High grade and non-high grade ductal carcinoma in situ on dynamic MR mammography: characteristic findings for signal increase and morphological pattern of enhancement.

The objective of this review is to describe characteristic MR mammographic findings for signal increase and morphological patterns of enhancement in pure ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and to differentiate between high grade and non-high grade lesions. The dynamic MR examination (1.5 T unit, contrast enhanced T(1) weighted two dimensional fast field echo, 96 ms repetition time, 5.0 ms echo time, 80 degrees flip angle) of 39 consecutive patients with pure DCIS was evaluated retrospectively. Categories were defined for signal increase (C1=normal, C2=slow, continuous, C3=strong initial and slow further increase, C4=strong initial increase followed by a plateau phenomenon, and C5=strong initial increase followed by a washout phenomenon) and morphological patterns (M0=no pattern observed, M1=linear or linear-branched, M2=segmental dotted or granular, M3=segmental homogeneous, and M4=focal spot-like). Time-intensity curves showing a C4 and C5 signal increase were considered suspicious for malignancy. All cases were correlated with histology. 62% of all tumours had a plateau or washout (C4, C5), 77% showed a strong initial signal increase (C3-C5). On evaluation of time-intensity curves alone MR mammography (MRM) findings were suspicious for malignancy in 62% of all DCIS cases. A segmental enhancement was found in 82% of all enhancing tumors and the M2 pattern in 73%. In a combined analysis of signal increase and morphology, 70% of non-high grade and 92% of high grade DCISs were correctly described as suspicious. The difference between non-high grade and high grade DCIS was not significant (p=0.148), while significant differences were found between G1 and G3 DCISs and between G1 and G2 DCISs (p<0.05). All G2 and G3 DCISs showed noticeable signal enhancement. The mean histological tumour size of non-high grade DCISs was smaller than that for high grade DCIS (p<0.05). The hallmark of DCIS on dynamic MRM was unilateral segmental enhancement, most commonly with a granular dotted morphology (M2). Hormone effects need to be considered as the main differential diagnosis. Signal enhancement kinetics similar to invasive carcinoma were seen in the majority of cases. A combined analysis of morphological pattern and signal enhancement considerably improved rate of detection. G2 and G3 DCISs were correctly diagnosed with a significantly higher rate of detection (92%) than G1 DCIS (53%) (p<0.05). Different average size of G1, G2 and G3 DCIS on pathology cannot be excluded as a reason for differences found. Normal MRM seems to exclude high grade DCIS.

[1]  S G Orel,et al.  MR imaging of the breast. , 2000, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[2]  R. Mansel,et al.  E-Cadherin (E-cad) expression in duct carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast , 2005, Virchows Archiv.

[3]  C. Claussen,et al.  Dynamische 3-D-MR-Mammographie mit Hilfe einer schnellen Gradienten-Echo-Sequenz , 1995 .

[4]  A. Purushotham,et al.  Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast -- among factors predicting for recurrence, distance from the nipple is important. , 2001, European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology.

[5]  Donald E. Henson,et al.  Relation of tumor size, lymph node status, and survival in 24,740 breast cancer cases , 1989 .

[6]  K. Kerlikowske,et al.  Incidence of and treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. , 1996, JAMA.

[7]  S. Harms,et al.  Integration of breast MRI in clinical trials , 2001, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[8]  S G Orel,et al.  Differentiating benign from malignant enhancing lesions identified at MR imaging of the breast: are time-signal intensity curves an accurate predictor? , 1999, Radiology.

[9]  M D Schnall,et al.  Staging of suspected breast cancer: effect of MR imaging and MR-guided biopsy. , 1995, Radiology.

[10]  W. Dupont,et al.  Intraductal carcinoma of the breast: Follow‐up after biopsy only , 1982, Cancer.

[11]  S. Schnitt,et al.  Ductal carcinoma in situ (intraductal carcinoma) of the breast. , 1988, The New England journal of medicine.

[12]  M. J. Silverstein,et al.  Prognostic classification of breast ductal carcinoma-in-situ , 1995, The Lancet.

[13]  S. Heywang,et al.  MR imaging of the breast with Gd-DTPA: use and limitations. , 1989, Radiology.

[14]  M. Schnall,et al.  MR imaging of ductal carcinoma in situ. , 1997, Radiology.

[15]  D Krebs,et al.  Breast MR imaging screening in 192 women proved or suspected to be carriers of a breast cancer susceptibility gene: preliminary results. , 2000, Radiology.

[16]  M. Silverstein,et al.  A prognostic index for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast , 1996, Cancer.

[17]  Lindsay W. Turnbull,et al.  Dynamic Contrast Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Breast Is Superior to Triple Assessment for the Pre-Operative Detection of Multifocal Breast Cancer , 1999, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[18]  N M Hylton,et al.  Challenges to interpretation of breast MRI , 2001, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[19]  D. Page,et al.  Combined histologic and cytologic criteria for the diagnosis of mammary atypical ductal hyperplasia. , 1992, Human pathology.

[20]  M. Lagios Heterogeneity of duct carcinoma in situ (DCIS): relationship of grade and subtype analysis to local recurrence and risk of invasive transformation. , 1995, Cancer letters.

[21]  J R Reichenbach,et al.  Assessment of breast tissue changes on hormonal replacement therapy using MRI: a pilot study. , 1999, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[22]  M. J. van de Vijver,et al.  Ductal carcinoma in situ: a proposal for a new classification. , 1994, Seminars in diagnostic pathology.

[23]  W. Kaiser,et al.  MR imaging of the breast: fast imaging sequences with and without Gd-DTPA. Preliminary observations. , 1989, Radiology.

[24]  C. Kuhl,et al.  Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? , 1999, Radiology.

[25]  G. Glover,et al.  Breast disease: dynamic spiral MR imaging. , 1998, Radiology.

[26]  Fokale und diffuse Läsionen in der dynamischen MR-Mammographie gesunder Probandinnen , 1995 .

[27]  M. Reiser,et al.  Morphologie und Anreicherungsverhalten des duktalen In-situ-Karzinoms in der dynamischen MR-Mammographie bei 1,0 T , 1997 .

[28]  J O Barentsz,et al.  Breast tumors: comparative accuracy of MR imaging relative to mammography and US for demonstrating extent. , 1995, Radiology.

[29]  R. Gilles,et al.  Ductal carcinoma in situ: MR imaging-histopathologic correlation. , 1995, Radiology.

[30]  M. Fernö,et al.  Cell biological factors in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast-relationship to ipsilateral local recurrence and histopathological characteristics. , 2001, European journal of cancer.

[31]  W. Gregory,et al.  The classification of ductal carcinoma in situ and its association with biological markers. , 1994, Seminars in diagnostic pathology.

[32]  B. Daniel,et al.  Potential role of magnetic resonance imaging and other modalities in ductal carcinoma in situ detection. , 2001, Magnetic resonance imaging clinics of North America.

[33]  T. Hieken,et al.  Predicting the biologic behavior of ductal carcinoma in situ: an analysis of molecular markers. , 2001, Surgery.

[34]  U. Fischer,et al.  Das duktale In-situ-Karzinom in der dynamischen MR-Mammographie bei 1,5 T , 1996 .