2:159–163

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiological Sciences, University of Rome “La Sapienza”, V.le Regina Elena, 324, Rome, 00161, Italy

    Federica Pediconi, Carlo Catalano, Simona Padula, Antonella Roselli, Enrica Moriconi, Valeria Dominelli & Roberto Passariello

  2. Department of Surgery, University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Rome, Italy

    Anna Maria Pronio

  3. Worldwide Medical Affairs, Bracco Imaging SpA, Milan, Italy

    Miles A. Kirchin

Authors
  1. Federica Pediconi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carlo Catalano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Simona Padula
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Antonella Roselli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Enrica Moriconi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Valeria Dominelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Anna Maria Pronio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Miles A. Kirchin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Roberto Passariello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Federica Pediconi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pediconi, F., Catalano, C., Padula, S. et al. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance mammography: does it affect surgical decision-making in patients with breast cancer?. Breast Cancer Res Treat 106, 65–74 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-006-9472-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-006-9472-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation