Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Breast Oncology: Techniques, Indications, and Interpretation pp 141–161Cite as

Problem Solving Breast MRI for Mammographic, Sonographic, or Clinical Findings

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1143 Accesses

Abstract

Because of the high sensitivity of breast MRI in detection of invasive breast cancer, there has been interest in using breast MRI as a problem solving tool for evaluation of mammographic or sonographic findings, or for clinical breast symptoms in which conventional mammographic or ultrasound evaluation is negative. In this chapter, we review and discuss the current literature on problem solving MRI for imaging or clinical findings. Breast MRI does not have sufficient negative predictive value to avoid biopsy of a suspicious mammographic or sonographic finding. It may rarely be indicaed for equivocal or inconclusive findings at diagnostic mammographic and sonographic evaluation and when biopsy cannot be performed. It has not been found to be helpful for most clinical symptoms such as a palpable finding or breast pain when conventional imaging is negative, but may have utility in patients with nipple discharge, or symptoms suggestive of inflammatory breast cancer or Paget’s disease.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Kuhl C. The current status of breast MR imaging. Part I. Choice of technique, image interpretation, diagnostic accuracy, and transfer to clinical practice. Radiology. 2007;244(2):356–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sung JS, Dershaw DD. Breast magnetic resonance imaging for screening high-risk women. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2013;21(3):509–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kuhl CK. Current status of breast MR imaging. Part 2. Clinical applications. Radiology. 2007;244(3):672–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sickles EA, Miglioretti DL, Ballard-Barbash R, Geller BM, Leung JW, Rosenberg RD, et al. Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography. Radiology. [Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural Research Support, U.S. Gov’t, P.H.S.].2005;235(3):775–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. D’Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB, Morris EA, et al. ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Reston, VA, American College of Radiology; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  6. DeMartini W, Lehman C. A review of current evidence-based clinical applications for breast magnetic resonance imaging. Top Magn Reson Imaging. [Meta-Analysis Review].2008;19(3):143–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Leung JW. MR imaging in the evaluation of equivocal clinical and imaging findings of the breast. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. [Review].2010 May;18(2):295–308, ix–x.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Olsen ML, Morton MJ, Stan DL, Pruthi S. Is there a role for magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosing palpable breast masses when mammogram and ultrasound are negative? J Womens Health (Larchmt). [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t].2012;21(11):1149–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Soo MS, Rosen EL, Baker JA, Vo TT, Boyd BA. Negative predictive value of sonography with mammography in patients with palpable breast lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. [Comparative Study].2001;177(5):1167–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Shetty MK, Shah YP, Sharman RS. Prospective evaluation of the value of combined mammographic and sonographic assessment in patients with palpable abnormalities of the breast. J Ultrasound Med. [Evaluation Studies]. 2003;22(3):263–268; quiz 9–70.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Moy L, Slanetz PJ, Moore R, Satija S, Yeh ED, McCarthy KA, et al. Specificity of mammography and US in the evaluation of a palpable abnormality: retrospective review. Radiology. 2002;225(1):176–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bluemke DA, Gatsonis CA, Chen MH, DeAngelis GA, DeBruhl N, Harms S, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast prior to biopsy. JAMA. [Clinical Trial Multicenter Study Research Support, U.S. Gov’t, P.H.S.].2004;292(22):2735–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bazzocchi M, Zuiani C, Panizza P, Del Frate C, Soldano F, Isola M, et al. Contrast-enhanced breast MRI in patients with suspicious microcalcifications on mammography: results of a multicenter trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol. [Multicenter Study Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t].2006;186(6):1723–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Cilotti A, Iacconi C, Marini C, Moretti M, Mazzotta D, Traino C, et al. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging in patients with BI-RADS 3-5 microcalcifications. Radiol Med. [Evaluation Studies].2007;112(2):272–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Yau EJ, Gutierrez RL, DeMartini WB, Eby PR, Peacock S, Lehman CD. The utility of breast MRI as a problem-solving tool. Breast J. [Evaluation Studies].2011;17(3):273–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Strobel K, Schrading S, Hansen NL, Barabasch A, Kuhl CK. Assessment of BI-RADS category 4 lesions detected with screening mammography and screening US: utility of MR imaging. Radiology. [Evaluation Studies].2015;274(2):343–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Uematsu T, Yuen S, Kasami M, Uchida Y. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging in screening detected microcalcification lesions of the breast: is there any value? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007;103(3):269–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gokalp G, Topal U. MR imaging in probably benign lesions (BI-RADS category 3) of the breast. Eur J Radiol. 2006;57(3):436–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Dorrius MD, Pijnappel RM, Jansen-van der Weide MC, Oudkerk M. Breast magnetic resonance imaging as a problem-solving modality in mammographic BI-RADS 3 lesions. Cancer Imaging. [Review].2010;10(Spec no A):S54–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. American College of Radiology Practice Parameter for the Performance of Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) of the Breast. [updated 20141.2.16]; Available from: http://www.acr.org/.

