European Radiology

, Volume 29, Issue 5, pp 2526–2534 | Cite as

Long-term survival outcomes in invasive lobular carcinoma patients with and without preoperative MR imaging: a matched cohort study

  • Su Min Ha
  • Eun Young ChaeEmail author
  • Joo Hee Cha
  • Hak Hee Kim
  • Hee Jung Shin
  • Woo Jung Choi



To investigate and compare the effect of preoperative breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging on recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) outcomes among patients with invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC).


A total of 287 ILC patients between January 2005 and December 2012 were included. One hundred twenty (41.8%) had undergone preoperative breast MR imaging (MR group) and 167 (58.2%) had not (no MR group). Two groups were matched for 21 covariates in terms of patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and clinical features. We compared unmatched variables between the patients with and without breast MR imaging using the chi-square or Student’s t test. Comparisons of matched data were performed with McNemar’s test or test of symmetry for categorical variables and paired t test for continuous variables. The RFS and OS outcomes were compared using the Kaplan-Meier estimates. MR effects were estimated after adjusting for significant potential confounders of specific outcomes in the multivariable modeling.


In the matched cohort, no statistically significant association was observed between MR imaging and total recurrence (hazard ratio [HR], 1.096; p = 0.821), loco-regional recurrence (HR, 1.204; p = 0.796), contralateral breast recurrence (HR, 0.945; p = 0.952), or distant recurrence (HR, 1.020; p = 0.973). MR imaging was associated with improved OS with 51% reduction, but not significantly (HR, 0.485; p = 0.231). Analysis with multivariable Cox regression model indicated that MR imaging was not significant independent factor for better RFS (HR, 0.823; p = 0.586) or improved OS (HR, 0.478; p = 0.168).


Preoperative MR imaging is not significant prognostic factor and produces no apparent recurrence or survival outcome benefits in ILC patients.

Key Points

• Preoperative breast MR imaging in invasive lobular carcinoma was associated with a better overall survival with 51% reduction, but not statistically significant.

• Preoperative breast MR imaging does not show significant prognostic value in invasive lobular carcinoma as there is no apparent benefit in terms of recurrence or survival outcomes.


Lobular carcinoma Magnetic resonance imaging Recurrence Survival Breast neoplasm 



Invasive lobular carcinoma


Magnetic resonance


Breast-conserving surgery


Recurrence-free survival


Overall survival



We thank Baek, Seung Hee, a statistician who helped with the statistics.


The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Compliance with ethical standards


The scientific guarantor of this publication is Eun Young Chae.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

Baek, Seung Hee, a statistician, kindly provided statistical advice for this manuscript.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Study subjects or cohorts overlap

Some study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported in Radiology 2018 Jun; 287(3): 771–777 by Ha et al.


• retrospective

• case-control study

• performed at one institution

Supplementary material

330_2018_5952_MOESM1_ESM.docx (23 kb)
Supplementary table 1 (DOCX 23 kb)


