Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Correlation between breast density in mammography and background enhancement in MR mammography

Correlazione tra densità mammaria in mammografia e background enhancement in risonanza magnetica della mammella

  • Breast Radiology/Senologia
  • Published:
La radiologia medica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

We aimed to analyse the influence of mammographic breast density on background enhancement (BE) at magnetic resonance (MR) mammography in preand postmenopausal women. In addition, we questioned predictability of contrast-enhancement dynamics of normal fibroglandular tissue (NFT) at MR mammography according to mammographic breast density.

Materials and methods

Twenty-six patients (mean age 51.54±11.5 years; range 37–79 years) who underwent both MR mammography and conventional mammography were included in this retrospective study. Fourteen patients were premenopausal and 12 were postmenopausal. The ethics committee of our institution approved the study. The mammograms were retrospectively reviewed for overall breast density according to the four-point scale (I–IV) of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) classification. Two radiologists, who were unaware of the clinical data, separately assessed the MR mammography images. Images were assessed for enhancement kinetic features (enhancement kinetic curve and the early-phase enhancement rate) and BE. MR mammography and conventional mammography findings were compared according to BI-RADS breast density category and menopausal status.

Results

Percentage of increased signal intensity values during the first minute did not change according to mammographic breast density, and the mean early-phase enhancement rate scores were similar among breast density groups (p=0.942). There was no significant difference between pre- and postmenopausal groups. Enhancement kinetic features of the different groups based on BI-RADS breast density category and menopausal status were similar. There was no correlation between breast density and BE in either premenopausal (p=0.211) or in postmenopausal (p=0.735) groups.

Conclusions

We determined no correlation between mammographic breast density and so-called BE in MR mammography in either premenopausal or postmenopausal women. NFT at MR mammography cannot be predicted on the basis of mammographic breast density.

Riassunto

Obiettivo

Scopo del nostro studio è analizzare l’influenza della densità mammografica del seno sul background enhancement in risonanza magnetica, considerando donne in pre e post-menopausa. È stata inoltre valutata la prevedibilità delle dinamiche di contrast-enhancement del tessuto fibroghiandolare normale (NFT) in RM, in rapporto alla densità mammografica del seno.

Materiali e metodi

In questo studio retrospettivo sono state incluse 26 pazienti (media di età 51,54±11,5; range 37–79 anni), sottoposte sia a RM sia a mammografia convenzionale. Quattordici pazienti erano in premenopausa e dodici in post-menopausa. Lo studio è stato approvato dal comitato etico del nostro istituto. Gli esami sono stati analizzati retospettivamente per valutare la densità complessiva del seno, in accordo con la scala di quattro punti (I–IV) basata sulla classificazione BI-RADS (Breast Imaging Repotring and Data System). Due radiologi, senza conoscere i dati clinici, separatamente, hanno valutato le immagini RM. Sono state analizzate le caratteristiche cinetiche di enhancement (curva della cinetica di enhancement e velocità della fase precoce di enhancement) e il background enhancement. I rilievi ottenuti in RM e in mammografia convenzionale sono poi stati comparati con la classificazione BI-RADS, e lo stato menopausale.

Risultati

La percentuale di valori con intensità del segnale aumentato durante i primi minuti non è risultata variare in rapporto alla densità mammografica del seno, e i valori medi di velocità di enhancement in fase precoce sono risultati simili tra i gruppi di densità del seno (p=0,942). Non sono emerse differenze significative tra gruppi pre e post-menopausa. Le cinetiche di enhancement dei differenti gruppi basati sulla classificazione di densità del seno (BI-RADS) e sullo stato menopausale, sono risultati simili. Non è stata evidenziata correlazione tra densità mammaria e background enhancement nei gruppi premenopausa (p=0,211),o postmenopausa (p=0,735).

Conclusioni

Non abbiamo rilevato correlazione tra la densità del seno in mammografia e il cosiddetto background enhancement in risonanza magnetica, né per quanto riguarda donne in pre-menopausa, né in postmenopausa. Il tessuto fibroghiandolare in RM non può essere correlato alla densità mammaria mammografica.

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/Bibliografia

  1. Yaffe MJ (2008) Mammographic density. Measurement of mammographic density. Breast Cancer Res 10:209

    Google Scholar 

  2. Boyd NF, Lockwood GA, Martin LJ et al (1998) Mammographic densities and breast cancer risk. Breast Dis 10:113–126

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Oza AM, Boyd NF (1993) Mammographic parenchymal patterns: a marker of breast cancer risk. Epidemiol Rev 15:196–208

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Saftlas AF, Szklo M (1987) Mammographic parenchymal patterns and breast cancer risk. Epidemiol Rev 9:146–174

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Warner E, Lockwood G, Tritchler D, Boyd NF (1992) The risk of breast cancer associated with mammographic parenchymal patterns: a meta-analysis of the published literature to examine the effect of method of classification. Cancer Detect Prev 16:67–72

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rosenberg RD, Hunt WC, Williamson MR et al (1998) Effects of age, breast density, ethnicity, and estrogen replacement therapy on screening mammographic sensitivity and cancer stage at diagnosis: review of 183,134 screening mammograms in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Radiology 209:511–518

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bartella L, Smith CS, Dershaw DD, Liberman L (2007) Imaging breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 45:45–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mann RM, Kuhl CK, Kinkel K, Boetes C (2008) Breast MRI: guidelines from the European Society of Breast Imaging. Eur Radiol 18:1307–1318

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS et al (2004) Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology 233:830–849

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bluemke DA, Gatsonis CA, Chen MH et al (2004) Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast prior to biopsy. JAMA 292:2735–2742

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Bick U, Bradley WG Jr et al (2001) International investigation of breast MRI: results of a multicentre study (11 sites) concerning diagnostic parameters for contrast-enhanced MRI based on 519 histopathologically correlated lesions. Eur Radiol 11:531–546

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kuhl C (2007) The current status of breast MR imaging. Part I. Choice of technique, image interpretation, diagnostic accuracy, and transfer to clinical practice. Radiology 244:356–378

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kuhl CK, Bieling HB, Gieseke J et al (1997) Healthy premenopausal breast parenchyma in dynamic contrastenhanced MR imaging of the breast: normal contrast medium enhancement and cyclical phase dependency. Radiology 203:137–144

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S et al (1999) Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 211:101–110

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Daniel BL, Yen YF, Glover GH et al (1998) Breast disease: dynamic spiral MR imaging. Radiology 209:499–509

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Delille JP, Slanetz PJ, Yeh ED et al (2005) Hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women: breast tissue perfusion determined with MR imaging—initial observations. Radiology 235:36–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Teifke A, Hlawatsch A, Beier T et al (2002) Undetected malignancies of the breast: dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging at 1.0 T. Radiology 224:881–888

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Morris EA (2007) Diagnostic breast MR imaging: current status and future directions. Radiol Clin North Am 45:863–880

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Delille JP, Slanetz PJ, Yeh ED et al (2005) Physiologic changes in breast magnetic resonance imaging during the menstrual cycle: perfusion imaging, signal enhancement, and influence of the T1 relaxation time of breast tissue. Breast J 11:236–241

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Muller-Schimpfle M, Ohmenhauser K, Stoll P et al (1997) Menstrual cycle and age: influence on parenchymal contrast medium enhancement in MR imaging of the breast. Radiology 203:145–149

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. American College of Radiology (2003) ACR breast imaging reporting and data system (BIRADS): breast imaging atlas. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kerlikowski K, Grady D, Barclay J et al (1996) Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA 276:33–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH (1998) Occult cancer in women with dense breasts: detection with screening US-diagnostic yield and tumor characteristics. Radiology 207:191–199

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Stomper PC, D’souza DJ, DiNitto PA, Arredondo MA (1996) Analysis of parenchymal density on mammograms in 1353women 25–79 years old. Am J Roentgenol AJR 167:1261–1265

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Sardanelli F, Giuseppetti GM, Panizza P, Bazzocchi M, Fausto A, Simonetti G, Lattanzio V, Del Maschio A; Italian Trial for Breast MR in Multifocal/Multicentric Cancer (2004) Sensitivity of MRI versus mammography for detecting foci of multifocal, multicentric breast cancer in Fatty and dense breasts using the whole-breast pathologic examination as a gold standard. Am J Roentgenol AJR 183:1149–1157

    Google Scholar 

  26. Sardanelli F, Bacigalupo L, Carbonaro L et al (2008) What is the sensitivity of mammography and dynamic MR imaging for DCIS if the whole-breast histopathology is used as a reference standard? Radiol Med 113:439–451

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Heywang-Kobrunner SH (1994) Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the breast. Invest Radiol 29:94–104

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Heywang KS (1993) Brustkrebsdiagnostik mit MR: ueberblick nach 1250 Patientenuntersuchungen. Electromedia 61:43–52

    Google Scholar 

  29. Quan ML, Sclafani L, Heerdt AS et al (2003) Magnetic resonance imaging detects unsuspected disease in patients with invasive lobular cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 10:1048–1053

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kneeshaw PJ, Turnbull LW, Smith A, Drew PJ (2003) Dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging aids the surgical management of invasive lobular breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 29:32–37

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Weinstein SP, Orel SG, Heller R et al (2001) MR imaging of the breast in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:399–406

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Munot K, Dall B, Achuthan R et al (2002) Role of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and singlestage surgical resection of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. Br J Surg 89:1296–1301

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Maltepe University School of Medicine, Maltepe, İstanbul, Turkey

    R. Cubuk, N. Tasali, F. Keskiner, L. Celik & S. Guney

  2. Department of Radiology, Haydarpasa Numune Training and Research Hospital, Kadiköy, İstanbul, Turkey

    B. Narin

  3. Feyzullah cad, no: 39, 34843, Maltepe, İstanbul, Turkey

    R. Cubuk

Authors
  1. R. Cubuk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. N. Tasali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. B. Narin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. F. Keskiner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. L. Celik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. S. Guney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. Cubuk.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cubuk, R., Tasali, N., Narin, B. et al. Correlation between breast density in mammography and background enhancement in MR mammography. Radiol med 115, 434–441 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-010-0513-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-010-0513-4

Keywords

Parole chiave

Search

Navigation