Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Characteristic features and usefulness of MRI in breast cancer in patients under 40 years old: correlations with conventional imaging and prognostic factors

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the characteristic features and usefulness of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of breast cancer in women under 40 years old that are correlated with conventional imaging and prognostic factors.

Methods

We performed a retrospective review of the clinical, radiological and pathological features of patients under 40 years old with breast cancer at our institution between October 2007 and December 2010. A total of 99 women were included.

Results

The most common MRI findings were a mass or multiple masses (82.8 %) similar to those observed with mammography (50.5 %) and ultrasonography (90.9 %). The sensitivity of both MRI and ultrasonography for detecting a primary breast lesion was 100 % compared to 87.4 % with mammography. After preoperative MRI, the surgical plan changed in 35.7 %. The rim enhancement of the mass was a significant and independent predictor of a higher histological grade (p = 0.005), negative expression of ER (p = 0.01) and PR (p = 0.02). The clumped enhancement of the non-mass lesion was also associated with positive LN metastasis (p = 0.04).

Conclusion

Breast cancer in women under 40 years old frequently presents as suspicious masses on both conventional imaging and MRI. Ultrasonography and MRI both showed excellent sensitivities that were better than those of mammography in young women with dense breasts. Additionally, MRI can play an important role in preoperative planning, and some BI-RADS MRI features can be used to predict breast cancer prognosis in this age group.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chung M, Chang HR, Bland KI, Wanebo HJ. Younger women with breast carcinoma have a poorer prognosis than older women. Cancer. 1996;77(1):97–103.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ries LAG, Eisner MP, Kosary CL, Hankey BF, Miller BA, Clegg L, et al. (2005) SEER cancer statistics review, 1975–2002, Bethesda.

  3. Brinton LA, Sherman ME, Carreon JD, Anderson WF. Recent trends in breast cancer among younger women in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(22):1643–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bleyer A, O’Leary M, Barr R, Ries LAG (eds.) Cancer epidemiology in older adolescents and young adults 15 to 29 years of age, including SEER incidence and survival: 1975–2000. National Cancer Institute, NIH Pub. No. 06-5767, Bethesda. 2006.

  5. Marrett LD, Frood J, Nishri D, Cancer in Young Adults in Canada (CYAC) Working Group. Cancer incidence in young adults in Canada: preliminary results of a cancer surveillance project. Chronic Dis Can. 2002;23(2):58–64.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bouchardy C, Fioretta G, Verkooijen HM, Vlastos G, Schaefer P, Delaloye JF, et al. Recent increase of breast cancer incidence among women under the age of forty. Br J Cancer. 2007;96(11):1743–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Agarwal G, Pradeep PV, Aggarwal V, Aggarwal V, Yip CH, Cheung PS. Spectrum of breast cancer in Asian women. World J Surg. 2007;31(5):1031–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Nixon AJ, Neuberg D, Hayes DF, Gelman R, Connolly JL, Schnitt S, et al. Relationship of patient age to pathological features of the tumor and prognosis for patients with stage I or II breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1994;12(5):888–94.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dubsky PC, Gnant MF, Taucher S, Roka S, Kandioler D, Pichler-Gebhard B, et al. Young age as an independent adverse prognostic factor in premenopausal patients with breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer. 2002;3(1):65–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Aebi S, De Ridder M, Vlastos G, Vinh-Hung V, Storme G. Young age is a poor prognostic factor in women with stage I breast cancer. Eur J Cancer Suppl. 2006;4(2):121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bonnier P, Romain S, Charpin C, Lejeune C, Tubiana N, Martin PM, et al. Age as a prognostic factor in breast cancer: relationship to pathological and biologic features. Int J Cancer. 2006;62(2):138–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Xiong Q, Valero V, Kau V, Kau SW, Taylor S, Smith TL, et al. Female patients with breast carcinoma age 30 years and younger have a poor prognosis: the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center experience. Cancer. 2001;92(10):2523–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Broglio K, Kau SW, Eralp Y, Erlichman J, Valero V, et al. Women age < or = 35 years with primary breast carcinoma: disease features at presentation. Cancer. 2005;103(12):2466–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system, breast imaging atlas. 4th ed. Reston: American College of Radiology; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Yaffe M, Baum JK, Acharyya S, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(17):1773–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, Besnard PE, Zonderland HM, Obdeijn IM, et al. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(5):427–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, Morakkabati-Spitz N, Wardelmann E, Fimmers R, et al. Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(33):8469–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Leach MO, Boggis CR, Dixon AK, Easton DF, Eeles RA, Evans DG, et al. Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicenter cohort study (MARIBS). Lancet. 2005;365(9473):1769–78.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, Harms S, Leach MO, Lehman CD, 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Meyer J, Kopans D, Oot R. Breast cancer visualized by mammography in patients under 35. Radiology. 1983;147(1):93–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Shaw de Paredes E, Marsteller LP, Eden BV. Breast cancers in women 35 years of age and younger: mammographic findings. Radiology. 1990;177(1):117–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Jeffries DO, Adler DD. Mammographic detection of breast cancer in women under the age of 35. Invest Radiol. 1990;25(1):67–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Basset LW, Ysrael M, Gold RH, Ysrael C. Usefulness of mammography and sonography in women less than 35 years of age. Radiology. 1991;180(3):831–5.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Gilles R, Gallay X, Tardivon A, Rochard F, Guinebretiére J-M, Rouleau P, et al. Breast cancer in women 35 years old or younger: clinical and mammographic features. Eur Radiol. 1995;5:630–2.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Di Nubila B, Cassano E, Urban LA, Fedele P, Abbate F, Maisonneuve P, et al. Radiological features and pathological-biological correlations in 348 women with breast cancer under 35 years old. Breast. 2006;15(6):744–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Houssami N, Irwig L, Simpson JM, McKessar M, Blome S, Noakes J. Sydney breast imaging accuracy study: comparative sensitivity and specificity of mammography and sonography in young women with symptoms. Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180(4):935–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 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(1):165–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Szabo BK, Aspelin P, Kristoffersen Wiberg M, Tot T, Boné B. Invasive breast cancer: correlation of dynamic MR features with prognostic factors. Eur Radiol. 2003;13(11):2425–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Jinguji J, Kajiya Y, Kamimura K, Nakajo M, Sagara Y, Takahama T, et al. Rim enhancement of breast cancers on contrast-enhanced MR imaging: relationship with prognostic high resolution dynamic MRI features and prognostic factors. Breast Cancer. 2006;13(1):64–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Teifke A, Behr O, Schmidt M, Victor A, Vomweg TW, Thelen M, et al. Dynamic MR imaging of breast lesions: correlation with microvessel distribution pattern and histologic characteristics of prognosis. Radiology. 2006;239(2):351–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 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(1):10–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Liu PF, Debatin JF, Caduff RF, Kacl G, Garzoli E, Krestin GP. Improved diagnostic accuracy in dynamic contrast enhanced mri of the breast by combined quantitative and qualitative analysis. Br J Radiol. 1998;71:501–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Orel SG, Schnall MD. MR imaging of the breast for the detection, diagnosis, and staging of breast cancer. Radiology. 2001;220:13–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Harms SE, Flamig DP, Hesley KL, Meiches MD, Jensen RA, Evans WP, 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 

  35. Fischer U, Kopka L, Grabbe E. Breast carcinoma: effect of preoperative contrast-enhanced MR imaging on the therapeutic approach. Radiology. 1999;213:881–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Orel SG, Schnall MD, Newman RW, Powell CM, Torosian MH, Rosato EF. MR imaging-guided localization and biopsy of breast lesions: initial experience. Radiology. 1994;193:97–102.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Heywang-Köbrunner SH, Heinig A, Schaumlöffel-Schulze U, Viehweg P, Buchmann J, Lampe D, et al. MR-guided percutaneous excisional and incisional biopsy of breast lesions. Eur Radiol. 1999;9:1656–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kuhl CK, Morakkabati N, Leutner CC, Schmiedel A, Wardelmann E, Schild HH. MR imaging-guided large-core (14-gauge) needle biopsy of small lesions visible at breast MR imaging alone. Radiology. 2001;220:31–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Morris EA, Liberman L, Dershaw DD, Kaplan JB, LaTrenta LR, Abramson AF, et al. Preoperative MR imaging-guided needle localization of breast lesions. Am J Roentgenol. 2002;178:1211–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. LaTrenta LR, Menell JH, Morris EA, Abramson AF, Dershaw DD, Liberman L. Breast lesions detected with MR imaging: utility and histopathologic importance of identification with US. Radiology. 2003;227:856–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Beran L, Liang W, Nims T, Paquelet J, Sickle-Santanello B. Correlation of targeted ultrasound with magnetic resonance imaging abnormalities of the breast. Am J Surg. 2005;190:592–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Wiratkapun C, Duke D, Nordmann AS, Lertsithichai P, Narra V, Barton PT, et al. Indeterminate or suspicious breast lesions detected initially with MR imaging: value of MRI-directed breast ultrasound. Acad Radiol. 2008;15:618–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Demartini WB, Eby PR, Peacock S, Lehman CD. Utility of targeted sonography for breast lesions that were suspicious on MRI. Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:1128–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Meissnitzer M, Dershaw DD, Lee CH, Morris EA. Targeted ultrasound of the breast in women with abnormal MRI findings for whom biopsy has been recommended. Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:1025–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Abe H, Schmidt RA, Shah RN, Shimauchi A, Kulkarni K, Sennett CA, et al. MR-directed (“Second-Look”) ultrasound examination for breast lesions detected initially on MRI: MR and sonographic findings. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194:370–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, St. Vincent’s Hospital, The Catholic Unversity of Korea, Suwon, Korea

    Yeong Yi An

  2. Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 505 Banpo-Dong, Seocho-Ku, Seoul, 137-040, Korea

    Sung Hun Kim & Bong Joo Kang

Authors
  1. Yeong Yi An
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sung Hun Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bong Joo Kang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bong Joo Kang.

About this article

Cite this article

An, Y.Y., Kim, S.H. & Kang, B.J. Characteristic features and usefulness of MRI in breast cancer in patients under 40 years old: correlations with conventional imaging and prognostic factors. Breast Cancer 21, 302–315 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-012-0383-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-012-0383-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation