Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 19, Issue 8, pp 2572–2579 | Cite as

Limited Value and Utility of Breast MRI in Patients Undergoing Breast-Conserving Cancer Surgery

  • Hee-Chul Shin
  • Wonshik Han
  • Hyeong-Gon Moon
  • Cha Kyong Yom
  • Soo Kyung Ahn
  • Jee-Man You
  • Ji Sun Kim
  • Jung-Min Chang
  • Nariya Cho
  • Woo Kyung Moon
  • In-Ae Park
  • Dong-Young NohEmail author
Breast Oncology



Our aim was to compare the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography (US) in measuring the size of invasive breast cancer (IBC) and carcinoma in situ (CIS). We also examined the utility of routinely performing MRI in addition to US before breast-conserving surgery (BCS).

Patients and Methods

Data from 1558 consecutive patients diagnosed with IBC and/or CIS between 2003 and 2005 were reviewed. For comparing the accuracy of US and MRI, paired t test was done comparing pathologic and imaging (US and MRI) tumor size in 821 patients who received both breast US and MRI. In instance of attempted BCS (n = 794), operative approach, resection margins, and clinical outcomes of non-MRI and MRI groups were compared.


For CIS, IBC without CIS, and IBC with CIS, MRI was more accurate in estimating tumor size than US. When BCS was attempted (n = 794), the rate of tumor involvement in initial resection margins did not differ between non-MRI and MRI groups (23.0% and 23.4%, P = .926). Similarly, rates of re-excision (13.1% vs 17.5%, P = .130) and conversion to mastectomy (2.3% vs 2.1%, P = .893) were comparable, as were ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence, locoregional recurrence, and disease-free survival (log rank P = .284, .950, and .955, respectively).


Breast MRI provided more accurate estimates of tumor size, correlating better with pathologic tumor size than US for both IBC and CIS. However, no clear benefit in terms of lower re-excision rate, higher breast conservation success, or reduced recurrence emerged for routine use of breast MRI before BCS.


Invasive Breast Cancer Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Ipsilateral Breast Tumor Recurrence Mastectomy Rate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology (2010-0004148, 2011-0005753).


  1. 1.
    Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V. Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA. 1996;276:33–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, White D, Finder CA, Taplin SH, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: Comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:1081–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: An analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology. 2002;225:165–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pain JA, Ebbs SR, Hern RP, Lowe S, Bradbeer JW. Assessment of breast cancer size: a comparison of methods. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1992;18:44–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nothacker M, Duda V, Hahn M, Warm M, Degenhardt F, Madjar H, et al. Early detection of breast cancer: benefits and risks of supplemental breast ultrasound in asymptomatic women with mammographically dense breast tissue. A systematic review. BMC Cancer. 2009;9:335.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fornage BD, Toubas O, Morel M. Clinical, mammographic, and sonographic determination of preoperative breast cancer size. Cancer. 1987;60:765–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schelfout K, Van Goethem M, Kersschot E, Colpaert C, Schelfhout AM, Leyman P, et al. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging of breast lesions and effect on treatment. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2004;30:501–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hwang KT, Kim H, Chung JK, Jung IM, Heo SC, Ahn YJ, et al. A Comparative Study between the Preoperative Diagnostic Tumor Size and the Postoperative Pathologic Tumor Size in Patients with Breast Tumors. J Breast Cancer. 2010;13:187–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boetes C, Mus RD, Holland R, Barentsz JO, Strijk SP, Wobbes T, et al. Breast tumors: comparative accuracy of MR imaging relative to mammography and US for demonstrating extent. Radiology. 1995;197:743–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kelcz F, Santyr G. Gadolinium-enhanced breast MRI. Crit Rev Diagn Imaging. 1995;36:287–338.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Davis PL, Staiger MJ, Harris KB, Ganott MA, Klementaviciene J, McCarty KS Jr, et al. Breast cancer measurements with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasonography, and mammography. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1996;37:1–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fischer U, Kopka L, Grabbe E. Breast carcinoma: Effect of preoperative contrast-enhanced MR imaging on the therapeutic approach. Radiology. 1999;213:881–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Biglia N, Bounous VE, Martincich L, Panuccio E, Liberale V, Ottino L, et al. Role of MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) versus conventional imaging for breast cancer presurgical staging in young women or with dense breast. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011;37:199–204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bleicher RJ, Ciocca RM, Egleston BL, Sesa L, Evers K, Sigurdson ER, et al. Association of Routine Pretreatment Magnetic Resonance Imaging with time to surgery, mastectomy rate, and margin status. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209:180–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee SH Cho N, Kim SJ, Cha JH, Cho KS, Ko ES, et al. Correlation between high resolution dynamic MR features and prognostic factors in breast cancer. Korean J Radiol. 2008;9:10–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Izumori A, Takebe K, Sato A. Ultrasound findings and histological features of ductal carcinoma in situ detected by ultrasound examination alone. Breast Cancer. 2010;17:136–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, Carter WB, Bhargavan M, Lewis RS, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology. 2004;233:830–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim do Y, Moon WK, Cho N, Ko ES, Yang SK, Park JS, et al. MRI of the breast for the detection and assessment of the size of ductal carcinoma in situ. Korean J Radiol. 2007;8:32–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pleijhuis RG, Graafland M, de Vries J, Bart J, de Jong JS, van Dam GM. Obtaining adequate surgical margins in breast-conserving therapy for patients with early-stage breast cancer: current modalities and future directions. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:2717–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Katipamula R, Degnim AC, Hoskin T, Boughey JC, Loprinzi C, Grant CS, et al. Trends in mastectomy rates at the Mayo Clinic Rochester: effect of surgical year and preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4082–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Turnbull L, Brown S, Harvey I, Olivier C, Drew P, Napp V et al. Comparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375:563–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Peters NH, van Esser S, van den Bosch MAAJ, Storm RK, Plaisier PW, van Dalen T, et al. Preoperative MRI and surgical management in patients with nonpalpable breast cancer: The MONET—randomised controlled trial. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47:879–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pengel KE, Loo CE, Teertstra HJ, Muller SH, Wesseling J, Peterse JL, et al. The impact of preoperative MRI on breast-conserving surgery of invasive cancer: a comparative cohort study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;116:161–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mann RM, Loo CE, Wobbes T, Bult P, Barentsz JO, Gilhuijs KG, et al. The impact of preoperative breast MRI on the re-excision rate in invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;119:415–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Solin LJ, Orel SG, Hwang WT, Harris EE, Schnall MD. 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. 2008;26:386–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hee-Chul Shin
    • 1
  • Wonshik Han
    • 1
    • 2
  • Hyeong-Gon Moon
    • 1
  • Cha Kyong Yom
    • 3
  • Soo Kyung Ahn
    • 1
  • Jee-Man You
    • 1
  • Ji Sun Kim
    • 1
  • Jung-Min Chang
    • 4
  • Nariya Cho
    • 4
  • Woo Kyung Moon
    • 4
  • In-Ae Park
    • 5
  • Dong-Young Noh
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of MedicineSeoul National University HospitalSeoulKorea
  2. 2.Cancer Research InstituteSeoul National University College of MedicineSeoulKorea
  3. 3.Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of MedicineSeoul National University Bundang HospitalSeongnamKorea
  4. 4.Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of MedicineSeoul National University HospitalSeoulKorea
  5. 5.Department of Pathology, Seoul National University College of MedicineSeoul National University HospitalSeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations