Advertisement

Breast Imaging

  • Ravza Yilmaz
Chapter

Abstract

Imaging examination is an important tool for diagnosing cancer, guiding surgery and determining the therapeutic response based on morphological assessment. Mammography is an essential and widely used imaging modality for breast cancer screening, and it has led to a reduced mortality rate. Ultrasonography (US) examination and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are also offered as diagnostic techniques and as adjuncts for pre and postoperative workup. US is used primarily in diagnostic settings to characterize mammographic or palpable findings and evaluate axillary lymph nodes and as supplemental screening in patients at intermediate risk for developing breast cancer and dense breasts. MRI has a role in clinical diagnosis, problem solving, patient management, assessing the response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, evaluating silicone implant integrity and screening high-risk women. In addition, these imaging methods enable the diagnosis of minimally invasive tissues by directing percutaneous biopsy. The Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon is used to standardize breast imaging reports, improve communication with referring physicians, and provide a quality assurance tool.

Keywords

Mammography Magnetic resonance imaging Ultrasonography BI-RADS High-risk screening Tomosynthesis Elastography ROLL 

References

  1. 1.
    Sardanelli F, Aase H, Álvarez M, Azavedo E, Baarslag HJ, Balleyguier C, et al. Position paper on screening for breast cancer by the European Society of Breast Imaging and 30 national breast radiology bodies from Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Moldova, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Turkey. Eur Radiol. 2017;27:2737–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Prummel MV, Muradali D, Shumak R, Majpruz V, Brown P, Jiang H, et al. Digital compared with screen-film mammography: measures of diagnostic accuracy among women screened in the Ontario breast screening program. Radiology. 2016;278:365–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bluekens AM, Holland R, Karssemeijer N, Broeders MJ, den Heeten GJ. Comparison of digital screening mammography and screen-film mammography in the early detection of clinically relevant cancers: a multicenter study. Radiology. 2012;265:707–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hendrick RE, Pisano ED, Averbukh A, Moran C, Berns EA, Yaffe MJ, et al. Comparison of acquisition parameters and breast dose in digital mammography and screen-film mammography in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194:362–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hendrick RE. Radiation doses and cancer risks from breast imaging studies. Radiology. 2010;257:246–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rosenberg RD, Yankaskas BC, Abraham LA, Sickles DA, Lehman CD, Geller BM, et al. Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. Radiology. 2006;241:55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    American Cancer Society. What are the key statistics about breast cancer? 2017. http://www.cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/detailedguide/breast-cancer-key-statistics. Accessed 22 Sept 2017.
  8. 8.
    Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:614–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sardanelli F, Fallenberg EM, Clauser P, Trimboli RM, Camps-Herrero J, Helbich TH, European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI), with language review by Europa Donna–The European Breast Cancer Coalition, et al. Mammography: an update of the EUSOBI recommendations on information for women. Insights Imaging. 2017;8:11–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Freer PE. Mammographic breast density: impact on breast cancer risk and implications for screening. RadioGraphics. 2015;35:302–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bahl M, Baker JA, Kinsey EN, Ghate SV. Architectural distortion on mammography: correlation with pathologic outcomes and predictors of malignancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;205:1339–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shaheen R, Schimmelpenninck CA, Stoddart L, Raymond H, Slanetz PJ. Spectrum of diseases presenting as architectural distortion on mammography: multimodality radiologic imaging with pathologic correlation. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2011;32:351–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dibble EH, Lourenco AP, Baird GL, Ward RC, Maynard AS, Mainiero MB. Comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in the detection of architectural distortion. Eur Radiol. 2018;28:3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sickles EA. Findings at mammographic screening on only one standard projection: outcomes analysis. Radiology. 1998;208:471–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chesebro AL, Winkler NS, Birdwell RL, Giess CS. Developing asymmetries at mammography: a multimodality approach to assessment and management. RadioGraphics. 2016;36:322–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Leung JW, Sickles EA. Developing asymmetry identified on mammography: correlation with imaging outcome and pathologic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:667–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rao AA, Feneis J, Lalonde C, Ojeda-Fournier H. A pictorial review of changes in the BI-RADS fifth edition. RadioGraphics. 2016;36:623–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL, Dennis MA, Parker SH, Sisney GA. Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology. 1995;196:123–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zonderland HM, Coerkamp EG, Hermans J, van de Vijver MJ, van Voorthuisen AE. Diagnosis of breast cancer: contribution of US as an adjunct to mammography. Radiology. 1999;213:413–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mesurolle B, Helou T, EI-Khoury M, Edwardes M, Sutton EJ, Kao E. Tissue harmonic imaging, frequency compound imaging, and conventional imaging: use and benefit in breast sonography. J Ultrasound Med. 2007;26:1041–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hooley RJ, Greenberg KL, Stackhouse RM, Geisel JL, Butler RS, Philpotts LE. Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09–41. Radiology. 2012;265:59–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bedi DG, Krishnamurthy R, Krishnamurthy S, Edeiken BS, Le-Petross H, Fornage BD, et al. Cortical morphologic features of axillary lymph nodes as a predictor of metastasis in breast cancer: in vitro sonographic study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191:646–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ecanow JS, Abe H, Newstead GM, Ecanow DB, Jeske JM. Axillary staging of breast cancer: what the radiologist should know. RadioGraphics. 2013;33:1589–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Warren RML, Pointon L, Thompson D, Hoff R, Gilbert FJ, Padhani A, Easton D, et al. Reading protocol for dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images of the breast: sensitivity and specificity analysis. Radiology. 2005;236:779–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Peters NH, Borel Rinkes IH, Zuithoff NP, Mali WP, Moons KG, Peeters PH. Meta-analysis of MR imaging in the diagnosis of breast lesions. Radiology. 2008;246:116–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kul S, Cansu A, Alhan E, Dinc H, Gunes G, Reis A. Contribution of diffusion-weighted imaging to dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in the characterization of breast tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196:210–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lehman CD, Gastonis C, Kuhl CK, Hendrick RE, Pisano ED, Hanna L, et al. MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1295–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Orel SG, Schnall MD, Powell CM, Hochman MG, Solin LJ, Fowble BL, et al. Staging of suspected breast cancer: effect of MR imaging and MR-guided biopsy. Radiology. 1995;196:115–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Liberman L, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, Abramson AF, Tan LK. MR imaging of the ipsilateral breast in women with percutaneously proven breast cancer. Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180:901–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, Carter WB, Bhargavan M, Lewis RS, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology. 2004;233:830–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tozaki M, Fukuma E. 1H MR spectroscopy and diffusion-weighted imaging of the breast: are they useful tools for characterizing breast lesions before biopsy? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:840–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Partridge SC, Demartini WB, Kurland BF, Eby PR, White SW, Lehman CD. Differential diagnosis of mammographically and clinically occult breast lesions on diffusion-weighted MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;31:562–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yabuuchi H, Matsuo Y, Okafuji T, Kamitani T, Soeda H, Setoguchi T, et al. Enhanced mass on contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging: lesion characterization using combination of dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR images. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;28:1157–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE, Kopans DB, Castleberry DE, Opsahl-Ong BH, et al. Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology. 1997;205:399–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Caumo F, Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Macaskill P, Pellegrini M, Brunelli S, et al. Incremental effect from integrating 3D mammography (tomosynthesis) with 2D-mammography: increased breast cancer detection evident for screening centres in a population-based trial. Breast. 2014;23:76–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Haas BM, Kalra V, Geisel J, Raghu M, Durand M, Philpotts LE. Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. Radiology. 2013;269:694–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Bujnoch LJ, Kushwaha AC, Nordmann AS, Sexton R Jr. Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200:1401–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE, Poplack SP, Sumkin JH, Halpern EF, et al. Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology. 2013;266:104–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Dang PA, Freer PE, Humphrey KL, Halpern EF, Rafferty EA. Addition of tomosynthesis to conventional digital mammography: effect on image interpretation time of screening examinations. Radiology. 2014;270:49–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Peppard HR, Nicholson BE, Rochman CM, Merchant JK, Mayo RC 3rd, Harvey JA. Digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnostic setting: indications and clinical applications. RadioGraphics. 2015;35:975–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, Eben EB, Ekseth U, Haakenaasen U, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2013;267:47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lobbes MB, Lalji U, Houwers J, Nijssen EC, Nelemans PJ, van Roozendaal L, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in patients referred from the best cancer screening programme. Eur Radiol. 2014;24:1668–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Dromain C, Balleyguier C, Adler G, Garbay JR, Delaloge S. Contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Eur J Radiol. 2009;69:34–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Jochelson MS, Dershaw DD, Sung JS, Heerdt AS, Thornton C, Moskowitz CS, et al. Bilateral contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography: feasibility and comparison with conventional digital mammography and MR imaging in women with known breast carcinoma. Radiology. 2013;266:743–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Covington MF, Pizzitola VJ, Lorans R, Pockaj BA, Northfelt DW, Appleton CM, et al. The future of contrast-enhanced mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018;210:292–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Jochelson MS, Pinker K, Dershaw DD, Hughes M, Gibbons GF, Rahbar K, et al. Comparison of screening CEDM and MRI for women at increased risk for breast cancer: a pilot study. Eur J Radiol. 2017;97:37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Youk JH, Gweon HM, Son EJ. Shear-wave elastography in breast ultrasonography: the state of the art. Ultrasonography. 2017;36:300–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Itoh A, Ueno E, Tohno E, Kamma H, Takahashi H, Shiina T, et al. Breast disease: clinical application of US elastography for diagnosis. Radiology. 2006;239:341–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Schueller G, Jaromi S, Ponhold L, Fuchsjaeger M, Memarsadeghi M, Rudas M, et al. US-guided 14-gauge core-needle breast biopsy: results of a validation study in 1352 cases. Radiology. 2008;248:406–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Fishman JE, Milikowski C, Ramsinghani R, Velasquez MV, Aviram G. US-guided core-needle biopsy of the breast: how many specimens are necessary? Radiology. 2003;226:779–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sung JS, Lee CH, Morris EA, Comstock CE, Dershaw DD. Patient follow-up after concordant histologically benign imaging-guided biopsy of MRI-detected lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198:1464–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Li J, Dershaw DD, Lee CH, Kaplan J, Morris EA. MRI follow-up after concordant, histologically benign diagnosis of breast lesions sampled by MRI-guided biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:850–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Skinner KA, Silberman H, Sposto R, Silverstein MJ. Palpable breast cancers are inherently different from nonpalpable breast cancers. Ann Surg Oncol. 2001;8:705–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lovrics PJ, Cornacchi SD, Farrokhyar F, Garnett A, Chen V, Franic S, et al. The relationship between surgical factors and margin status after breast-conservation surgery for early stage breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2009;197:740–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Goudreau SH, Joseph JP, Seiler SJ. Preoperative radioactive seed localization for nonpalpable breast lesions: technique, pitfalls, and solutions. RadioGraphics. 2015;35:1319–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Rampaul RS, Dudley NJ, Thompson JZ, Burrell H, Evans AJ, Wilson AR, et al. Radioisotope for occult lesion localisation (ROLL) of the breast does not require extra radiation protection procedures. Breast. 2003;12:150–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Fung F, Cornacchi SD, Reedijk M, Hodgson N, Goldsmith CH, McCready D, et al. Breast cancer recurrence following radioguided seed localization and standard wire localization of nonpalpable invasive and in situ breast cancers: 5-year follow-up from a randomized controlled trial. Am J Surg. 2017;213:798–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Stelle L, Schoenheit T, Brubaker A, Tang X, Qu P, Cradock K, et al. Radioactive seed localization versus wire localization for nonpalpable breast lesions: a two-year initial experience at a large community hospital. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25:131–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Yilmaz MH, Kilic F, Icten GE, Aydogan F, Ozben V, Halac M, et al. Radio-guided occult lesion localisation for breast lesions under computer-aided MRI guidance: the first experience and initial results. Br J Radiol. 2012;85:395–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP, Corle DK, Green SB, Schairer C, et al. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989;81:1879–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Tyrer J, Duffy SW, Cuzick J. A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors. Stat Med. 2004;23:1111–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Gradishar WJ, Anderson BO, Balassanian R, Blair SL, Burstein HJ, Cyr A, et al. Breast cancer version 2.2015. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2015;13:448–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Lee CH, Dershaw DD, Kopans D, Evans P, Monsees B, Monticciolo D, et al. Breast cancer screening with imaging: recommendations from the Society of Breast Imaging and the ACR on the use of mammography, breast MRI, breast ultrasound, and other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer. J Am Coll Radiol. 2010;7:18–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Warner E, Messersmith H, Causer P, Eisen A, Shumak R, Plewes D. Systematic review: using magnetic resonance imaging to screen women at high risk for breast cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:671–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Lowry KP, Lee JM, Kong CY, McMahon PM, Gilmore ME, Cott Chubiz JE, et al. Annual screening strategies in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers: a comparative effectiveness analysis. Cancer. 2012;118:2021–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Lee MV, Katabathina VS, Bowerson ML, Mityul MI, Shetty AS, Elsayes KM, et al. BRCA-associated cancers: role of imaging in screening, diagnosis, and management. RadioGraphics. 2017;37:1005–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Berg WA, Blume J, Adams AM, Jong RA, Barr RG, Lehrer DE, et al. Reasons women at elevated risk of breast cancer refuse breast MR imaging screening: ACRIN 6666. Radiology. 2010;254:79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Strobel K, Schild HH, Hilgers RD, Bieling HB. 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. 2014;32:2304–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Dogan BE, Scoggins ME, Son JB, Wei W, Candelaria R, Yang WT, et al. American College of radiology-compliant short protocol breast MRI for high-risk breast cancer screening: a prospective feasibility study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018;210:214–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ravza Yilmaz
    • 1
  1. 1.Istanbul Medical Faculty, Department of RadiologyIstanbul UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations