The Challenge of Imaging Dense Breast Parenchyma: Is Magnetic Resonance Mammography the Technique of Choice? A Comparative Study With X-Ray Mammography and Whole-Breast Ultrasound

Purpose:To establish the value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast in comparison to x-ray mammography and ultrasound for breast cancer evaluation in women with dense breast parenchyma. Materials and Methods:Two hundred thirty-eight women with dense breast parenchyma who were suspicious for breast cancer or inconclusive for the presence of breast lesions based on clinical examination, ultrasound or x-ray mammography, and who underwent breast MRI at 1.5 T before and after administration of 0.1 mmol/kg gadobenate dimeglumine were evaluated. Lesions considered malignant (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 4 or 5) on x-ray mammography and/or ultrasound and as BI-RADS 3, 4, or 5 on MRI were evaluated histologically. Other lesions were followed up at 6 and/or 18 months. The diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive and negative predictive values) of each technique was determined and compared using a general linear mixed model with appropriate correction for multiplicity. Results:At final diagnosis 121 of 238 (50.8%) women had one or more confirmed malignant lesions, whereas 117 (49.2%) had benign lesions or no lesions. Among 97 women who underwent all 3 techniques more lesions (malignant and benign) were detected with breast MRI (n = 135) than with x-ray mammography (n = 85) or ultrasound (n = 107) and diagnostic confidence was greater. In terms of patient-based diagnostic accuracy breast MRI was significantly (P[r] < 0.0001) superior to both x-ray mammography and ultrasound (96.9% accuracy for MRI vs. 60.8% for mammography and 66.0% for US). Malignant lesions were histologically confirmed in 55 of 97 women who underwent all 3 techniques. Breast MRI detected more cases of multifocal, multicentric, and contralateral disease and fewer misdiagnoses occurred. Overall, breast MRI led to a modification of the surgical approach for 28 (23.1%) of the 121 women with diagnosed malignant disease. Conclusion:Breast MRI should be considered for routine breast cancer evaluation in women with dense breast parenchyma.

[1]  Gerald A Kirk,et al.  Gadodiamide-associated nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: why radiologists should be concerned. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[2]  C. Catalano,et al.  Contrast-enhanced MR mammography: improved lesion detection and differentiation with gadobenate dimeglumine. , 2008, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[3]  I. Wilkinson,et al.  Influence of Human Serum Albumin on Longitudinal and Transverse Relaxation Rates (R1 and R2) of Magnetic Resonance Contrast Agents , 2006, Investigative radiology.

[4]  T. M. Kolb,et al.  Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. , 2002, Radiology.

[5]  M. Yaffe,et al.  American Cancer Society Guidelines for Breast Screening with MRI as an Adjunct to Mammography , 2007, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[6]  J. Weyler,et al.  MR mammography in the pre-operative staging of breast cancer in patients with dense breast tissue: comparison with mammography and ultrasound , 2004, European Radiology.

[7]  J. Mintorovitch,et al.  Comparison of Magnetic Properties of MRI Contrast Media Solutions at Different Magnetic Field Strengths , 2005, Investigative radiology.

[8]  L. Philpotts.  Will improved vascular mapping achieved with gadobenate dimeglumine aid in interpretation of breast MR images? , 2005, Radiology.

[9]  I. Imaz,et al.  Overall Breast Density in MR Mammography: Diagnostic and Therapeutic Implications in Breast Cancer , 2006, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[10]  C R Key,et al.  Biologic characteristics of interval and screen-detected breast cancers. , 2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[11]  B A Miller,et al.  Recent trends in U.S. breast cancer incidence, survival, and mortality rates. , 1996, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[12]  M. Reiser,et al.  Classification of Small Contrast Enhancing Breast Lesions in Dynamic Magnetic Resonance Imaging Using a Combination of Morphological Criteria and Dynamic Analysis Based on Unsupervised Vector-Quantization , 2008, Investigative radiology.

[13]  R Holland,et al.  Mammographically occult breast cancer: A pathologic and radiologic study , 1983, Cancer.