  1. 1.
    Mann RM, Loo CE, Wobbes T et al (2010) The impact of preoperative breast MRI on the re-excision rate in invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat 119:415–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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 233:830–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arpino G, Bardou VJ, Clark GM, Elledge RM (2004) Infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast: tumor characteristics and clinical outcome. Breast Cancer Res 6:R149–R156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pestalozzi BC, Zahrieh D, Mallon E et al (2008) Distinct clinical and prognostic features of infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast: combined results of 15 International Breast Cancer Study Group clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 26:3006–3014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Plana MN, Carreira C, Muriel A et al (2012) Magnetic resonance imaging in the preoperative assessment of patients with primary breast cancer: systematic review of diagnostic accuracy and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 22:26–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ko ES, Han BK, Kim RB et al (2013) Analysis of the effect of breast magnetic resonance imaging on the outcome in women undergoing breast conservation surgery with radiation therapy. J Surg Oncol 107:815–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heil J, Buehler A, Golatta M et al (2012) Do patients with invasive lobular breast cancer benefit in terms of adequate change in surgical therapy from a supplementary preoperative breast MRI? Ann Oncol 23:98–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heil J, Bühler A, Golatta M et al (2011) Does a supplementary preoperative breast MRI in patients with invasive lobular breast cancer change primary and secondary surgical interventions? Ann Surg Oncol 18:2143–2149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shin HC, Han W, Moon HG et al (2012) Limited value and utility of breast MRI in patients undergoing breast-conserving cancer surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 19:2572–2579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Solin LJ, Orel SG, Hwang WT, Harris EE, Schnall MD (2008) Relationship of breast magnetic resonance imaging to outcome after breast-conservation treatment with radiation for women with early-stage invasive breast carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol 26:386–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sung JS, Li J, Da Costa G et al (2014) Preoperative breast MRI for early-stage breast cancer: effect on surgical and long-term outcomes. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:1376–1382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Choi WJ, Cha JH, Kim HH et al (2017) Long-term survival outcomes of primary breast cancer in women with or without preoperative magnetic resonance imaging: a matched cohort study. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 29:653–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wang SY, Long JB, Killelea BK et al (2016) Preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging and contralateral breast cancer occurrence among older women with ductal carcinoma in situ. Breast Cancer Res Treat 158:139–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yi A, Cho N, Yang KS, Han W, Noh DY, Moon WK (2015) Breast cancer recurrence in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer without and with preoperative MR imaging: a matched cohort study. Radiology 276:695–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ha SM, Chae EY, Cha JH, Kim HH, Shin HJ, Choi WJ (2018) Breast MR imaging before surgery: outcomes in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma by using propensity score matching. Radiology 287:771–777Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Allred DC, Harvey JM, Berardo M, Clark GM (1998) Prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer by immunohistochemical analysis. Mod Pathol 11:155–168Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Edge S, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene F, Trotti A (2011) AJCC cancer staging manual, 7th edn. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Houssami N, Turner R, Macaskill P et al (2014) An individual person data meta-analysis of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and breast cancer recurrence. J Clin Oncol 32:392–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fischer U, Zachariae O, Baum F, von Heyden D, Funke M, Liersch T (2004) The influence of preoperative MRI of the breasts on recurrence rate in patients with breast cancer. Eur Radiol 14:1725–1731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mann RM, Hoogeveen YL, Blickman JG, Boetes C (2008) MRI compared to conventional diagnostic work-up in the detection and evaluation of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: a review of existing literature. Breast Cancer Res Treat 107:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mann RM, Kuhl CK, Kinkel K, Boetes C (2008) Breast MRI: guidelines from the European Society of Breast Imaging. Eur Radiol 18:1307–1318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Alkner S, Bendahl PO, Fernö M, Manjer J, Rydén L (2011) Prediction of outcome after diagnosis of metachronous contralateral breast cancer. BMC Cancer 11:114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG) (2005) Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 365:1687–1717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wasif N, Maggard MA, Ko CY, Giuliano AE (2010) Invasive lobular vs. ductal breast cancer: a stage-matched comparison of outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol 17:1862–1869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cianfrocca M, Goldstein LJ (2004) Prognostic and predictive factors in early-stage breast cancer. Oncologist 9:606–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Soerjomataram I, Louwman MW, Ribot JG, Roukema JA, Coebergh JW (2008) An overview of prognostic factors for long-term survivors of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 107:309–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Song WJ, Kim KI, Park SH et al (2012) The risk factors influencing between the early and late recurrence in systemic recurrent breast cancer. J Breast Cancer 15:218–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rakha EA, El-Sayed ME, Powe DG et al (2008) Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: response to hormonal therapy and outcomes. Eur J Cancer 44:73–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hwang ES, Lichtensztajn DY, Gomez SL, Fowble B, Clarke CA (2013) Survival after lumpectomy and mastectomy for early stage invasive breast cancer: the effect of age and hormone receptor status. Cancer 119:1402–1411CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Research Institute of RadiologyChung-Ang University HospitalSeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical CenterUniversity of Ulsan College of MedicineSeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations