European Radiology

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 402–408 | Cite as

MR imaging of the contralateral breast in patients after breast-conserving therapy

  • Petra Viehweg
  • Kerstin Rotter
  • Michael Laniado
  • Dieter Lampe
  • Jörg Buchmann
  • Heinz Kölbl
  • Sylvia Heywang-Köbrunner


A study was undertaken to assess the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced MR mammography (MRM) of the contralateral breast in patients treated by breast-conserving therapy previously. A total of 119 patients underwent 145 standardized dynamic MR studies (1 T, T1-weighted 3D FLASH, 0.2 mmol Gd-DTPA/kg body weight). We retrospectively evaluated the results of conventional methods and MRM. A total of 11 contralateral carcinomas were present (detection rate 9%). The interval between treatment of the first primary and identification of contralateral malignancy was 9–80 months (mean 33 months). The MRM allowed detection of four otherwise occult malignancies. One of 11 cancer was missed on MRM due to benign appearance of enhancement. Compared with conventional methods MRM improved sensitivity (91 vs 64%) and specificity (90 vs 84%), respectively. This study suggests that additional MRM of the contralateral breast increases the diagnostic accuracy not only by enhancing the detection of second cancers but also by reducing false-positive results.


Breast Breast neoplasms Diagnosis MR imaging 


  1. 1.
    Chen Y, Thompson W, Semenciw R et al. (1999) Epidemiology of contralateral breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 8:855–861PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Roubidoux MA, Helvie MA, Lai N et al. (1995) Bilateral breast cancer: early detection with mammography. Radiology 196:427–431PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    American Society of Clinical Oncology (1997) Recommended breast cancer surveillance guidelines. J Clin Oncol 15:2149–2156PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harms SE, Flamig DP, Hesley KL et al. (1993) MR imaging of the breast with rotating delivery excitation off resonance: clinical experience with pathologic correlation. Radiology 197:493–501Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Orel SG, Schnall MD, Powell CM et al. (1995) Staging of suspected breast cancer: effect of MR imaging and MR-guided biopsy. Radiology 196:115–122PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Heywang-Köbrunner SH, Viehweg P, Heinig A et al. (1997) Contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast: accuracy, value, controversies, solutions. Eur J Radiol 24:94–108PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rieber A, Brahms HJ, Gabelmann A et al. (2002) Breast MRI for monitoring response of primary breast cancer to neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. Eur Radiol 12:1711–1719Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fischer U, Vosshenrich R, Probst A et al. (1994) Preoperative MR mammography in patients with breast cancer: useful information or useless extravagance? Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr. 161.4:300–306Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rieber A, Merkle E, Böhm W et al. (1997) MRI of histologically confirmed mammary carcinoma: clinical relevance of diagnostic procedures for detection of multifocal or contralateral secondary carcinoma. J Comput Assist Tomogr 21:773–779PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liberman L, Morris EA, Kim CM et al. (2003) MR imaging findings in the contralateral breast of women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. AJR 180:333–341Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee SG, Orel SG, Woo IJ et al. (2003) MR imaging screening of the contralateral breast in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer: preliminary results. Radiology 226:773–778PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Slanetz PJ, Edmister WB, Yeh ED et al. (2002) Occult contralateral breast carcinoma incidentally detected by breast magnetic resonance imaging. Breast J 8:145–148CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Viehweg P, Heinig A, Amaya B et al. (2002) MR-guided interventional breast procedures considering vacuum biopsy in particular. Eur J Radiol 42:32–39CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boetes C, Strijk SP, Holland R et al. (1997) False-negative MR imaging of malignant breast tumors. Eur Radiol 7:1231–1234PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nunes LW, Schnall MD, Orel SG et al. (1997) Breast MR imaging: interpretation model. Radiology 202:833–841PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wedegärtner U, Bick U, Wörtler K et al. (2001) Differentiation between benign and malignant findings on MR-mammography: usefulness of morphological criteria. Eur Radiol 11:1645–1650CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Viehweg P, Lampe D, Buchmann J et al. (2000) In situ and minimally invasive breast cancer: morphologic and kinetic features on contrast-enhanced MR imaging. MAGMA 11:129–137PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Perlet C, Heinig A, Prat X et al. (2002) Multicenter study for the evaluation of a dedicated biopsy device for MR-guided vacuum biopsy of the breast. Eur Radiol 12:1463–1470PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Petra Viehweg
    • 1
  • Kerstin Rotter
    • 2
  • Michael Laniado
    • 1
  • Dieter Lampe
    • 3
  • Jörg Buchmann
    • 4
  • Heinz Kölbl
    • 3
  • Sylvia Heywang-Köbrunner
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Diagnostic RadiologyTechnical University DresdenDresdenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Diagnostic RadiologyMartin Luther University Halle WittenbergHalleGermany
  3. 3.Department of GynaecologyMartin Luther University Halle WittenbergHalleGermany
  4. 4.Institute of PathologyMartin Luther University Halle WittenbergHalleGermany

Personalised recommendations