| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Breast Imaging |
1 From American College of Radiology Imaging Network, 301 Merrie Hunt Dr, Lutherville, MD 21093 (W.A.B.); Corporacion Nacional del Cancer, Santiago, Chile (L.G.); Departments of Radiology (M.S.N.), Surgery (W.B.C.), and Pathology (O.B.I.), University of Maryland, Baltimore; and American College of Radiology Technology Assessment Studies Assistance Program, Reston, Va (M.B., R.S.L.). From the 2001 RSNA scientific assembly. Received September 15, 2003; revision requested November 28; revision received March 5, 2004; accepted April 12. Supported by a grant from the Society of Breast Imaging. Address correspondence to W.A.B. (e-mail: wendieberg@hotmail.com).
PURPOSE: To prospectively assess accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, ultrasonography (US), and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in preoperative assessment of local extent of breast cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval and informed patient consent were obtained. Results of bilateral mammography, US, and contrast-enhanced MR imaging were analyzed from 111 consecutive women with known or suspected invasive breast cancer. Results were correlated with histopathologic findings.
RESULTS: Analysis included 177 malignant foci in 121 cancerous breasts, of which 89 (50%) foci were palpable. Median size of 139 invasive foci was 18 mm (range, 2–107 mm). Mammographic sensitivity decreased from 100% in fatty breasts to 45% in extremely dense breasts. Mammographic sensitivity was highest for invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) in 89 of 110 (81%) cases versus 10 of 29 (34%) cases of invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) (P < .001) and 21 of 38 (55%) cases of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (P < .01). US showed higher sensitivity than did mammography for IDC, depicting 104 of 110 (94%) cases, and for ILC, depicting 25 of 29 (86%) cases (P < .01 for each). US showed higher sensitivity for invasive cancer than DCIS (18 of 38 [47%], P < .001). MR showed higher sensitivity than did mammography for all tumor types (P < .01) and higher sensitivity than did US for DCIS (P < .001), depicting 105 of 110 (95%) cases of IDC, 28 of 29 (96%) cases of ILC, and 34 of 38 (89%) cases of DCIS. In anticipation of conservation or no surgery after mammography and clinical examination in 96 breasts, additional tumor (which altered surgical approach) was present in 30. Additional tumor was depicted in 17 of 96 (18%) breasts at US and in 29 of 96 (30%) at MR, though extent was now overestimated in 12 of 96 (12%) at US and 20 of 96 (21%) at MR imaging. After combined mammography, clinical examination, and US, MR depicted additional tumor in another 12 of 96 (12%) breasts and led to overestimation of extent in another six (6%); US showed no detection benefit after MR imaging. Bilateral cancer was present in 10 of 111 (9%) patients; contralateral tumor was depicted mammographically in six and with both US and MR in an additional three. One contralateral cancer was demonstrated only clinically.
CONCLUSION: In nonfatty breasts, US and MR imaging were more sensitive than mammography for invasive cancer, but both MR imaging and US involved risk of overestimation of tumor extent. Combined mammography, clinical examination, and MR imaging were more sensitive than any other individual test or combination of tests.
© RSNA, 2004
Index terms: Breast, abnormalities • Breast, MR, 00.121412, 00.121413, 00.121415, 00.12143 • Breast, US, 00.1298 • Breast neoplasms, radiography, 00.115
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  A. M. Schell, K. Rosenkranz, and P. J. Lewis Role of Breast MRI in the Preoperative Evaluation of Patients with Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2009; 192(5): 1438 - 1444. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. B. DeMartini, P. R. Eby, S. Peacock, and C. D. Lehman Utility of Targeted Sonography for Breast Lesions That Were Suspicious on MRI Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2009; 192(4): 1128 - 1134. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Elsamaloty, M. S. Elzawawi, S. Mohammad, and N. Herial Increasing Accuracy of Detection of Breast Cancer with 3-T MRI Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2009; 192(4): 1142 - 1148. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. Houssami Overview of the Evidence on MRI-guided Local Staging of Breast Cancer and Effect on Treatment ASCO Educational Book, January 1, 2009; 2009(1): 45 - 50. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. K. Lopez and L. W. Bassett Invasive Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast: Spectrum of Mammographic, US, and MR Imaging Findings RadioGraphics, January 1, 2009; 29(1): 165 - 176. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J.-M. Lee, J. B. Kaplan, M. P. Murray, and L. Liberman Complete Excision of the MRI Target Lesion at MRI-Guided Vacuum-Assisted Biopsy of Breast Cancer Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2008; 191(4): 1198 - 1202. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. A. Heusner, S. Kuemmel, L. Umutlu, A. Koeninger, L. S. Freudenberg, E. A.M. Hauth, K. R. Kimmig, M. Forsting, A. Bockisch, and G. Antoch Breast Cancer Staging in a Single Session: Whole-Body PET/CT Mammography J. Nucl. Med., August 1, 2008; 49(8): 1215 - 1222. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. Houssami, S. Ciatto, P. Macaskill, S. J. Lord, R. M. Warren, J. M. Dixon, and L. Irwig Accuracy and Surgical Impact of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Breast Cancer Staging: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis in Detection of Multifocal and Multicentric Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., July 1, 2008; 26(19): 3248 - 3258. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. Taira, S. Ohsumi, D. Takabatake, F. Hara, S. Takashima, K. Aogi, S. Takashima, T. Inoue, S. Sugata, and R. Nishimura Contrast-enhanced CT Evaluation of Clinically and Mammographically Occult Multiple Breast Tumors in Women with Unilateral Early Breast Cancer Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol., June 1, 2008; 38(6): 419 - 425. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Morrow Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Breast Cancer Patient: Curb Your Enthusiasm J. Clin. Oncol., January 20, 2008; 26(3): 352 - 353. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. J. Solin, S. G. Orel, W.-T. Hwang, E. E. Harris, and M. D. Schnall Relationship of Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Outcome After Breast-Conservation Treatment With Radiation for Women With Early-Stage Invasive Breast Carcinoma or Ductal Carcinoma in Situ J. Clin. Oncol., January 20, 2008; 26(3): 386 - 391. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. A. Melnikov, D. M. Scholtens, E. L. Wiley, S. A. Khan, and V. V. Levenson Array-Based Multiplex Analysis of DNA Methylation in Breast Cancer Tissues J. Mol. Diagn., January 1, 2008; 10(1): 93 - 101. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. J. Kim, E.-K. Kim, J. Y. Kwak, B.-W. Park, S.-I. Kim, and K. K. Oh Bilateral Synchronous Breast Cancer in an Asian Population: Mammographic and Sonographic Characteristics, Detection Methods, and Staging Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2008; 190(1): 208 - 213. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E A Rakha and I O Ellis An overview of assessment of prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer needle core biopsy specimens J. Clin. Pathol., December 1, 2007; 60(12): 1300 - 1306. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Kuhl The Current Status of Breast MR Imaging * Part I. Choice of Technique, Image Interpretation, Diagnostic Accuracy, and Transfer to Clinical Practice Radiology, August 1, 2007; 244(2): 356 - 378. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
O. Graf, T. H. Helbich, G. Hopf, C. Graf, and E. A. Sickles Probably Benign Breast Masses at US: Is Follow-up an Acceptable Alternative to Biopsy? Radiology, July 1, 2007; 244(1): 87 - 93. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. Mesurolle, L. Kadoch, M. El-Khoury, A. Lisbona, N. Dendukuri, and W. D. Foulkes Sonographic Features of Breast Carcinoma Presenting as Masses in BRCA Gene Mutation Carriers J. Ultrasound Med., June 1, 2007; 26(6): 817 - 824. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. D. Lehman, C. Gatsonis, C. K. Kuhl, R. E. Hendrick, E. D. Pisano, L. Hanna, S. Peacock, S. F. Smazal, D. D. Maki, T. B. Julian, et al. MRI Evaluation of the Contralateral Breast in Women with Recently Diagnosed Breast Cancer N. Engl. J. Med., March 29, 2007; 356(13): 1295 - 1303. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. Saslow, C. Boetes, W. Burke, S. Harms, M. O. Leach, C. D. Lehman, E. Morris, E. Pisano, M. Schnall, S. Sener, et al. American Cancer Society Guidelines for Breast Screening with MRI as an Adjunct to Mammography CA Cancer J Clin, March 1, 2007; 57(2): 75 - 89. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. A. Harvey Unusual Breast Cancers: Useful Clues to Expanding the Differential Diagnosis Radiology, March 1, 2007; 242(3): 683 - 694. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. A. Berg, J. D. Blume, J. B. Cormack, and E. B. Mendelson Operator Dependence of Physician-performed Whole-Breast US: Lesion Detection and Characterization. Radiology, November 1, 2006; 241(2): 355 - 365. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. A. Berg, J. D. Blume, J. B. Cormack, E. B. Mendelson, and E. L. Madsen Lesion Detection and Characterization in a Breast US Phantom: Results of the ACRIN 6666 Investigators Radiology, June 1, 2006; 239(3): 693 - 702. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. L. Stefanick, G. L. Anderson, K. L. Margolis, S. L. Hendrix, R. J. Rodabough, E. D. Paskett, D. S. Lane, F. A. Hubbell, A. R. Assaf, G. E. Sarto, et al. Effects of Conjugated Equine Estrogens on Breast Cancer and Mammography Screening in Postmenopausal Women With Hysterectomy JAMA, April 12, 2006; 295(14): 1647 - 1657. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. Mathieu, S. Mazy, B. Willemart, M. Destine, G. Mazy, and M. Lonneux Inconclusive Triple Diagnosis in Breast Cancer Imaging: Is There a Place for Scintimammography? J. Nucl. Med., October 1, 2005; 46(10): 1574 - 1581. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. A. Berg Sonographically Depicted Breast Clustered Microcysts: Is Follow-Up Appropriate? Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2005; 185(4): 952 - 959. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