  21. Moy L, Elias K, Patel V, Lee J, Babb JS, Toth HK, et al. Is breast MRI helpful in the evaluation of inconclusive mammographic findings? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(4):986–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Giess CS, Chikarmane SA, Sippo DA, Birdwell RL. Breast MR Imaging for Equivocal Mammographic Findings: Help or Hindrance? Radiographics. 2016;36(4):943–56. doi: 10.1148/rg.2016150205. Epub 2016 Jun 10.

  23. Sardanelli F, Melani E, Ottonello C, Parodi RC, Imperiale A, Massa T, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast in characterizing positive or uncertain mammographic findings. Cancer Detect Prev. 1998;22(1):39–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lee CH, Smith RC, Levine JA, Troiano RN, Tocino I. Clinical usefulness of MR imaging of the breast in the evaluation of the problematic mammogram. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999;173(5):1323–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Spick C, Szolar DH, Preidler KW, Tillich M, Reittner P, Baltzer PA. Breast MRI used as a problem-solving tool reliably excludes malignancy. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84(1):61–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Oztekin PS, Kosar PN. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast as a problem-solving method: to be or not to be? Breast J. 2014;20(6):622–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lee CH. Problem solving MR imaging of the breast. Radiol Clin North Am. [Review].2004;42(5):919–34, vii.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Houssami N, Abraham LA, Miglioretti DL, Sickles EA, Kerlikowske K, Buist DS, et al. Accuracy and outcomes of screening mammography in women with a personal history of early-stage breast cancer. JAMA. [Multicenter Study Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t].2011;305(8):790–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Schlegel A, Beck R, Wendt T, Kellner W, Lommatzsch B, et al. Contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast after limited surgery and radiation therapy. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1993;17(6):891–900.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Viehweg P, Heinig A, Lampe D, Buchmann J, Heywang-Kobrunner SH. Retrospective analysis for evaluation of the value of contrast-enhanced MRI in patients treated with breast conservative therapy. MAGMA. [Clinical Trial].1998;7(3):141–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Gilles R, Guinebretiere JM, Shapeero LG, Lesnik A, Contesso G, Sarrazin D, et al. Assessment of breast cancer recurrence with contrast-enhanced subtraction MR imaging: preliminary results in 26 patients. Radiology. 1993;188(2):473–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Preda L, Villa G, Rizzo S, Bazzi L, Origgi D, Cassano E, et al. Magnetic resonance mammography in the evaluation of recurrence at the prior lumpectomy site after conservative surgery and radiotherapy. Breast Cancer Res. [Comparative Study].2006;8(5):R53.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Quinn EM, Coveney AP, Redmond HP. Use of magnetic resonance imaging in detection of breast cancer recurrence: a systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol. [Review].2012;19(9):3035–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Leis HP, Jr. Management of nipple discharge. World J Surg. [Review]. 1989;13(6):736–742.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Chen L, Zhou WB, Zhao Y, Liu XA, Ding Q, Zha XM, et al. Bloody nipple discharge is a predictor of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. [Meta-Analysis Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t Review].2012;132(1):9–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kalu ON, Chow C, Wheeler A, Kong C, Wapnir I. The diagnostic value of nipple discharge cytology: breast imaging complements predictive value of nipple discharge cytology. J Surg Oncol. 2012;106(4):381–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Orel SG, Dougherty CS, Reynolds C, Czerniecki BJ, Siegelman ES, Schnall MD. MR imaging in patients with nipple discharge: initial experience. Radiology. 2000;216(1):248–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Nakahara H, Namba K, Watanabe R, Furusawa H, Matsu T, Akiyama F, et al. A comparison of MR imaging, galactography and ultrasonography in patients with nipple discharge. Breast Cancer. [Comparative Study].2003;10(4):320–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Morrogh M, Morris EA, Liberman L, Borgen PI, King TA. The predictive value of ductography and magnetic resonance imaging in the management of nipple discharge. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14(12):3369–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Schwab SA, Uder M, Schulz-Wendtland R, Bautz WA, Janka R, Wenkel E. Direct MR galactography: feasibility study. Radiology. [Comparative Study].2008;249(1):54–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Wenkel E, Janka R, Uder M, Doellinger M, Melzer K, Schulz-Wendtland R, et al. Does direct MR galactography have the potential to become an alternative diagnostic tool in patients with pathological nipple discharge? Clin Imaging. 2011;35(2):85–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Nicholson BT, Harvey JA, Patrie JT, Mugler 3rd JP. 3D-MR ductography and contrast-enhanced MR mammography in patients with suspicious nipple discharge; a feasibility study. Breast J. 2015;21(4):352–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Lorenzon M, Zuiani C, Linda A, Londero V, Girometti R, Bazzocchi M. Magnetic resonance imaging in patients with nipple discharge: should we recommend it? Eur Radiol. 