Advertisement

Comparison Between Breast MRI and Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography

  • Marc B. I. LobbesEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Nowadays, breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is regarded to be the most sensitive breast imaging modality, both in terms of breast cancer detection and the assessment of disease extent preoperatively. CEDM is a rather novel imaging techniques that also uses intravenously injected contrast agents to visualize breast cancer. The principles of breast MRI and CEDM are comparable, and there is an increasing amount of scientific evidence that indications for CEDM are also comparable. In terms of patient’s tolerance, CEDM was even preferred by patients over breast MRI. In this chapter, the potential indications of CEDM are discussed and its performance compared to breast MRI.

References

  1. 1.
    Raush DR, et al. How to optimize clinical breast MR imaging practices and techniques on your 1.5T-system. Radiographics. 2006;26(5):1469–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Heywang SH, et al. MR imaging of the breast with Gd-DTPA: use and limitations. Radiology. 1989;171(1):95–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kuhl CK, et al. Dynamical breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions. Radiology. 1999;211(1):101–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lobbes MBI, et al. Contrast-enhanced mammography: techniques, current results, and potential indications. Clin Radiol. 2013;68(9):935–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mann RM, et al. Breast MRI: guidelines from the European Society of Breast Imaging. Eur Radiol. 2008;18(7):1307–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sardanelli F, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Canc. 2010;46(8):1296–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yeh ED, et al. Breast magnetic resonance imaging: current clinical indications. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2010;18(2):155–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hobbs MM, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and contrast enhanced MRI (CEMRI): patient preferences and tolerance. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2015;59(3):300–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lobbes MBI, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in patients referred from the breast cancer screening programme. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(7):1668–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lalji UC, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in recalls from the Dutch breast cancer screening program: validation of results in a large multireader, multicase study. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(12):4371–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jochelson MS, et al. Bilateral contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography: feasibility and comparison with conventional digital mammography and MR imaging in women with known breast carcinoma. Radiology. 2013;266(3):743–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fallenberg EM, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography vs. mammography and MRI—clinical performance in a multi-reader evaluation. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(7):2752–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li L, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) versus breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): a retrospective comparison in 66 breast lesions. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2017;98(2):113–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gruber IV, et al. Measurement of tumour size with mammography, sonography and magnetic resonance imaging as compared to histological tumour size in primary breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 2013;13:328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fallenberg EM, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus MRI: initial results in the detection of breast cancer and assessment of tumour size. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(1):256–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lobbes MBI, et al. The quality of tumour size assessment by contrast-enhanced spectral mammography and the benefit of additional breast MRI. J Cancer. 2015;6(2):144–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lobbes MBI, et al. Breast MRI increases the number of mastectomies for ductal cancers, but decreases them for lobular cancers. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;162(2):353–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Houben IPL, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography as work-up tool in patients recalled from breast cancer screening has low risks and might hold clinical benefits. Eur J Radiol. 2017;94:31–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schorn C, et al. MRI of the breast in patients with metastatic disease of unknown primary. Eur Radiol. 1999;9(3):470–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Orel SG, et al. Breast MR imaging in patients with axillary node metastases and unknown primary malignancy. Radiology. 1999;212(2):543–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Marinovich ML, et al. Agreement between MRI and pathologic breast tumor size after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and comparison with alternative tests: individual patient data meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. 2015;15:662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    ElSaid NAES, et al. Role of contrast enhanced spectral mammography in predicting pathological response of locally advanced breast cancer post neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med. 2017;48(2):519–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Iotti V, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in neoadjuvant chemotherapy monitoring: a comparison with breast magnetic resonance imaging. Breast Cancer Res. 2017;19(1):106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lobbes M, Prevos R, Smidt M. Response monitoring of breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy using breast MRI—a review of current knowledge. J Cancer Ther Res. 2012.  https://doi.org/10.7243/2049-7962-1-34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mann RM, et al. Breast MRI: EUSOBI recommendations for women’s information. Eur Radiol. 2015;25(12):3669–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Saslow D, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast cancer screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57(2):75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kuhl C, et al. Prospective multicenter cohort study to refine management recommendations for women at elevated familial risk of breast cancer: the EVA trial. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(9):1450–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Obdeijn IM, et al. Should we screen BRCA1 mutation carriers only with MRI? A multicenter study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;144(3):577–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Riedl CC, et al. Triple-modality screening trial for familial breast cancer underlines the importance of magnetic resonance imaging and questions the role of mammography and ultrasound regardless of patient mutation status, age, and breast density. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(10):1128–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Murata N, et al. Gadolinium tissue deposition in brain and bone. Magn Reson Imaging. 2016;34(10):1359–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jochelson MS, et al. Comparison of screening CEDM and MRI for women at increased risk for breast cancer: a pilot study. Eur J Radiol. 2017;97:37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Juanpere S, et al. Imaging of breast implants—a pictorial review. Insights Imaging. 2011;2(6):653–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Heywang-Köbrunner SH, et al. Interdisciplinary consensus on the uses and technique of MR-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VAB): results of a European consensus meeting. Eur J Radiol. 2009;72:289–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiology and Nuclear MedicineMaastricht University Medical CenterMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations