MRI of the Breast: Current Indications and Outlook to the Future

  • Karen Kinkel


Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast has gained widespread clinical acceptance due to a large effort in standardization of image acquisition and interpretation partly due to the extensive use of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon. The role of MRI of the breast has evolved from the traditional question about local recurrence of breast cancer to a variety of indications such as high-risk screening, evaluating response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, staging and screening for contralateral cancer, occult primary breast cancer, and implant evaluation [1, 2]. This jump from a third-line breast-imaging technique to a primary imaging technique is also due to the increased availability of MRI-guided biopsy systems and an increasing awareness for standardized follow-up protocols and quality assurance for MRI-only lesions [3]. This trend has encouraged newer indications, such as discordant radiopathologic findings, nipple discharge, or high-risk lesions after breast biopsy, for MRI of the breast to help solve complex clinical situations.


Breast Cancer BRCA1 Mutation Carrier Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging Fibrous Capsule Nipple Discharge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Mann RM, Kuhl CK, Kinkel K, Boetes C (2008) Breast MRI: guidelines from the European Society of Breast Imaging. Eur Radiol 18:1307–1318.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sardanelli F, Boetes C, Borisch B et al (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer 46:1296–1316.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Heywang-Köbrunner SH, Sinnatamby R, Lebeau A et al; Consensus Group (2009) Interdisciplinary consensus on the uses and technique of MR-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VAB): results of a European consensus meeting. Eur J Radiol 72:289–294.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kuhl C, Weigel S, Schrading S et al (2010) Prospective multicenter cohort study to refine management recommendations for women at elevated familial risk of breast cancer: the EVA trial. J Clin Oncol 28:1450–1457.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sardanelli F, Podo F, Santoro F et al; High Breast Cancer Risk Italian 1 (HIBCRIT-1) Study (2011) Multicenter surveillance of women at high genetic breast cancer risk using mammography, ultrasonography, and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (the high breast cancer risk Italian 1 study): final results. Invest Radiol 46:94–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schrading S, Kuhl CK (2008) Mammographic, US, and MR imaging phenotypes of familial breast cancer. Radiology 246:58–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chéreau E, Uzan C, Balleyguier C et al (2010) Characteristics, treatment, and outcome of breast cancers diagnosed in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers in intensive screening programs including magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Breast Cancer 10:113–118.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hölmich LR, Vejborg I, Conrad C et al (2005) The diagnosis of breast implant rupture: MRI findings compared with findings at explantation. Eur J Radiol 53:213–225.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Juanpere S, Perez E, Huc O et al (2011) Imaging of breast implants: a pictorial review. Insights Imaging 2:653–670.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bedrosian I, Mick R, Orel SG et al (2003) Changes in the surgical management of patients with breast carcinoma based on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer 98:468–473.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Turnbull L, Brown S, Harvey I et al (2010) Comparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 375:563–571.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Woodhams R, Kakita S, Hata H et al (2010) Identification of residual breast carcinoma following neoadjuvant chemotherapy: diffusion-weighted imaging—comparison with contrast-enhanced MR imaging and pathologic findings. Radiology 254:357–366.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Prevos R, Smidt ML, Tjan-Heijnen VC et al (2012) Pre-treatment differences and early response monitoring of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients using magnetic resonance imaging: a systematic review. Eur Radiol 22:2607–2616.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    de Bresser J, de Vos B, van der Ent F, Hulsewé K (2010) Breast MRI in clinically and mammographically occult breast cancer presenting with an axillary metastasis: a systematic review. Eur J Surg Oncol 36:114–119.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hirose M, Otsuki N, Hayano D et al (2006) Multi-volume fusion imaging of MR ductography and MR mammography for patients with nipple discharge. Magn Reson Med Sci 5:105–112.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Linda A, Zuiani C, Furlan A et al (2012) Nonsurgical management of high-risk lesions diagnosed at core needle biopsy: can malignancy be ruled out safely with breast MRI? AJR Am J Roentgenol 198:272–280.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bogner W, Gruber S, Pinker K et al (2009) Diffusion-weighted MR for differentiation of breast lesions at 3.0 T: how does selection of diffusion protocols affect diagnosis? Radiology 253:341–351.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gruber S, Debski BK, Pinker K et al (2011) Three-dimensional proton MR spectroscopic imaging at 3 T for the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions. Radiology 261:752–761.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karen Kinkel
    • 1
  1. 1.Clinique des GrangettesGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations