Advertisement

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 167, Issue 2, pp 495–502 | Cite as

Usefulness of abbreviated breast MRI screening for women with a history of breast cancer surgery

  • Bo Hwa Choi
  • Nami Choi
  • Mi Young Kim
  • Jung-Hyun Yang
  • Young Bum Yoo
  • Hae Kyoung Jung
Clinical trial
  • 308 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

We investigated the usefulness of abbreviated breast MRI (AB-MRI), including fat-suppressed T2-weighted imaging, pre- and postcontrast image acquisition, and subtracted maximum-intensity projection imaging, for the screening of women with a history of breast cancer surgery.

Methods

Between October 2014 and March 2016, a total of 799 AB-MRI examinations were performed for 725 women with a history of breast cancer surgery. The image acquisition time was 8.5 min. Screening mammography, ultrasound, and AB-MRI were generally performed around the same time. The cancer detection rate, positive predictive values for recall and biopsy, sensitivity and specificity of screening MRI, and rate of malignancy belonging to each breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) category were assessed.

Results

AB-MRI detected 12 malignancies in 12 women (15.0 cancers per 1000 cases). Seven of these 12 malignancies were initially invisible on ultrasound and mammography, although subsequent targeted ultrasound revealed lesions corresponding to the MRI-detected lesions. The positive predictive values for recall and biopsy and sensitivity and specificity values for screening MRI were 12.4, 61.5, 100, and 89.2%, respectively. The rates of malignancies belonging to categories 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the BI-RADS were 0, 0, 4.8, and 57.1%, respectively.

Conclusions

The diagnostic performance of screening AB-MRI for women with a history of breast cancer surgery is acceptable, with the advantages of short examination and interpretation times and low costs. Thus, it could be used as a main screening modality that may replace conventional imaging in breast cancer survivors.

Keywords

Breast cancer Mammography MRI Screening Ultrasound 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J et al (2002) Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347:1233–1241CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L et al (2002) Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347:1227–1232CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anderson SJ, Wapnir I, Dignam JJ et al (2009) Prognosis after ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence and locoregional recurrences in patients treated by breast-conserving therapy in five national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project protocols of node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 27:2466–2473CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gao X, Fisher SG, Emami B (2003) Risk of second primary cancer in the contralateral breast in women treated for early-stage breast cancer: a population-based study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 56:1038–1045CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Houssami N, Ciatto S, Martinelli F et al (2009) Early detection of second breast cancers improves prognosis in breast cancer survivors. Ann Oncol 20:1505–1510CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dershaw DD, Shank B, Reisinger S (1987) Mammographic findings after breast cancer treatment with local excision and definitive irradiation. Radiology 164:455–461CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    De la Rochefordière A, Mouret-Fourme E, Asselain B et al (1996) Metachronous contralateral breast cancer as first event of relapse. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 36:615–621CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kollias J, Evans AJ, Wilson ARM et al (2000) Value of contralateral surveillance mammography for primary breast cancer follow-up. World J Surg 24:983–989CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hill-Kayser CE, Harris EE, Hwang W et al (2006) Twenty-year incidence and patterns of contralateral breast cancer after breast conservation treatment with radiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 66:1313–1319CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Robinson A, Speers C, Olivotto I et al (2007) Method of detection of new contralateral primary breast cancer in younger versus older women. Clin Breast Cancer 7:705–709CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weinstock C, Bigenwald R, Hochman T et al (2012) Outcomes of surveillance for contralateral breast cancer in patients less than age 60 at the time of initial diagnosis. Curr Oncol 19:e160–e164CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Orel SG, Troupin RH, Patterson EA et al (1992) Breast cancer recurrence after lumpectomy and irradiation: role of mammography in detection. Radiology 183:201–206CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grosse A, Schreer I, Frischbier H et al (1997) Results of breast conserving therapy for early breast cancer and the role of mammographic follow-up. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 38:761–767CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ashkanani F, Sarkar T, Needham G et al (2001) What is achieved by mammographic surveillance after breast conservation treatment for breast cancer? Am J Surg 182:207–210CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Joseph E, Hyacinthe M, Lyman GH et al (1998) Evaluation of an intensive strategy for follow-up and surveillance of primary breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 5:522–528CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gweon HM, Cho N, Han W et al (2014) Breast MR imaging screening in women with a history of breast conservation therapy. Radiology 272:366–373CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brennan S, Liberman L, Dershaw DD et al (2010) Breast MRI screening of women with a personal history of breast cancer. Am J Roentgenol 195:510–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Strobel K et al (2014) Abbreviated breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): first postcontrast subtracted images and maximum-intensity projection—a novel approach to breast cancer screening with MRI. J Clin Oncol 32:2304–2310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    D’Orsi CJ (2013) ACR BI-RADS atlas: breast imaging reporting and data systemGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    American College of Radiology (2003) Breast imaging reporting and data system atlas (BI-RADS atlas). American College of Radiology 98, RestonGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Eby PR, DeMartini WB, Gutierrez RL et al (2009) Characteristics of probably benign breast MRI lesions. Am J Roentgenol 193:861–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eby PR, DeMartini WB, Gutierrez RL et al (2010) Probably benign lesions detected on breast MR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 18:309–321CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D et al (2012) Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA 307:1394–1404CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cho N, Han W, Han BK et al (2017) Breast cancer screening with mammography plus ultrasonography or magnetic resonance imaging in women 50 years or younger at diagnosis and treated with breast conservation therapy. JAMA Oncol. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.1256 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schacht DV, Yamaguchi K, Lai J et al (2014) Importance of a personal history of breast cancer as a risk factor for the development of subsequent breast cancer: results from screening breast MRI. Am J Roentgenol 202:289–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Giess CS, Poole PS, Chikarmane SA et al (2015) Screening breast MRI in patients previously treated for breast cancer: diagnostic yield for cancer and abnormal interpretation rate. Acad Radiol 22:1331–1337CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Weinstock C, Campassi C, Goloubeva O et al (2015) Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) surveillance in breast cancer survivors. SpringerPlus 4:459CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lehman CD, Lee JM, DeMartini WB et al (2016) Screening MRI in women with a personal history of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 108:djv349CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bevers TB, Anderson BO, Bonaccio E et al (2009) NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast cancer screening and diagnosis. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 7:1060–1096CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Khatcheressian JL, Wolff AC, Smith TJ et al (2006) American society of clinical oncology 2006 update of the breast cancer follow-up and management guidelines in the adjuvant setting. J Clin Oncol 24:5091–5097CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bennani-Baiti B, Baltzer PA (2017) MR imaging for diagnosis of malignancy in mammographic microcalcifications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology 283:692–701CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ballesio L, Savelli S, Angeletti M et al (2010) Breast MRI: are T2 IR sequences useful in the evaluation of breast lesions? Clin Imaging 34:77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kuhl CK, Klaschik S, Mielcarek P et al (1999) Do T2-weighted pulse sequences help with the differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions in dynamic breast MRI? J Magn Reson Imaging 9:187–196CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mann RM, Kuhl CK, Kinkel K et al (2008) Breast MRI: guidelines from the European society of breast imaging. Eur Radiol 18:1307–1318CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Heacock L, Melsaether AN, Heller SL et al (2016) Evaluation of a known breast cancer using an abbreviated breast MRI protocol: correlation of imaging characteristics and pathology with lesion detection and conspicuity. Eur J Radiol 85:815–823CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Erbas B, Provenzano E, Armes J et al (2006) The natural history of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a review. Breast Cancer Res Treat 97:135–144CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sanders ME, Schuyler PA, Dupont WD et al (2005) The natural history of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in women treated by biopsy only revealed over 30 years of long-term follow-up. Cancer 103:2481–2484CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Abe H, Mori N, Tsuchiya K et al (2016) Kinetic analysis of benign and malignant breast lesions with ultrafast dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: comparison with standard kinetic assessment. Am J Roentgenol 207:1159–1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Morrison CK, Henze Bancroft LC, DeMartini WB et al (2017) Novel high spatiotemporal resolution versus standard-of-care dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI: comparison of image quality. Invest Radiol 52:198–205CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Konkuk University Medical CenterKonkuk University School of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Surgery, Konkuk University Medical CenterKonkuk University School of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyGyeongsang National University School of Medicine and Gyeongsang National University Changwon HospitalChangwonRepublic of Korea
  4. 4.Department of Radiology, CHA Bundang Medical CenterCHA UniversitySeongnamRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations