J Breast Cancer.  2010 Jun;13(2):154-159. 10.4048/jbc.2010.13.2.154.

Limitations of Conventional Contrast-enhanced MRI in Selecting Sentinel Node Biopsy Candidates among DCIS Patients

• Moon HG
• Han W
• Lee JW
• Ko E
• Kim EK
• Yu JH
• Jung SY
• Lyou CY
• Moon WK
• Hwang KT
• Noh DY

• KMID: 2286540
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4048/jbc.2010.13.2.154

Abstract

PURPOSE
A better predictive model for occult invasive disease in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) patients is essential to guide the tailored use of sentinel node biopsies. We hypothesized that recent improvement of contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) could provide more accurate information on the presence of occult invasion in DCIS patients.
METHODS
From a prospectively maintained database, we identified 143 DCIS patients diagnosed with needle biopsies in whom MRI images were available.
RESULTS
Sixty-five patients (45.5%) were upstaged to invasive carcinoma after curative surgery. Ultrasonographic lesion size, mass-appearance on mammography, type of needle used, and the presence of suspicious microinvasive foci were associated with increased likelihood of upstaging. Among the features of MRI, only mass-appearance was significantly associated with the presence of invasive disease (p=0.002). However, up to 50% of masses in MRI cases had massappearance on mammography as well. Other morphologic and pharmacokinetic features of MRI, such as shape, margin, and patterns of enhancement and washout, did not have a significant association.
CONCLUSION
Among various morphologic and pharmacokinetic parameters of contrast-enhanced MRI, only mass-appearance was associated with occult invasive disease. Our results show the limitations of current contrast-enhanced MRI in predicting invasive disease in patients with preoperative diagnoses of DCIS.

Keyword

Breast neoplasms; Magnetic resonance imaging; Noninfiltrating intraductal carcinoma; Sentinel lymph node biopsy

MeSH Terms

Biopsy
Biopsy, Needle
Breast
Breast Neoplasms
Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Mammography
Needles
Nitriles
Prospective Studies
Pyrethrins
Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy
Nitriles
Pyrethrins

Reference

1. Kuerer HM, Albarracin CT, Yang WT, Cardiff RD, Brewster AM, Symmans WF, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ: state of the science and roadmap to advance the field. J Clin Oncol. 2009. 27:279–288.

2. Morrow M. Axillary surgery in DCIS: is less more? Ann Surg Oncol. 2008. 15:2641–2642.

3. Sakorafas GH, Farley DR, Peros G. Recent advances and current controversies in the management of DCIS of the breast. Cancer Treat Rev. 2008. 34:483–497.

4. Lee JW, Han W, Ko E, Cho J, Kim EK, Jung SY, et al. Sonographic lesion size of ductal carcinoma in situ as a preoperative predictor for the presence of an invasive focus. J Surg Oncol. 2008. 98:15–20.

5. Ansari B, Ogston SA, Purdie CA, Adamson DJ, Brown DC, Thompson AM. Meta-analysis of sentinel node biopsy in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Br J Surg. 2008. 95:547–554.

6. Lyman GH, Giuliano AE, Somerfield MR, Benson AB 3rd, Bodurka DC, Burstein HJ, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline recommendations for sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005. 23:7703–7720.

7. Morrow M, Strom EA, Bassett LW, Dershaw DD, Fowble B, Giuliano A, et al. Standard for breast conservation therapy in the management of invasive breast carcinoma. CA Cancer J Clin. 2002. 52:277–300.

8. Leonard GD, Swain SM. Ductal carcinoma in situ, complexities and challenges. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004. 96:906–920.

9. Mansel RE, Fallowfield L, Kissin M, Goyal A, Newcombe RG, Dixon JM, et al. Randomized multicenter trial of sentinel node biopsy versus standard axillary treatment in operable breast cancer: the ALMANAC Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006. 98:599–609.

10. Porembka MR, Abraham RL, Sefko JA, Deshpande AD, Jeffe DB, Margenthaler JA. Factors associated with lymph node assessment in ductal carcinoma in situ: analysis of 1988-2002 seer data. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008. 15:2709–2719.

11. 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.

12. Schouten van der Velden AP, Boetes C, Bult P, Wobbes T. The value of magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis and size assessment of in situ and small invasive breast carcinoma. Am J Surg. 2006. 192:172–178.

13. Hata T, Takahashi H, Watanabe K, Takahashi M, Taguchi K, Itoh T, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative evaluation of breast cancer: a comparative study with mammography and ultrasonography. J Am Coll Surg. 2004. 198:190–197.

14. Hylton N. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: opportunities to improve breast cancer management. J Clin Oncol. 2005. 23:1678–1684.

15. Groves AM, Warren RM, Godward S, Rajan PS. Characterization of pure high-grade DCIS on magnetic resonance imaging using the evolving breast MR lexicon terminology: can it be differentiated from pure invasive disease? Magn Reson Imaging. 2005. 23:733–738.

16. 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.

17. Moon HG, Han W, Lee JW, Ko E, Kim EK, Yu JH, et al. Age and HER2 expression status affect MRI accuracy in predicting residual tumor extent after neo-adjuvant systemic treatment. Ann Oncol. 2009. 20:636–641.

18. American College of Radiology. ACR BI-RADS Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: Breast Imaging Atlas. 2003. 4th ed. Reston: American College of Radiology.

19. Orel S. Who should have breast magnetic resonance imaging evaluation? J Clin Oncol. 2008. 26:703–711.

20. Hu M, Yao J, Carroll DK, Weremowicz S, Chen H, Carrasco D, et al. Regulation of in situ to invasive breast carcinoma transition. Cancer Cell. 2008. 13:394–406.

21. Brown LF, Guidi AJ, Schnitt SJ, Van De Water L, Iruela-Arispe ML, Yeo TK, et al. Vascular stroma formation in carcinoma in situ, invasive carcinoma, and metastatic carcinoma of the breast. Clin Cancer Res. 1999. 5:1041–1056.

22. Gadre SA, Perkins GH, Sahin AA, Sneige N, Deavers MT, Middleton LP. Neovascularization in mucinous ductal carcinoma in situ suggests an alternative pathway for invasion. Histopathology. 2008. 53:545–553.

23. Goyal A, Douglas-Jones A, Monypenny I, Sweetland H, Stevens G, Mansel RE. Is there a role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in ductal carcinoma in situ?: analysis of 587 cases. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006. 98:311–314.

24. Jackman RJ, Burbank F, Parker SH, Evans WP 3rd, Lechner MC, Richardson TR, et al. Stereotactic breast biopsy of nonpalpable lesions: determinants of ductal carcinoma in situ underestimation rates. Radiology. 2001. 218:497–502.

25. Wilkie C, White L, Dupont E, Cantor A, Cox CE. An update of sentinel lymph node mapping in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. Am J Surg. 2005. 190:563–566.

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

27. Nielsen BS, Rank F, Illemann M, Lund LR, Dano K. Stromal cells associated with early invasive foci in human mammary ductal carcinoma in situ coexpress urokinase and urokinase receptor. Int J Cancer. 2007. 120:2086–2095.

28. Hu M, Peluffo G, Chen H, Gelman R, Schnitt S, Polyak K. Role of COX-2 in epithelial-stromal cell interactions and progression of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009. 106:3372–3377.

29. Okumura Y, Yamamoto Y, Zhang Z, Toyama T, Kawasoe T, Ibusuki M, et al. Identification of biomarkers in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast with microinvasion. BMC Cancer. 2008. 8:287.

30. Jung EJ, Moon HG, Cho BI, Jeong CY, Joo YT, Lee YJ, et al. Galectin-1 expression in cancer-associated stromal cells correlates tumor invasiveness and tumor progression in breast cancer. Int J Cancer. 2007. 120:2331–2338.