Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 14, Issue 12, pp 3352–3358 | Cite as

Breast MRI Wire-Guided Excisional Biopsy: Specimen Size as Compared to Mammogram Wire-Guided Excisional Biopsy and Implications for Use

  • Sara H. Javid
  • Joseph W. Carlson
  • Judy E. Garber
  • Robyn L. Birdwell
  • Susan Lester
  • Stuart Lipsitz
  • Mehra Golshan
Breast Oncology Original Papers



Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been implemented as a screening tool for early detection and as a diagnostic test in the management of breast cancer. Lesions identified by MRI but not amenable to conventional biopsy techniques require MRI wire-guided excisional biopsy (MRIbx). We hypothesized that more tissue would be resected with MRIbx compared to Mammobx. We also sought to evaluate factors that might predict the presence of breast cancer in patients undergoing MRIbx.


We reviewed consecutive cases of breast MRIbx from 2004 to 2006 performed by seven surgeons. MRI was performed in patients with either a synchronous breast cancer or significant risk factors. Lesions visualized only by MRI underwent diagnostic MRIbx. The control group was comprised of consecutive cases that underwent diagnostic Mammobx during the same time period. The volumes of tissue resected, overall and by pathologic outcome, were compared.


Seventy-one patients, with a mean age of 48, underwent MRIbx. Eleven (15.5%) invasive breast cancers and eight cases (11.3%) of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) were identified. The median volume of tissue resected was significantly greater than that in the Mammobx group (28.8 cm3 vs 21.1 cm3, respectively). DCIS-containing MRIbx specimens were significantly larger than benign or invasive cancer-containing specimens. There was no significant overall association between either the indication for MRIbx or the size of the MRI lesion and the frequency of cancer.


In patients undergoing breast MRIbx, 27% were found to have DCIS or invasive breast cancer. MRIbx was associated with significantly larger specimen volumes than Mammobx.


Breast MRI Invasive breast cancer Wire localized biopsy 


  1. 1.
    Orel SG, Schnall MD. MR imaging of the breast for the detection, diagnosis, and staging of breast cancer. Radiology 2001;220:13–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, et al. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Eng J Med 2004;351:427–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Morris EA, Liberman L, Dershaw DD, Kaplan JB, LaTrenta LR, Abramson AF, Ballon DJ. Preoperative MR imaging—guided needle localization of breast lesions. AJR 2002;178:1211–1220PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Daniel BL, Birdwell RL, Ikeda DM, Jeffrey SS, Black JW, Block WF, Sawyer-Glover AM, Glover GH, Herfkens RJ. Breast lesion localization: a freehand, interactive MR imaging-guided technique. Radiology 1998;207:455–463PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Orel SG, Schnall MD, Newman RW, Powell CM, Torosian MH, Rosato EF. MR imaging-guided localization and biopsy of breast lesions: initial experience. Radiology 1994;193:97–102PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bagley FH. The role of magnetic resonance imaging mammography in the surgical management of the index breast cancer. Arch Surg 2004;139:380–383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Morrow M. Magnetic resonance imaging in the preoperative evaluation of breast cancer: primum non nocere. JACS 2004;198:240–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wallace AM, Daniel BL, Jeffrey SS, et al. Rates of re-excision for breast cancer after magnetic resonance imaging-guided bracket wire localization. JACS 2005;200:527–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liberman L, Kaplan J, Van Zee KJ, Morris EA, LaTrenta LR, Abramson AF, Dershaw DD. Bracketing wires for preoperative breast needle localization. AJR 2001;177:565–572PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liberman L, Mason G, Morris EA, Dershaw DD. Does size matter? Positive predictive value of MRI-detected breast lesions as a function of lesion size. AJR 2006;186:426–430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Staradub VL, Rademaker AW, Morrow M. Factors influencing outcomes for breast conservation therapy of mammographically detected malignancies. JACS 2003;196:518–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gilles R, Guinebretiere JM, Lucidarme O, et al. Nonpalpable breast tumors: diagnosis with contrast-enhanced subtraction dynamic MR imaging. Radiology 1994;191:625–631PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Harms S, Flaming D, Hesley K, et al. MR imaging of the breast with rotating delivery of excitation off resonance: clinical experience with pathologic correlation. Radiology 1993;187:493–501PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Orel SG, Schnall MD, Powell CM, Hochman MG, Solin LJ, Fowble BL, Torosian MH, Rosato EF. Staging of suspected breast cancer: effect of MR imaging and MR-guided biopsy. Radiology 1995;196:115–122PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kuhl CK, Schmutzler RK, Leutner CC, et al. Breast MR imaging screening in 192 women proved or suspected to be carriers of a breast cancer susceptibility gene: preliminary results. Radiology 2000;215:267–279PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stoutjesdijk MJ, Boetes C, Jager GJ, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging and mammography in women with a hereditary risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:1095–1102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Warner E, Plewes DB, Shumak RS, et al. Comparison of breast magnetic resonance imaging, mammography, and ultrasound for surveillance of women at high risk for hereditary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:3524–3531PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hata T, Takahashi H, Watanabe K, Takahashi M, Taguchi K, Itoh T, Todo S. Magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative evaluation of breast cancer: a comparative study with mammography and ultrasonography. J Am Coll Surg 2004;198:190–197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hrung JM, Langlotz CP, Orel SG, Fox KR, Schnall MD, Schwartz JS. Cost-effectiveness of MR imaging and core-needle biopsy in the preoperative workup of suspicious breast lesions. Radiology 1999;213:39PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kuhl CK, Elevelt A, Leutner C, Gieseke J, Pakos E, Schild HH. Interventional breast MR imaging: clinical use of a stereotactic localization and biopsy device. Radiology 1997; 204:667–675PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sara H. Javid
    • 1
  • Joseph W. Carlson
    • 2
  • Judy E. Garber
    • 3
  • Robyn L. Birdwell
    • 4
  • Susan Lester
    • 2
  • Stuart Lipsitz
    • 1
  • Mehra Golshan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryBrigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA
  2. 2.Pathology Brigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Medical OncologyDana Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyBrigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations