La radiologia medica

, Volume 112, Issue 6, pp 850–862 | Cite as

Rare breast neoplasms: is there any peculiar feature on magnetic resonance mammography?

  • A. Linda
  • V. Londero
  • F. Mazzarella
  • C. Zuiani
  • M. Bazzocchi
Breast Radiology Senologia

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to describe the semiological features of rare breast neoplasms at magnetic resonance mammography (MRM).

Materials and methods

Out of 468 MRMs of patients with a histological diagnosis of breast malignancy, 27 (5.7%) cases of rare breast neoplasms, confirmed by definitive histological analysis on surgical specimens, were selected: four (0.9%) intracystic papillary neoplasms, four (0.9%) intraductal papillary neoplasms, five (1.0%) invasive papillary neoplasms, two (0.4%) medullary carcinomas, seven (1.5%) mucinous carcinomas, three (0.6%) tubular carcinomas, one (0.2%) tubulo-lobular carcinoma and one (0.2%) desmoid tumour. Two radiologists evaluated the MRM images according to Fischer criteria and indicated a level of diagnostic suspicion. In particular, MRM lesion morphology and enhancement characteristics were analysed.

Results

No semiologic features of malignancy or peculiar appearances indicating rare breast neoplasm were identified. On the contrary, MRM appearance was nonspecific and often suggestive of probably benign (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System-BI-RADS 3) (40%) or benign lesions (BI-RADS 2) (7.5%), or lesions were undetectable at MRM (BI-RADS 1) (7.5%).

Conclusions

Frequently, rare breast neoplasms show low suspicious morphologic and kinetic patterns at MRM, and they are often classified as indeterminate lesions. This is probably due to their high grade of differentiation and their histological features.

Key words

Breast Magnetic resonance mammography Breast rare neoplasms 

Neoplasie maligne rare della mammella: esistono degli aspetti peculiari in risonanza magnetica?

Riassunto

Obiettivo

Descrivere gli aspetti semeiologici delle neoplasie maligne rare della mammella studiate in risonanza magnetica mammaria (RMM).

Materiali e metodi

Da una casistica di 468 pazienti con diagnosi istologica di neoplasia mammaria maligna sottoposte a RMM, abbiamo estrapolato 27 casi (5,7%) di neoplasie rare, confermate alla diagnosi istologica definitiva: 4 (0,9%) carcinomi papillari intracistici, 4 (0,9%) carcinomi papillari intraduttali, 5 (1,0 %) carcinomi papillari invasivi, 2 (0,4%) carcinomi midollari, 7 (1,5%) carcinomi mucinosi, 3 (0,6%) carcinomi tubulari, 1 (0,2%) carcinoma tubulo-lobulare e 1 (0,2%) tumore desmoide. Due lettori hanno valutato secondo i parametri di Fischer le relative immagini RMM indicando un grado di sospetto radiologico e ricercando eventuali caratteristiche morfologiche o dinamiche peculiari.

Risultati

Non sono emersi elementi semeiologici orientativi per neoplasie mammarie rare, ma l’aspetto RMM è risultato aspecifico e spesso orientativo per lesioni probabilmente benigne (BI-RADS 3) (40%) o benigne (BI-RADS 2) (7,5%), o addirittura la neoplasia non è stata identificabile alla RMM (BI-RADS 1) (7,5%).

Conclusioni

Di frequente le neoplasie maligne rare della mammella, verosimilmente a causa dell’elevato grado di differenziazione e delle peculiarità istologiche, presentano alla RMM caratteristiche morfologiche e di enhancement poco sospette e vengono classificate come lesioni dubbie/indeterminate.

Parole chiave

Mammella Risonanza magnetica mammaria Tumori mammari rari 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References/Bibliografia

  1. 1.
    Veronesi U, Boyle P, Goldhirsch A et al (2005) Breast cancer. Lancet 365:1727–1741PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Li CI, Uribe DJ, Daling JR (2005) Clinical characteristics of different histologic types of breast cancer. Br J Cancer 93:1046–1052PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Page DL (2003) Special types of invasive breast cancer, with clinical implications. Am J Surg Pathol 27:832–835PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Orel SG, Schnall MD (2001) MR imaging of the breast for the detection, diagnosis, and staging of breast cancer. Radiology 220:13–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Morris EA (2001) Review of breast MRI: indications and limitations. Semin Roentgenol 36:226–237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rankin SC (2000) MRI of the breast. Br J Radiol 73:806–818PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Podo F, Sardanelli F, Canese R et al (2002) The Italian multi-centre project on evaluation of MRI and other imaging modalities in early detection of breast cancer in subjects at high genetic risk. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 21(3 Suppl):115–124PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C et al; Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening Study Group (2004) Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med 351:427–437PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Buchanan CL, Morris EA, Dorn PL et al (2005) Utility of breast magnetic resonance imaging in patients with occult primary breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 12:1045–1053PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Orel SG, Weinstein SP, Schnall MD et al (1999) Breast MR imaging in patients with axillary node metastases and unknown primary malignancy. Radiology 212:543–549PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Herborn CU, Marincek B, Erfmann D et al (2002) Breast augmentation and reconstructive surgery: MR imaging of implant rupture and malignancy. Eur Radiol 12:2198–2206PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee CH, Smith RC, Levine JA et al (1999) Clinical usefulness of MR imaging of the breast in the evaluation of the problematic mammogram. AJR Am J Roentgenol 173:1323–1329PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sardanelli F, Giuseppetti GM, Panizza P et al; Italian Trial for Breast MR in Multifocal/Multicentric Cancer (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 183:1149–1157PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fischer U, Kopka L, Grabbe E (1999) Breast carcinoma: effect of preoperative contrast-enhanced MR imaging on the therapeutic approach. Radiology 213:881–888PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hylton N (2005) Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: opportunities to improve breast cancer management. J Clin Oncol 23:1678–1684PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Londero V, Bazzocchi M, Del Frate C et al (2004) Locally advanced breast cancer: comparison of mammography, sonography and MR imaging in evaluation of residual disease in women receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur Radiol 14:1371–1379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Puglisi F, Mansutti M, Aprile G et al (2004) Tumor shrinkage evaluation during and after preoperative doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel in patients with breast cancer. Anticancer Res 24:2487–2493PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bradley AJ, Carrington BM, Hammond CL et al (2000) Accuracy of axillary MR imaging in treated breast cancer for distinguishing between recurrent tumour and treatment effects: does intravenous Gd-DTPA enhancement help in cases of diagnostic dilemma? Clin Radiol 55:921–928PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Morakkabati N, Leutner CC, Schmiedel A et al (2003) Breast MR imaging during or soon after radiation therapy. Radiology 229:893–901PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Del Maschio A, Bazzocchi M, Giuseppetti GM et al (2002) Breast MRI: report on a multicentric national trial by the Study Section of Magnetic Resonance and Breast Imaging. Radiol Med (Torino) 104:262–272Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kuhl CK (2000) MRI of breast tumors. Eur Radiol 10:46–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kawashima M, Tamaki Y, Nonaka T et al (2002) MR imaging of mucinous carcinoma of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179:179–183PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fischer U, Kopka L, Grabbe E (1996) Invasive mucinous carcinoma of the breast missed by contrast-enhancing MR imaging of the breast. Eur Radiol 6:929–931PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Blaumeiser B, Tjalma WA, Verslegers I et al (2002) Invasive papillary carcinoma of the male breast. Eur Radiol 12:2207–2210PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Knelson MH, el Yousef SJ, Goldberg RE, Ballance W (1987) Intracystic papillary carcinoma of the breast: mammographic, sonographic, and MR appearance with pathologic correlation. J Comput Assist Tomogr 11:1074–1076PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Soo MS, Williford ME, Walsh R et al (1995) Papillary carcinoma of the breast: imaging findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 164:321–326PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Armes JE, Venter DJ (2002) The pathology of inherited breast cancer. Pathology 34:309–314PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lam WW, Tang AP, Tse G, Chu WC (2005) Radiology-Pathology conference: papillary carcinoma of the breast. Clin Imaging 29:396–400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Orel SG, Dougherty CS, Reynolds C et al (2000) MR imaging in patients with nipple discharge: initial experience. Radiology 216:248–254PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shields CJ, Winter DC, Kirwan WO, Redmond HP (2001) Desmoid tumors. Eur J Surg Oncol 27:701–706PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Baum F, Fischer U, Vosshenrich R, Grabbe E (2002) Classification of hypervascularized lesions in CE MR imaging of the breast. Eur Radiol 12:1087–1092PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    American College of Radiology (ACR) (2003) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas (BI-RADS® Atlas). American College of Radiology. Reston, VaGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Buckley DL, Drew PJ, Mussurakis S et al (1997) Microvessel density of invasive breast cancer assessed by dynamic Gd-DTPA enhanced MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 7:461–464PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stomper PC, Winston JS, Herman S et al (1997) Angiogenesis and dynamic MR imaging gadolinium enhancement of malignant and benign breast lesions. Breast Cancer Res Treat 45:39–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Matsubayashi R, Matsuo Y, Edakuni G et al (2000) Breast masses with peripheral rim enhancement on dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images: correlation of MR findings with histologic features and expression of growth factors. Radiology 217:841–848PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S et al (1999) Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 211:101–110PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Morakkabati-Spitz N, Leutner C, Schild H et al (2005) Diagnostic usefulness of segmental and linear enhancement in dynamic breast MRI. Eur Radiol 15:2010–2017PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Malich A, Fischer DR, Wurdinger S et al (2005) Potential MRI interpretation model: differentiation of benign from malignant breast masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 185:964–970PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zuiani C, Francescutti GE, Londero V et al (2002) Ductal carcinoma in situ: is there a role for MRI? J Exp Clin Cancer Res 21(3 Suppl):89–95PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Boetes C, Strijk SP, Holland R et al (1997) False-negative MR imaging of malignant breast tumors. Eur Radiol 7:1231–1234PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ghai S, Muradali D, Bukhanov K, Kulkarni S (2005) Nonenhancing breast malignancies on MRI: sonographic and pathologic correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 185:481–487PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Teifke A, Hlawatsch A, Beier T et al (2002) Undetected malignancies of the breast: dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging at 1.0 T. Radiology 224:881–888PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Brinck U, Fischer U, Korabiowska M et al (1997) The variability of fibroadenoma in contrast-enhanced dynamic MR mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 168:1331–1334PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Isomoto I, Koshiishi T, Okimoto T et al (2000) Gradually enhancing breast cancer on dynamic MRI. Nippon Acta Radiol 60:514–519PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rosen PP (1997) Tubular carcinoma. In: Rosen’s breast pathology. Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia, Pa pp 321–327Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Nakazono T, Satoh T, Hamamoto T, Kudo S (2003) Dynamic MRI of fibromatosis of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181:1718–1719PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mussurakis S, Buckley DL, Horsman A (1997) Dynamic MR imaging of invasive breast cancer: correlation with tumour grade and other histological factors. Br J Radiol 70:446–451PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Diab SG, Clark GM, Osborne CK et al (1999) Tumor characteristics and clinical outcome of tubular and mucinous breast carcinomas. J Clin Oncol 17:1442–1448PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Linda
    • 1
  • V. Londero
    • 1
  • F. Mazzarella
    • 1
  • C. Zuiani
    • 1
  • M. Bazzocchi
    • 1
  1. 1.Istituto di RadiologiaAzienda Ospedaliera-Universitaria di UdineUdineItaly

Personalised recommendations