Abstract
Purpose
To prospectively evaluate whether dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging findings can help predict the presence of malignancy when screening detected microcalcification lesions, and its contribution to patient management of stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (SVAB).
Materials and methods
Dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging was performed when screening 100 detected microcalcification lesions not visualized by ultrasonography with 11-gauge SVAB. Definitive surgery was performed on all patients with the biopsy resulting in the diagnosis of breast cancer or atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH). Positive predictive values (PPVs) and negative predictive values (NPVs) were calculated on the basis of a BI-RADS (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System) category and the absence or presence of contrast uptake in the area of microcalcification.
Results
The BI-RADS mammography category correlated with the diagnosis of breast cancer (ADH excluded): category 3 = 7% (4/55); category 4 = 48% (13/27); category 5 = 94% (17/18). After dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging, three of four malignancies with BI-RADS mammography category 3 were diagnosed as true positive. Therefore, the PPV of BI-RADS mammography category 3 with MR imaging was 1.8% (1/55). The PPV of contrast uptake of MR imaging was 86% (32/37), significantly higher than the 67% (30/45) PPV of BI-RADS mammography 4 and 5 (P = 0.033). The NPV of BI-RADS mammography 3 was 93% (51/55) versus 97% (61/63) NPV of MR imaging (P = 0.167).
Conclusion
In the evaluation of screening detected microcalcification lesions, dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging provides additional information with high PPV and NPV, and may therefore offer an alternative to SVAB for women who do not want to undergo SVAB with equivocal findings following full diagnostic mammographic assessment, but breast MR imaging with imperfect PPV and NPV cannot replace SVAB.
Clinical relevance
Dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging can demonstrate malignant microcalcifications detected by screening mammography and can be recommended in the evaluation of equivocal microcalcifications prior to SVAB.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK, et al (2005) Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med 353(17):1784–1792
Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, et al (2002) Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 137:347–360
Morrow M, Schnitt SJ, Harris JR (2000) Ductal carcinoma in situ and microinvasive carcinoma. In: Harris JR (ed) Disease of the breast, 2nd edn. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia
Bassett LW (1992) Mammographic analysis of calcifications. Radiol Clin North Am 30(1):93–105
American College of Radiology (2003) Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS), 4th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston
Olsen O, Gotzsche PC (2001) Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet 358(9290):1340–1342
Kettritz U, Rotter K, Schreer I, et al (2004) Stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy in 2874 patients. Cancer 100(2):245–251
Liberman L, Abramson AF, Squires FB, et al (1998) The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. AJR Am J Roentgenol 171(1):35–40
Orel SG, Kay N, Reynolds C, et al (1999) BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy. Radiology 211(3):845–850
Mendez A, Cabanillas F, Echenique M, et al (2004) Evaluation of breast imaging reporting and data system category 3 mammograms and the use of stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy in a nonacademic community practice. Cancer 100(4):710–714
Mendez A, Cabanillas F, Echenique M, et al (2003) Mammographic features and correlation with biopsy findings using 11-gauge stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (SVABB). Ann Oncol 15(3):450–454
Sickles EA (1991) Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology 179(2):463–468
Varas X, Leborgne F, Leborgne JH (1992) Nonpalpable, probably benign lesions: role of follow-up mammography. Radiology 184(2):409–414
Pijnappel RM, Peeters PH, Hendriks JH, et al (2004) Reproducibility of mammographic classifications for non-palpable suspect lesions with microcalcifications. Br J Radiol 77(916):312–314
Fondrinier E, Lorimier G, Guerin-Boblet V, et al (2002) Breast microcalcifications: multivariate analysis of radiologic and clinical factors for carcinoma. World J Surg 26(3):290–296
Liberman L (2004) Breast cancer screening with MRI—what are the data for patients at high risk? N Engl J Med 351(5):497–500
Orel SG, Schnall MD (2001) MR imaging of the breast for the detection, diagnosis, and staging of breast cancer. Radiology 220:13–30
Kneeshaw PJ, Lowry M, Manton D, et al (2006) Differentiation of benign from malignant breast disease associated with screening detected microcalcifications using dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Breast 15(1):29–38
Westerhof JP, Fischer U, Moritz JD, et al (1998) MR imaging of mammographically detected clustered microcalcifications: is there any value? Radiology 207(3):675–681
Gilles R, Meunier M, Lucidarme O, et al (1996) Clustered breast microcalcifications: evaluation by dynamic contrast-enhanced subtraction MRI. J Comput Assist Tomogr 20(1):9–14
Nakahara H, Namba K, Fukami A, et al (2001) Three-dimensional MR imaging of mammographically detected suspicious microcalcifications. Breast Cancer 8:116–124
Bazzocchi M, Zuiani C, Panizza P, et al (2006) Contrast-enhanced breast MRI in patients with suspicious microcalcifications on mammography: results of a multicenter trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:1723–1732
Rubin E (1999) Six-month follow-up: an alternative view. Radiology 213:15–18
Hall FM (2002) Malignancy in BI-RADS category 3 mammographic lesions. Radiology 225(3):918–919
Liberman L, Dershaw DD, Morris EA, et al (1997) Clip placement after stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Radiology 205(2):417–422
D’Orsi CJ (1996) The American College of Radiology mammography lexicon: an initial attempt to standardize terminology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 166(4):779–780
Berg WA, Arnoldus CL, Teferra E, et al (2001) Biopsy of amorphous breast calcifications: pathologic outcome and yield at stereotactic biopsy. Radiology 221:495–503
Liberman L, Morris EA, Lee MJ, et al (2002) Breast lesions detected on MR imaging: features and positive predictive value. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179(1):171–178
Nunes LW, Schnall MD, Orel SG, et al (1997) Breast MR imaging: interpretation model. Radiology 202:833–841
Nunes LW, Schnall MD, Siegelman ES, et al (1997) Diagnostic performance characteristics of architectural features revealed by high spatial-resolution MR imaging of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 169(2):409–415
Liberman L, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, et al (2003) Ductal enhancement on MR imaging of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181(2):519–525
Liberman L, Morris EA, Benton CL, et al (2003) Probably benign lesions at breast magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer 98(2):377–388
Kuhl CK, Bieling HB, Gieseke J, et al (1997) Healthy premenopausal breast parenchyma in dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast: normal contrast medium enhancement and cyclical-phase dependency. Radiology 203:137–144
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(1):140–147
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Uematsu, T., Yuen, S., Kasami, M. et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging in screening detected microcalcification lesions of the breast: is there any value?. Breast Cancer Res Treat 103, 269–281 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-006-9373-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-006-9373-y