Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Dynamic Contrast Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Breast Is Superior to Triple Assessment for the Pre-Operative Detection of Multifocal Breast Cancer

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: Inadequately treated multifocal and multicentric disease results in increased local recurrence following breast-conserving surgery. The accurate preoperative diagnosis of multifocal/centric breast cancer would facilitate the planning of appropriate surgery and prevent reoperation for residual disease. While triple assessment remains the established diagnostic technique, its sensitivity for the diagnosis of multifocal disease remains poor. Dynamic contrast enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging (DCE-MRI) of the breast represents an alternative emerging diagnostic modality that has been shown to be highly sensitive for the delineation of primary breast cancer. The aim of this study was to prospectively compare the diagnostic accuracy of DCE-MRI of the breast with conventional triple assessment for the preoperative diagnosis of multifocal/centric breast cancer.

Methods: Patients were recruited from the symptomatic breast clinics. All patients underwent standard triple assessment and DCE-MRI. The MRI scans were reported by a single radiologist blinded to the results of the triple assessment. Surgery was then planned accordingly to all available scan results and the specimens examined by a single pathologist. All patients who did not undergo surgery have been followed up for a minimum of 18 months.

Results: A total of 334 women were recruited. There were 178 (52%) cancers that were histologically confirmed and multifocal/centric breast cancer was diagnosed provisionally by the preoperative investigations in 68 (38%); multifocal n = 33, multicentric n = 35, of these patients. In this group, subsequent histology confirmed multifocal/centric disease in 50 (73.5%): multifocal n = 15, multicentric n = 35. Unifocal cancer was found in 15 (22%) and benign disease in 3 (4.4%). The resultant sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values were 18%, 100%, 100%, and 76% for triple assessment and 100%, 86%, 73%, and 100% for DCE-MRI.

Conclusion: DCE-MRI identified a subgroup of breast cancer patients with multifocal/centric disease not evident on standard triple assessment. MRI of the breast should be considered for the preoperative planning of surgery for primary breast cancer.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Fisher B, Anderson S, Redmond CK, Wolmark N, Wickerman DL, Cronin WM. Reanalysis and results after 12 years of follow up in a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy with lumpectomy with or without irradiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Eng J Med 1995;333:1456–1461.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Veronesi U, Banfi A, Salvadori B, et al. Breast conservation is the treatment of choice in small breast cancer: long term results of a randomised trial. Cancer 1990;26:668–670.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Sauer R, Schauer A, Rauschecker HF, et al. Therapy of small breast cancer: a prospective study on 1036 patients with special emphasis on prognostic factors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1992;23:907–914.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bader J, Lipman M, Swain S, et al. Preliminary report of the NCI early breast cancer (BC) study: a prospective randomised comparison of lumpectomy (L) and radiation (XRT) to mastectomy (M) for stage 1 and 2 BC. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999;13:160.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Harris JR, Recht A, Amalaric R, et al. Time course and prognosis of local recurrence following primary radiation therapy for early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1984;2:37–41.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kurtz JM. Factors influencing the risk of local recurrence in the breast. Eur J Cancer 1992;28:660–666.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Blamey RW. Factors influencing local recurrence after excision and radiotherapy for primary breast cancer. Br J Surg 1989;76:890–894.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Mussurakis S, Buckley DJ, Drew PJ, et al. Dynamic MR Imaging of the breast combined with analysis of contrast agent kinetics in the differentiation of primary breast tumours. Clin Rad 1997;52:516–526.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Beck NE, Bradburn MJ, Vincenti AC, Rainsbury RM. Detection of residual disease following breast-conserving surgery. Br J Surg 1998;85:1273–1276.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Holland R, Veling SHJ, Mravunac M, Hendriks JHCL. Histologic multifocality of Tis, T1–2 breast carcinomas (implications for clinical trials of breast conserving therapy). Cancer 1985;56:979–990.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lagios MD, Westdahl PR, Rose MR. The concept and implications of multicentricity in breast carcinoma. In: Sommers SG, Rosen PP, eds. Pathology annual, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1981:83–102.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Fisher B, Anderson S, Fisher ER, et al. Significance of ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence after lumpectomy. Lancet 1991;338:327–31.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Fisher ER, Anderson S, Redmond CK, Fisher B. Ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence and survival following lumpectomy and irradiation: Pathologic findings from NSABP protocol B06. Semin Surg Onc 1992;8:161–6.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fisher ER, Sass R, Fisher B, et al. Pathologic findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project (Protocol 6) II, Relation of local breast recurrence to multicentricity. Cancer 1986;57:1717–1724.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Buckley DJ, Drew PJ, Mussurakis S, Monson JRT, Horsman A. Microvessel density of invasive breast cancer assessed by dynamic Gd-DTPA enhanced MRI. JMRI 1997;7:461–464.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Drew PJ, Monson JRT. Magnetic Resonance Mammography. Br J Surg 1996;83:1316–8.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Oellinger H, Heins S, Sander B, Schoenegg W, et al. Gd-DTPA enhanced MRI of the Breast: The most sensitive method for detecting multicentric carcinomas of in female breast? Eur Radiol 1993;3:223–6.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Harms SE, Flamig DP, Hesley KL, et al. MR imaging of the breast with rotating delivery of excitation off resonance: Clinical experience with pathologic correlation. Radiology 1993;187:493–501.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Orel SG, Schnall MD, Powell CM, et al. Staging of suspected breast cancer: Effect of MR imaging and MR guided biopsy. Radiology 1995;196:115–122.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Boetes C, Mus RDM, Holland R, et al. Breast tumours: Comparative accuracy of MR imaging relative to mammography and US for demonstrating extent. Radiology 1995;197:743–747.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mumtaz H, Hall-Craggs MA, Davidson T, et al. Staging of symptomatic primary breast cancer with MR imaging. AJR 1997;169:417–424.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Douek M, Vaidya J, Lakhani SR, Hall-Craggs MA, Baum M, Taylor I. Can magnetic resonance imaging help elucidate natural history of breast cancer multicentricity. Lancet 1998;351:801–802.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Drew PJ, Turnbull LW, Kerin MJ, Carleton PJ, Fox JN. Multicentricity and recurrence of breast cancer. Lancet 1997;349:208–209.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Drew PJ, Turnbull LW, Kerin MJ. Magnetic-resonance imaging and breast cancer multicentricity. Lancet 1998;352:653.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Academic Surgical Unit, University of Hull, Castle Hill Hospital, Hull, United Kingdom

    Philip J. Drew FRCS, Sumohan Chatterjee FRCS, John N. Fox FRCS, John R. T. Monson MD & Michael J. Kerin MCh

  2. Centre for MR Investigations, Hull Royal Infirmary, Hull, United Kingdom

    Lindsay W. Turnbull MD & Peter J. Carleton FRCS

  3. Department of Histopathology, Castle Hill Hospital, Hull, United Kingdom

    John Read FRCPath

  4. Academic Surgical Unit, The University of Hull, Castle Hill Hospital, Castle Road, Hull, United Kingdom, HU 16 5 JQ

    Michael J. Kerin MCh

Authors
  1. Philip J. Drew FRCS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sumohan Chatterjee FRCS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lindsay W. Turnbull MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John Read FRCPath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Peter J. Carleton FRCS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. John N. Fox FRCS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. John R. T. Monson MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Michael J. Kerin MCh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Drew, P.J., Chatterjee, S., Turnbull, L.W. et al. Dynamic Contrast Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Breast Is Superior to Triple Assessment for the Pre-Operative Detection of Multifocal Breast Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 6, 599–603 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10434-999-0599-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10434-999-0599-x

Key Words

Search

Navigation