Effect of Background Parenchymal Enhancement on Breast MR Imaging Interpretive Performance in Community-based Practices.

Purpose To evaluate the effect of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) on breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging interpretive performance in a large multi-institutional cohort with independent analysis of screening and diagnostic MR studies. Materials and Methods Analysis of 3770 breast MR studies was conducted. Examinations were performed in 2958 women at six participating facilities in the San Francisco Bay Area from January 2010 to October 2012. Findings were recorded prospectively in the San Francisco Mammography Registry. Performance measures were compared between studies with low BPE (mild or minimal) and those with high BPE (moderate or marked) by using binomial tests of proportions. Results Of 1726 MR imaging studies in the screening group, 1301 were classified as having low BPE and 425 were classified as having high BPE (75% vs 25%, respectively; P < .001). Of 2044 MR imaging studies in the diagnostic group, 1443 were classified as having low BPE and 601 were classified as having high BPE (71% vs 29%, respectively; P < .001). For low versus high BPE groups at screening, abnormal interpretation rate was 157 of 1301 versus 111 of 424 (12% vs 26%, P < .001); biopsy recommendation rate was 85 of 1301 versus 54 of 424 (7% vs 13%, P < .001); and specificity was 89% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 87, 91) versus 75% (95% CI: 71, 80) (P = .01). For the low versus high BPE groups at diagnostic MR imaging, biopsy recommendation rate was 325 of 1443 versus 195 of 601 (23% vs 32%, P < .001); and specificity was 86% (95% CI: 84, 88) versus 75% (95% CI: 74, 82) (P < .001). There were no significant differences between studies with low versus high BPE in sensitivity for screening (76% [95% CI: 55, 91] vs 83% [95% CI: 52, 98]; P = .94) or diagnostic (93% [95% CI: 87, 97] vs 96% [95% CI: 87, 99]; P = .69) MR imaging, nor were there significant differences in cancer detection rate per 1000 patients between the low BPE versus high BPE groups for screening (15 per 1000 vs 24 per 1000, P = .30) or diagnostic (78 per 1000 vs 85 per 1000, P = .64) MR imaging. Conclusion Relative to MR studies with minimal or mild BPE, those with moderate or marked BPE were associated with higher abnormal interpretation and biopsy rates and lower specificity, with no difference in cancer detection rate. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

[1]  Linda Moy,et al.  Inter- and intrareader agreement for categorization of background parenchymal enhancement at baseline and after training. , 2014, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[2]  R. Birdwell,et al.  Background parenchymal enhancement at breast MR imaging: normal patterns, diagnostic challenges, and potential for false-positive and false-negative interpretation. , 2014, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[3]  G Lutterbey,et al.  Healthy premenopausal breast parenchyma in dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast: normal contrast medium enhancement and cyclical-phase dependency. , 1997, Radiology.

[4]  E. Halpern,et al.  Hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women: breast tissue perfusion determined with MR imaging--initial observations. , 2005, Radiology.

[5]  Thomas Beier,et al.  Undetected malignancies of the breast: dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging at 1.0 T. , 2002, Radiology.

[6]  C. Claussen,et al.  Menstrual cycle and age: influence on parenchymal contrast medium enhancement in MR imaging of the breast. , 1997, Radiology.

[7]  T. Uematsu,et al.  Does the degree of background enhancement in breast MRI affect the detection and staging of breast cancer? , 2011, European Radiology.

[8]  Jennifer D. Brooks,et al.  Impact of Tamoxifen on Amount of Fibroglandular Tissue, Background Parenchymal Enhancement, and Cysts on Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging , 2012, The breast journal.

[9]  Samuel J. Magny,et al.  Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System , 2020, Definitions.

[10]  Screening breast MR imaging: comparison of interpretation of baseline and annual follow-up studies. , 2011, Radiology.

[11]  Hiroyuki Abe,et al.  Breast cancers not detected at MRI: review of false-negative lesions. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[12]  Elizabeth A Morris,et al.  Background parenchymal enhancement on baseline screening breast MRI: impact on biopsy rate and short-interval follow-up. , 2011, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[13]  Wendy B DeMartini,et al.  Background parenchymal enhancement on breast MRI: impact on diagnostic performance. , 2012, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[14]  C. Lehman,et al.  Performance Benchmarks for Screening Breast MR Imaging in Community Practice. , 2017, Radiology.

[15]  S. Roth.  Breast MRI After Conservation Therapy: Usual Findings in Routine Follow-Up Examinations , 2011 .

[16]  Jennifer D. Brooks,et al.  Impact of menopausal status on background parenchymal enhancement and fibroglandular tissue on breast MRI , 2012, European Radiology.

[17]  W. Kaiser,et al.  Clinical MR mammography: impact of hormonal status on background enhancement and diagnostic accuracy. , 2011, RoFo : Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin.

[18]  Jennifer D. Brooks,et al.  Effect of aromatase inhibitors on background parenchymal enhancement and amount of fibroglandular tissue at breast MR imaging. , 2012, Radiology.

[19]  C. Lehman,et al.  Identifying women with dense breasts at high risk for interval cancer: a cohort study. , 2015, Annals of internal medicine.