Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 19, Issue 9, pp 3035–3041 | Cite as

Use of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Detection of Breast Cancer Recurrence: A Systematic Review

  • Edel Marie Quinn
  • Andrew Peter Coveney
  • Henry Paul Redmond
Breast Oncology

Abstract

Background

Diagnosis of breast cancer recurrence can be difficult as a result of the presence of scar tissue in the breast. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may be superior to traditional imaging in diagnosis of recurrence because of its ability to differentiate malignancy from scarring. Current guidelines on investigation of suspected breast cancer recurrence recommend MRI when other investigations have equivocal findings. We performed the first systematic review on this topic.

Methods

Literature search revealed 35 potentially relevant studies; 10 were included in final analysis. Included were clinical studies comparing MRI with another diagnostic modality for diagnosis of breast cancer recurrence, with at least 10 patients, in the English language. Data extraction focused on sensitivity and specificity of standard diagnostic modalities and MRI for diagnosis of local disease recurrence.

Results

In total 494 patients were assessed across 10 studies; all were case series. Sensitivity of MRI for detection of recurrence ranged 75–100 %, while specificity ranged 66.6–100 %. Both sensitivity and specificity increased when MRI was performed after a longer time interval from the original surgery, although the longest follow-up reported was only 36 months. A negative MRI can avoid the need for further biopsy.

Conclusions

Available data are based on clinically heterogeneous case series and superiority over standard triple assessment for breast cancer recurrence has not been proven. At present, MRI cannot be recommended in the routine diagnostic assessment for breast cancer recurrence but has a potentially useful role as a second-line investigation. A negative MRI is more useful than a positive MRI as positive MRIs require further investigation.

Keywords

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Invasive Lobular Carcinoma Breast Cancer Recurrence Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging Magnetic Resonance Imaging Technique 

Notes

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest or external funding sources.

References

  1. 1.
    Sardanelli F, Boetes C, Borisch B, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46:1296–316.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    National Collaborating Centre for Cancer. Early and locally advanced breast cancer: diagnosis and treatment. Cardiff, Wales: National Collaborating Centre for Cancer; 2009.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kimura M, Yanagita Y, Fujisawa T, Koida T. Study of time-course changes in annual recurrence rates for breast cancer: data analysis of 2,209 patients for 10 years post-surgery. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007;106:407–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mendelson EB. Evaluation of the postoperative breast. Radiol Clin North Am. 1992;30:107–38.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lewis-Jones HG, Whitehouse GH, Leinster SJ. The role of magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of local recurrent breast carcinoma. Clin Radiol. 1991;43:197–204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Preda L, Villa G, Rizzo S, et al. Magnetic resonance mammography in the evaluation of recurrence at the prior lumpectomy site after conservative surgery and radiotherapy. Breast Cancer Res. 2006;8:R53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Belli P, Costantini M, Romani M, Marano P, Pastore G. Magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer recurrence. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2002;73:223–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kerslake RW, Fox JN, Carleton PJ, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced and fat suppressed magnetic resonance imaging in suspected recurrent carcinoma of the breast: preliminary experience. Br J Radiol. 1994;67:1158–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Viehweg P, Heinig A, Lampe D, Buchmann J, Heywang-Kobrunner SH. Retrospective analysis for evaluation of the value of contrast-enhanced MRI in patients treated with breast conservative therapy. MAGMA. 1998;7:141–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Turnbull L, Brown S, Harvey I, et al. Comparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375(9714):563–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Houssami N, Hayes D. Review of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in breast cancer: should MRI be performed on all women with newly diagnosed, early stage breast cancer? CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59:290–302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bleicher RJ, Ciocca RM, Egleston BL, et al. Association of routine pretreatment magnetic resonance imaging with time to surgery, mastectomy rate and margin status. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209:180–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3:25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cohen EK, Leonhardt CM, Shumak RS, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in potential postsurgical recurrence of breast cancer: pitfalls and limitations. Can Assoc Radiol J. 1996;47:171–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gilles R, Guinebretiere JM, Shapeero LG, et al. Assessment of breast cancer recurrence with contrast-enhanced subtraction MR imaging: preliminary results in 26 patients. Radiology. 1993;177:473–8.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goerres GW, Michel SC, Fehr MK, et al. Follow-up of women with breast cancer: comparison between MRI and FDG PET. Eur Radiol. 2003;12:1635–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kramer S, Schulz-Wendtland R, Hagedorn K, Bautz W, Lang N. Magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of local recurrences in breast cancer. Anticancer Res. 1998;18:2159–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mumtaz H, Davidson T, Hall-Craggs MA, et al. Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and conventional triple assessment in locally recurrent breast cancer. Br J Surg. 1997;84:1147–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rieber A, Merkle E, Zeitler H, et al. Value of MR mammography in the detection and exclusion of recurrent breast carcinoma. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1997;21:780–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dao TH, Rahmouni A, Campana F, Laurfent M, Asselain B, Fourquet A. Tumor recurrence versus fibrosis in the irradiated breast: differentiation with dynamic gadolinium enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 1993;187:751–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ball C, Sackett D, Phillips B, et al. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendations. 1998. Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. http://www.cebm.net/levels_of_evidence.asp.
  22. 22.
    Drew PJ, Kerin MJ, Turnbull LW, et al. Routine screening for local recurrence following breast-conserving therapy for cancer with dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the breast. Ann Surg Oncol. 1998;5:265–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Daly CP, Jaeger B, Sill DS. Variable appearances of fat necrosis on breast MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191:1374–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ganau S, Tortjada L, Escribano F, Andreu X, Sentis M. The great mimicker: fat necrosis of the breast—magnetic resonance mammography approach. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2009;38:189–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Li J, Dershaw DD, Lee CF, Joo S, Morris EA. Breast MRI after conservation therapy: usual findings in routine follow-up examinations. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195:799–807.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ojeda-Fournier H, Olson LK, Rochelle M, Hodgens BD, Tong E, Yashar CM. Accelerated partial breast irradiation and posttreatment imaging evaluation. Radiographics. 2011;31:1701–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cilotti A, Iacconi C, Marini C, et al. Contrast-enahnced MR imaging in patients with BI-RADS 3–5 microcalcifications. Radiol Med. 2007;112:272–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Uematsu T, Yuen S, Kasami M, Uchida Y. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging in screening detected microcalcification lesions of the breast: is there any value? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007;103:269–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fiaschetti V, Pistolese CA, Perretta T, et al. 3–5 BI-RADs microcalcifications: correlation between MRI and histological findings. ISRN Oncol. 2011;2011:643890.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Peters NH, van Esser S, van den Bosch MA, et al. Preoperative MRI and surgical management in patients with nonpalpable breast cancer: the MONET—Randomised controlled trial. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47:879–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    American College of Radiology. Illustrated breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 1998.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edel Marie Quinn
    • 1
  • Andrew Peter Coveney
    • 1
  • Henry Paul Redmond
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Academic SurgeryCork University Hospital/University College CorkCorkIreland

Personalised recommendations