[14]  Frank J Rybicki,et al.  Biochemical safety profiles of gadolinium‐based extracellular contrast agents and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis , 2007, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[15]  K. Kerlikowske,et al.  Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. , 1996, JAMA.

[16]  Francesco Sardanelli,et al.  Gadobenate Dimeglumine as a Contrast Agent for Dynamic Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Effect of Higher Initial Enhancement Thresholds on Diagnostic Performance , 2008, Investigative radiology.

[17]  C. Catalano,et al.  Breast lesion detection and characterization at contrast-enhanced MR mammography: gadobenate dimeglumine versus gadopentetate dimeglumine. , 2005, Radiology.

[18]  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.

[19]  M. Oudkerk,et al.  Gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI of the breast: analysis of dose response and comparison with gadopentetate dimeglumine. , 2003, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[20]  Massimo Bazzocchi,et al.  Sensitivity of MRI versus mammography for detecting foci of multifocal, multicentric breast cancer in Fatty and dense breasts using the whole-breast pathologic examination as a gold standard. , 2004, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[21]  P. Porter,et al.  Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. , 2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[22]  C K Kuhl,et al.  Dynamic image interpretation of MRI of the breast , 2000, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[23]  Jeffrey C Weinreb,et al.  The use of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer screening. , 2004, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[24]  S. Feig,et al.  Analysis of clinically occult and mammographically occult breast tumors. , 1977, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[25]  C. Boetes,et al.  Screening women at increased risk with MRI , 2005, Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society.

[26]  R. Bird,et al.  Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography. , 1992, Radiology.

[27]  N. Hylton,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast prior to biopsy. , 2004, JAMA.

[28]  Henrik S. Thomsen,et al.  Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF): a late adverse reaction to some of the gadolinium based contrast agents , 2007, Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society.

[29]  N. Boyd,et al.  Case-control study of factors associated with failure to detect breast cancer by mammography. , 1992, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[30]  C. Catalano,et al.  Contrast-enhanced MR mammography for evaluation of the contralateral breast in patients with diagnosed unilateral breast cancer or high-risk lesions. , 2007, Radiology.

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

[32]  Baudouin Maldague,et al.  Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the importance of radiologic breast density. , 2003, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[33]  Marcus Schmidt,et al.  Preoperative assessment of breast cancer: sonography versus MR imaging. , 2002, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[34]  F. Schick,et al.  Relaxivity of Gadopentetate Dimeglumine (Magnevist), Gadobutrol (Gadovist), and Gadobenate Dimeglumine (MultiHance) in Human Blood Plasma at 0.2, 1.5, and 3 Tesla , 2006, Investigative radiology.

[35]  M. Noguchi,et al.  Breast cancer in dense breast: Detection with contrast‐enhanced dynamic MR imaging , 2000, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[36]  Rebecca S Lewis,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. , 2004, Radiology.

[37]  L. Tabár,et al.  Screening for Breast Cancer in Women Aged under 50: Mode of Detection, Incidence, Fatality, and Histology , 1995, Journal of medical screening.

[38]  C. Catalano,et al.  Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance mammography: does it affect surgical decision-making in patients with breast cancer? , 2007, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[39]  E. Kanal,et al.  A Serial Dilution Study of Gadolinium-Based MR Imaging Contrast Agents , 2008, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[40]  Alessandro Carriero,et al.  Gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MR imaging breast vascular maps: association between invasive cancer and ipsilateral increased vascularity. , 2005, Radiology.

[41]  C. Gatsonis,et al.  Cancer yield of mammography, MR, and US in high-risk women: prospective multi-institution breast cancer screening study. , 2007, Radiology.

[42]  Robert E. Lenkinski,et al.  The evaluation of human breast lesions with magnetic resonance imaging and proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy , 2001, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[43]  R. Hendrick,et al.  Imaging of the radiographically dense breast. , 1993, Radiology.

[44]  B. Jenkins,et al.  Gadolinium chelates with weak binding to serum proteins. A new class of high-efficiency, general purpose contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging. , 1997, Investigative radiology.