Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 63, Issue 1, pp 53–60

First experiences in screening women at high risk for breast cancer with MR imaging

  • Madeleine M.A. Tilanus-Linthorst
  • Inge Marie M. Obdeijn
  • Karina C.M. Bartels
  • Harry J. de Koning
  • Matthijs Oudkerk


Women with a genetic predisposition for breast cancer are often advised surveillance with physical examination twice a year and mammography once a year from 25 years onwards. However, the sensitivity of the mammography decreases when breast tissue is dense and this is seen in 40–50% of women under 50 years. We therefore investigated whether magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in addition to the normal surveillance could detect cancers otherwise missed. In 109 women with over 25% risk of breast cancer, MRI was performed because over 50% dense breast tissue was seen at mammography and no suspect lesion was seen at the previous screening. MRI detected breast cancers in three patients (2.8%) occult at mammography and with no new palpable tumor, twice at stage T1bN0 and T1cN0 once. Two cancers were expected. MRI was false positive in six women, resulting in two benign local excisions because ultrasound or fine needle examination confirmed suspicion. We had no false negative MRI results. MRI proved true benign in four BRCA 1/2 gene mutation carriers at histologic examination. Preoperative wire localization of the malignancies detected at MRI proved necessary as the tumor was not palpable in the lumpectomy specimen nor visible at specimen radiology. The extra cost of breast MRI in addition to mammography and physical examination was ∉uro13.930 per detected cancer. The cost of the detection of one breast cancer patient in our national screening program is ∉uro9000. During follow-up of patients with a familial risk in whom the first breast cancer was detected at MRI, MRI detected two recurrent cancers in stage T1bN0 and T1cN0 and one contralateral cancer T1aNo. Breast MRI is promising in screening young women at high risk for breast cancer, as it can advance the detection of cancers still occult at mammography and physical examination; but the cost may be considerable.

breast cancer screening familial risk magnetic resonance imaging 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Vasen HFA, Haites NE, Evans DGR, Steel CM, Moeller P, Hodgson S: Cuurrent policies for surveillance and management in women at risk of breast and ovarian cancer: a survey among 16 European family cancer clinics. Eur J Cancer 34(12): 1922-1926, 1998Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    SA Feig: Assessment of radiation risk from screening mammography. Cancer 77(5): 818-822, 1996Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mettler FA, Upton AC, Kelsey CA, Ashby RN, Rosenberg RD, Linver MN: Benefits versus risks from mammography: a critical reassesment. Cancer 77: 903-909, 1996Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beemsterboer PMM, Warmerdam PG, Boer R, Koning HJ: Radiation risk of mammography related to benefit in screening programmes: a favourable balance? J Med Screen 5: 81-87, 1998Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Leeuwen FEvan, Klokman WJ, Hagenbeek A, Noyon R, van den Belt-Dusebout AW, Kerkhoff EH, Heerde P van, Somers R: Second cancer risk following Hodgkins disease: a 20-year follow-up study. J Clin Oncol 12(2): 312-325, 1994Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    O'Brien PC, Barton MB, Fisher R: Breast cancer following treatment for Hodgkins disease: the need for screening in a young population. Australas Radiol 39(3): 271-276, 1995Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boice JDJ, Land CE, Shore RE, Norman JE, Tokunaja M: Risk of breast cancer following low-dose radiation exposure. Radiology 131: 589-597, 1979Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Peer PGM, Verbeek ALM, Straatman H, Hendriks JHCL, Holland R: Age-specific sensitivities of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 38: 153-160, 1996Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Show de Paredes E, Marstellen LP, Eden BV: Breast cancers in women 35 years of age and younger mammographic findings. Radiology 177(1): 117-119, 1990Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Morrow M: Identification and management of the women at increased risk for breastcancer development. Breast Cancer Res Treat 31: 53-60, 1994Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stomper PC, D'Souza DJ, DiNitto PA, Arredondo MA: Analysis of parenchymal density on mammograms in 1353 women 25-79-year-old. Am J Roentgenol 167: 1261-1265, 1996Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lehman CD, White E, Peacock S, Drucker MJ, Urban N: Effect of age and breast density on screening mammograms with false-positive findings. AJR 173: 1651-1655, 1999Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH: Occult cancer in women with dense breasts: detection with screening US diagnostic yield and tumor chracteristics. Radiology 207; 191-199, 1998Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zonderland HM, Coerkamp EG, Hermans J, van de Vijver M, van Voorthuisen AE: Diagnosis of breast cancer: contribution of US as an adjunct to mammography. Radiology 213: 413-422, 1999Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Enser V: Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA 276: 33-38, 1996Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bone B, Pentek Z, Perbeck L, Veress B: Diagnostic accuracy of mammography and contrast-enhanced MR Imaging in 238 histologically verified breast lesions. Acta Radiol 38: 489-496, 1997Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Heywang SH, Wolf A, Pruss E, Hilbertz ET, Eiermann W, Permanetter W: MR imaging of the breast with Gd DTPA: Use and limitations. Radiology 171: 95-103, 1989Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Obdeijn AIM, Kuijpers TJA, Dijk van P, Wiggers T, Oudkerk M: MR lesion detection in a breast cancer population. J Magn Reson Imaging 6: 849-854, 1996Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Heywang-Koebrunner SH, Viehweg P, Heinig A, Kuechler Ch: Contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast: accuracy, value, controversies, solutions. Eur J Radiol 24: 94-108, 1997Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Obdeijn AIM, Brouwers-Kuyper EMJ, Tilanus-Linthorst MMA, Wiggers Th, Oudkerk M: MR imaging guided sonography followed by fine-needle aspiration cytology in occult carcinoma of the breast. AJR 174: 1079-1084, 2000Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tilanus-Linthorst MMA, Obdeijn AIM, Bontenbal M, Oudkerk M: MRI in patients with axillary metastases of occult breast carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res Treat 44: 179-182, 1997Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Claus EB, Risch N, Thompson WD. Autosomal dominant inheritance of autosomal breast cancer. Cancer 73: 643-651, 1994Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kopans DB, Dórsi CJ, Adler DD et al.: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Reston VA, American College of Radiology, 1993Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tilanus-Linthorst MMA, Bartels CCM, Obdeijn AIM, Oudkerk M: Earlier detection of breast cancer by surveillance of women at familial risk. Eur J Cancer 36: 514-519, 2000Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Morris EA, Schwartz LH, Dershaw DD, Van Zee KJ, Abramson AF, Liberman L: MR imaging of the breast in patients with occult primary breast carcinoma Radiology 205: 437-440, 1997Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Porter BA, Seattle WA, Smith JP, Borrow JP: MR depiction of occult breast cancer in patients with malignant axillary adenopathy. Radiology 197(P): 130, 1995Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Westerhof JP, FischerU, Moritz JD, Oestmann JW: MR imaging of mammographically detected clustered microcalcifications: Is there any value? Radiology 207: 675-681, 1998Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gilles R, Zafrani B, Guinebretiere JM, Meunier M, Lucidarme O, Tardivon AA, Rochard F, Vanel D, Neuenschwander S, Arriagada R: Ductal carcinoma in situ: MR Imaging histopathologic correlation. Radiology 196: 415-419, 1995Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Picolli CW, Matteucci T, Outwater EK, Siegelman ES, Mitchell DG: Breast cancer diagnosis with MRimaging: effect of clinical and mammographic findings on recommendations for biopsy. Radiology 197: 52, 1995Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    de Koning HJ, van Ineveld BM, van Ootmarssen GJ, de Haes JC, Collette HJ, Hendriks JH, van der Maas PJ:. Breast cancer screening and cost-effectiveness; policy alternatives, quality of live considerations and the possible impact of uncertain factors. Int J Cancer 49: 531-537, 1991Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bick U: An integrated early detection concept in women with a genetic predisposition for breast cancer. Radiology 37(8): 591-596, 1997Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Brown J, Coulthard A, Dixon K: Protocol for a nationalmulticentre study of magnetic resonance imaging screening in women at genetic risk of breast cancer. Breast 9: 78-82, 2000Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Madeleine M.A. Tilanus-Linthorst
    • 1
  • Inge Marie M. Obdeijn
    • 1
  • Karina C.M. Bartels
    • 1
  • Harry J. de Koning
    • 2
  • Matthijs Oudkerk
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyDaniel den Hoed ClinicRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Public HealthErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations