Magnetic resonance imaging of breast cancer and correlation with prognostic factors

Background: Prognostic factors of breast cancer have been used for the prediction of clinical outcome or selection of patients for complementary treatment. Some of the imaging features of breast cancer, e.g. magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), are associated with these prognostic factors. Purpose: To evaluate the relationship between dynamic enhanced MR features and prognostic factors of clinical outcome of breast cancer. Material and Methods: A total of 136 patients with 151 breast cancers underwent 1.5T dynamic MR imaging with the use of a dynamic T1-weighted three-dimensional fast low-angle shot (FLASH) subtraction imaging technique. Morphological and kinetic analyses of MR features were evaluated using the American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) MRI lexicon. Pathological prognostic factors were correlated with MR imaging characteristics, including tumor size, histological grade, lymph node status, expression of estrogen receptor (ER), expression of progesterone receptor (PR), expression of c-erbB2, determination of Ki-67 index, and microvascular density (MVD), using univariate and multivariate statistical analyses. Results: Based on univariate and multivariate analyses, spiculated tumor margins correlated significantly with lower histological grade (I–II) and positive PR expression. Rim enhancement was significantly correlated with high histological grade, presence of axillary lymph node metastasis, large tumor size, increased Ki-67 index, and increased MVD. Early peak enhancement, as seen on the first scan after contrast medium injection, was correlated with negative ER expression. Conclusion: The presence of a lesion with a spiculated margin may predict a relatively good prognosis, and the presence of a lesion with rim enhancement may predict a relatively poor prognosis.

[1]  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.

[2]  O Lucidarme,et al.  Nonpalpable breast tumors: diagnosis with contrast-enhanced subtraction dynamic MR imaging. , 1994, Radiology.

[3]  T Yasunaga,et al.  Evaluation of tumor angiogenesis using dynamic enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: comparison of plasma vascular endothelial growth factor, hemodynamic, and pharmacokinetic parameters , 2004, Acta radiologica.

[4]  Johannes Gerdes,et al.  The Ki‐67 protein: From the known and the unknown , 2000, Journal of cellular physiology.

[5]  Woo Kyung Moon,et al.  Index terms: Breast neoplasms Breast, MR , 2006 .

[6]  A. Schauer,et al.  Prognostic value of contrast-enhanced MR mammography in patients with breast cancer , 1997, European Radiology.

[7]  W. Kaiser,et al.  Potential MRI interpretation model: differentiation of benign from malignant breast masses. , 2005, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[8]  I. Ellis,et al.  Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. , 2002, Histopathology.

[9]  I. Ellis,et al.  c-erbB-2 oncoprotein expression in primary and advanced breast cancer. , 1991, British Journal of Cancer.

[10]  A Horsman,et al.  Dynamic MR imaging of invasive breast cancer: correlation with tumour grade and other histological factors. , 1997, The British journal of radiology.

[11]  M D Schnall,et al.  MR imaging of the breast for the detection, diagnosis, and staging of breast cancer. , 2001, Radiology.

[12]  P Aspelin,et al.  Contrast-enhanced MR imaging as a prognostic indicator of breast cancer , 1998, Acta radiologica.

[13]  I. Ellis,et al.  Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. , 1999, Critical reviews in oncology/hematology.

[14]  S. Edge,et al.  Suspect breast lesions: findings at dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging correlated with mammographic and pathologic features. , 1995, Radiology.

[15]  S G Hilsenbeck,et al.  Significance of axillary lymph node metastasis in primary breast cancer. , 1999, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

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

[17]  L D Buadu,et al.  Breast lesions: correlation of contrast medium enhancement patterns on MR images with histopathologic findings and tumor angiogenesis. , 1996, Radiology.

[18]  M D Schnall,et al.  An overview of interpretation strategies for breast MR imaging. , 2001, Magnetic resonance imaging clinics of North America.

[19]  C. McArdle,et al.  Oestrogen receptor status predicts local recurrence following breast conservation surgery for early breast cancer. , 1998, European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology.

[20]  Tibor Tot,et al.  Invasive breast cancer: correlation of dynamic MR features with prognostic factors , 2003, European Radiology.

[21]  M D Schnall,et al.  Update of breast MR imaging architectural interpretation model. , 2001, Radiology.

[22]  N. Hylton,et al.  Diagnostic architectural and dynamic features at breast MR imaging: multicenter study. , 2006, Radiology.

[23]  R. Matsubayashi,et al.  Breast masses with peripheral rim enhancement on dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images: correlation of MR findings with histologic features and expression of growth factors. , 2000, Radiology.