2011;21(5):899–907.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Sanders LM, Daigle M. The rightful role of MRI after negative conventional imaging in the management of bloody nipple discharge. Breast J. 2015;22(2):209–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Morrogh M, Park A, Elkin EB, King TA. Lessons learned from 416 cases of nipple discharge of the breast. Am J Surg. 2010;200(1):73–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Harvey JA, Mahoney MC, Newell MS, Bailey L, Barke LD, D’Orsi C, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria palpable breast masses. J Am Coll Radiol. 2013;10(10):742-9 e1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Bevers TB, Anderson BO, Bonaccio E, Buys S, Daly MB, Dempsey PJ, et al. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast cancer screening and diagnosis. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. [Practice Guideline Review].2009;7(10):1060–96.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Dennis MA, Parker SH, Klaus AJ, Stavros AT, Kaske TI, Clark SB. Breast biopsy avoidance: the value of normal mammograms and normal sonograms in the setting of a palpable lump. Radiology. 2001;219(1):186–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Murphy IG, Dillon MF, Doherty AO, McDermott EW, Kelly G, O’Higgins N, et al. Analysis of patients with false negative mammography and symptomatic breast carcinoma. J Surg Oncol. [Comparative Study].2007;96(6):457–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Lehman CD, Lee AY, Lee CI. Imaging management of palpable breast abnormalities. AJR Am J Roentgenol. [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t Review].2014;203(5):1142–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Tumyan L, Hoyt AC, Bassett LW. Negative predictive value of sonography and mammography in patients with focal breast pain. Breast J. [Comparative Study].2005;11(5):333–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Lumachi F, Ermani M, Brandes AA, Boccagni P, Polistina F, Basso SM, et al. Breast complaints and risk of breast cancer. Population-based study of 2,879 self-selected women and long-term follow-up. Biomed Pharmacother. 2002;56(2):88–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Duijm LE, Guit GL, Hendriks JH, Zaat JO, Mali WP. Value of breast imaging in women with painful breasts: observational follow up study. BMJ. 1998;317(7171):1492–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Hance KW, Anderson WF, Devesa SS, Young HA, Levine PH. Trends in inflammatory breast carcinoma incidence and survival: the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program at the National Cancer Institute. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97(13):966–75.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Yeh ED, Jacene HA, Bellon JR, Nakhlis F, Birdwell RL, Georgian-Smith D, et al. What radiologists need to know about diagnosis and treatment of inflammatory breast cancer: a multidisciplinary approach. Radiographics. 2013;33(7):2003–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Yang WT, Le-Petross HT, Macapinlac H, Carkaci S, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Dawood S, et al. Inflammatory breast cancer: PET/CT, MRI, mammography, and sonography findings. Breast Cancer Res Treat. [Review].2008;109(3):417–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Renz DM, Baltzer PA, Bottcher J, Thaher F, Gajda M, Camara O, et al. Inflammatory breast carcinoma in magnetic resonance imaging: a comparison with locally advanced breast cancer. Acad Radiol. [Comparative Study].2008;15(2):209–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Le-Petross HT, Cristofanilli M, Carkaci S, Krishnamurthy S, Jackson EF, Harrell RK, et al. MRI features of inflammatory breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. [Comparative Study].2011;197(4):W769–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Kister SJ, Haagensen CD. Paget’s disease of the breast. Am J Surg. 1970;119(5):606–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Sakorafas GH, Blanchard K, Sarr MG, Farley DR. Paget’s disease of the breast. Cancer Treat Rev. [Review]. 2001;27(1):9–18.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Morrogh M, Morris EA, Liberman L, Van Zee K, Cody 3rd HS, King TA. MRI identifies otherwise occult disease in select patients with Paget disease of the nipple. J Am Coll Surg. [Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t].2008;206(2):316–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Section of Breast Imaging, 75 Francis Street, RA Bldg, RA-014, Boston, MA, 02115, USA

    Eren D. Yeh MD & Catherine S. Giess MD

Authors
  1. Eren D. Yeh MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Catherine S. Giess MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eren D. Yeh MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, New York University Langone Medical Center New York University School of Medicine, New York, USA

    Samantha L. Heller

  2. Department of Radiology, New York University Langone Medical Center New York University School of Medicine, New York, USA

    Linda Moy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Yeh, E.D., Giess, C.S. (2017). Problem Solving Breast MRI for Mammographic, Sonographic, or Clinical Findings. In: Heller, S., Moy, L. (eds) Breast Oncology: Techniques, Indications, and Interpretation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42563-4_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42563-4_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-42561-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-42563-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation