J Breast Cancer.  2009 Jun;12(2):106-112. 10.4048/jbc.2009.12.2.106.

The Role of Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Detecting the Extent of Disease and Predicting the Prognosis of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ

• Chung YS
• Lee YS
• Jeh SK
• Song BJ
• Kim JS
• Jeon HM
• Jeong SS
• Park WC

• KMID: 2175208
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4048/jbc.2009.12.2.106

Abstract

PURPOSE: Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is widely used for the preoperative staging of breast cancer. In this study, we investigated a role of preoperative breast MRI for detecting the extent of disease and predicting the prognosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).
METHODS
From January 2002 to April 2008, preoperative MRI was performed for evaluating the extent of disease in 26 patients with DCIS. The MRI findings, the modified Van Nuys scores and the clinicopathological results were reviewed. The accuracy of breast MRI was analyzed with respect to the detection of tumor multiplicity and disease extending into the nipple, and this was compared with that of mammography.
RESULTS
For detecting multiple lesions, the sensitivity and specificity of breast MRI were 25.0% and 86.4%, respectively, and the results of mammography were 0.0% and 86.4%, respectively. The accuracy of breast MRI was 76.9% and that of mammography was 73.1%. For detecting tumor extension into the nipple, the sensitivity and specificity of breast MRI was 100.0% and 80.0%, respectively, and that for mammography was 0.0% and 92.0%. respectively. The accuracy of MRI was 80.8% and that for mammography was 88.5%. The MRI final assessment was not associated with the modified Van Nuys score (p=0.474).
CONCLUSION
For detecting the disease extent of DCIS, preoperative breast MRI is not superior to mammography due to the low specificity and accuracy of MRI. MRI did not show a definite ability to predict the prognosis of DCIS in this study.

Keyword

Ductal carcinoma in situ; Modified Van Nuys Prognostic Index; Magnetic Resonance Imaging

MeSH Terms

Breast
Breast Neoplasms
Carcinoma, Ductal
Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy
Magnetics
Magnets
Mammography
Nipples
Prognosis
Sensitivity and Specificity

Reference

1. Korean Breast Cancer Society. Nationwide Korean breast cancer data of 2004 using breast cancer registration program. J Breast Cancer. 2006. 9:151–161.

2. Korean Breast Cancer Society. Nationwide Korean breast cancer data of 2002. J Korean Breast Cancer Soc. 2004. 7:72–83.

3. Park YC, Kim JS, Noh DY, Park IA, Youn YK, Oh SK, et al. Clinical and histopathologic analysis of ductal carcinoma in situ. J Korean Surg Soc. 1997. 52:379–392.

4. Silverstein MJ, Lagios MD, Craig PH, Waisman JR, Lewinsky BS, Colburn WJ, et al. A prognostic index for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Cancer. 1996. 77:2267–2274.

5. Silverstein MJ. The University of Southern California/Van Nuys Prognostic index for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Am J Surg. 2003. 186:337–343.

6. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Bieling HB, Wardelmann E, Leutner CC, Koenig R, et al. MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study. Lancet. 2007. 370:485–492.

7. Hwang ES, Kinkel K, Esserman LJ, Lu Y, Weidner N, Hylton NM. Magnetic resonance imaging in patients diagnosed with ductal carcinoma-in-situ: value in the diagnosis of residual disease, occult invasion, and multicentricity. Ann Surg Oncol. 2003. 10:381–388.

8. Heywang-Kobrunner SH. Diagnosis of breast cancer with MR-Review after 1250 patient examinations. Electromedica. 1993. 61:43–52.

9. Kaiser WA. False-positive results in dynamic MR mammography. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 1994. 2:539–555.

10. Orel SG, Schnall MD, LiVolsi VA, Troupin RH. Suspicious breast lesions: MR imaging with radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiology. 1994. 190:485–493.

11. Harms SE, Flamig DP, Hesley KL, Meiches MD, Jensen RA, Evans WP, et al. MR imaging of the breast with rotating delivery of excitation off resonance: clinical experience with pathologic correlation. Radiology. 1993. 187:493–501.

12. Boetes C, Barentsz JO, Mus RD, van der Sluis RF, van Erning LJ, Hendriks JH, et al. MR characterization of suspicious breast lesions with a gadolinium-enhanced turboFLASH subtraction technique. Radiology. 1994. 193:777–781.

13. Gilles R, Guinebretière JM, Lucidarme O, Cluzel P, Janaud G, Finet JF, et al. Nonpalpable breast tumors: diagnosis with contrast-enhanced subtraction dynamic MR imaging. Radiology. 1994. 191:625–631.

14. Fobben ES, Rubin CZ, Kalisher L, Dembner AG, Seltzer MH, Santoro EJ. Breast MR imaging with commercially available techniques: radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiology. 1995. 196:143–152.

15. Stomper PC, Herman S, Klippenstein DL, Winston JS, Edge SB, Arredondo MA, et al. Suspect breast lesions: findings at dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging correlated with mammographic and pathologic features. Radiology. 1995. 197:387–395.

16. Holland R, Veling SH, Mravunac M, Hendriks JH. Histologic multifocality of Tis, T1-2 breast carcinomas. Implications for clinical trials of breast-conserving surgery. Cancer. 1985. 56:979–990.

17. 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. 196:115–122.

18. Boetes C, Mus RD, Holland R, Barentsz JO, Strijk SP, Wobbes T, et al. Breast tumors: comparative accuracy of MR imaging relative to mammography and US for demonstrating extent. Radiology. 1995. 197:743–747.

19. Lagios MD, Westdahl PR, Rose MR. Sommers SG, Rosen PP, editors. The concept and implications of multicentricity in breast carcinoma. Pathology annual. 1981. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts;83–102.

20. DeMartini W, Lehman C, Partridge S. Breast MRI for cancer detection and characterization: a review of evidence-based clinical applications. Acad Radiol. 2008. 15:408–416.

21. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, Morakkabati-Spitz N, Wardelmann E, Fimmers R, et al. Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005. 23:8469–8476.

22. Leach MO, Boggis CR, Dixon AK, Easton DF, Eeles RA, Evans DG, et al. Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS). Lancet. 2005. 365:1769–1778.

23. Lehman CD, Gatsonis 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. 356:1295–1303.

24. Menell JH, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, Abramson AF, Brogi E, Liberman L. Determination of the presence and extent of pure ductal carcinoma in situ by mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Breast J. 2005. 11:382–390.

25. Sardanelli F, Podo F, D'Agnolo G, Verdecchia A, Santaquilani M, Musumeci R, et al. Multicenter comparative multimodality surveillance of women at genetic-familial high risk for breast cancer (HIBCRIT study): interim results. Radiology. 2007. 242:698–715.

26. Uematsu T, Yuen S, Kasami M, Uchida Y. Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging, multidetector row computed tomography, ultrasonography, and mammography for tumor extension of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008. 112:461–474.

27. Menell JH, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, Abramson AF, Brogi E, Liberman L. Determination of the presence and extent of pure ductal carcinoma in situ by mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Breast J. 2005. 11:382–390.

28. Sardanelli F, Bacigalupo L, Carbonaro L, Esseridou A, Giuseppetti GM, Panizza P, et al. What is the sensitivity of mammography and dynamic MR imaging for DCIS if the whole-breast histopathology is used as a reference standard? Radiol Med. 2008. 113:439–451.

29. Bazzocchi M, Zuiani C, Panizza P, Del Frate C, Soldano F, Isola M, et al. Contrast-enhanced breast MRI in patients with suspicious microcalcifications on mammography: results of a multicenter trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006. 186:1723–1732.

30. Cao Y, Paner GP, Kahn LB, Rajan PB. Noninvasive carcinoma of the breast: angiogenesis and cell proliferation. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2004. 128:893–896.

31. Boetes C, Mann RM. Ductal carcinoma in situ and breast MRI. Lancet. 2007. 370:459–460.

32. Mariano MN, van den Bosch MA, Daniel BL, Nowels KW, Birdwell RL, Fong KJ, et al. Contrast-enhanced MRI of ductal carcinoma in situ: characteristics of a new intensity-modulated parametric mapping technique correlated with histopathologic findings. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2005. 22:520–526.

33. Facius M, Renz DM, Neubauer H, Böttcher J, Gajda M, Camara O, et al. Characteristics of ductal carcinoma in situ in magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Imaging. 2007. 31:394–400.