PURPOSE: This retrospective study was undertaken to investigate the morphologic and dynamic features of in situ and minimally invasive breast cancer on contrast-enhanced (c.-e.) MR imaging and to examine possible associations to pathology features. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 71 patients underwent MR imaging. T1-weighted FLASH-3D images were obtained before and after intravenous administration of Gd-DTPA. Histopathologic analysis of 78 lesions revealed ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) n = 50 and DCIS with microinvasion n = 28. MR features were correlated with histopathologic findings. RESULTS: Enhancement in DCIS was focal (73%), diffuse (10%) or ductal (17%). No enhancement occurred in two cases (4%). In 65% enhancement speed was classified as delayed. There was a tendency toward a more ill-defined (83 vs. 43%) enhancement pattern in high grade DCIS and a more ductal (29 vs. 12%) and faster (50 vs. 29%) enhancement in comedo type DCIS. However, significant differences in the enhancement behaviour could neither be demonstrated between high grade and non high grade DCIS nor between comedo and non comedo type DCIS. No significant differences were noted between pure and microinvasive DCIS. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective analysis the majority (96%) of DCIS lesions show contrast enhancement. However, in only about 50% of DCIS the criteria of a so-called 'typical' enhancement behaviour was fulfilled, that means strong, early, focal ill-circumscribed or ductal. Enhancement that follows a duct is often associated with malignancy, however this feature was only present in 17% of the cases. c.-e. MR imaging allowed the detection of 25 additional foci of DCIS. Therefore malignant in situ lesions can be present with atypical enhancement, and should be taken into consideration in high-risk patients in particular.
PURPOSE: This retrospective study was undertaken to investigate the morphologic and dynamic features of in situ and minimally invasive breast cancer on contrast-enhanced (c.-e.) MR imaging and to examine possible associations to pathology features. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 71 patients underwent MR imaging. T1-weighted FLASH-3D images were obtained before and after intravenous administration of Gd-DTPA. Histopathologic analysis of 78 lesions revealed ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) n = 50 and DCIS with microinvasion n = 28. MR features were correlated with histopathologic findings. RESULTS: Enhancement in DCIS was focal (73%), diffuse (10%) or ductal (17%). No enhancement occurred in two cases (4%). In 65% enhancement speed was classified as delayed. There was a tendency toward a more ill-defined (83 vs. 43%) enhancement pattern in high grade DCIS and a more ductal (29 vs. 12%) and faster (50 vs. 29%) enhancement in comedo type DCIS. However, significant differences in the enhancement behaviour could neither be demonstrated between high grade and non high grade DCIS nor between comedo and non comedo type DCIS. No significant differences were noted between pure and microinvasive DCIS. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective analysis the majority (96%) of DCIS lesions show contrast enhancement. However, in only about 50% of DCIS the criteria of a so-called 'typical' enhancement behaviour was fulfilled, that means strong, early, focal ill-circumscribed or ductal. Enhancement that follows a duct is often associated with malignancy, however this feature was only present in 17% of the cases. c.-e. MR imaging allowed the detection of 25 additional foci of DCIS. Therefore malignant in situ lesions can be present with atypical enhancement, and should be taken into consideration in high-risk patients in particular.
Authors: P C Stomper; S Herman; D L Klippenstein; J S Winston; S B Edge; M A Arredondo; R V Mazurchuk; L E Blumenson Journal: Radiology Date: 1995-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: R Gilles; B Zafrani; J M Guinebretière; M Meunier; O Lucidarme; A A Tardivon; F Rochard; D Vanel; S Neuenschwander; R Arriagada Journal: Radiology Date: 1995-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: R Holland; J L Peterse; R R Millis; V Eusebi; D Faverly; M J van de Vijver; B Zafrani Journal: Semin Diagn Pathol Date: 1994-08 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Sanaz A Jansen; Xiaobing Fan; Gregory S Karczmar; Hiroyuki Abe; Robert A Schmidt; Maryellen Giger; Gillian M Newstead Journal: Med Phys Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: F Sardanelli; L Bacigalupo; L Carbonaro; A Esseridou; G M Giuseppetti; P Panizza; V Lattanzio; A Del Maschio Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2008-07-09 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Sylvia H Heywang-Köbrunner; Ingrid Schreer; Walter Heindel; Alexander Katalinic Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2008-08-04 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Riham H El Khouli; Katarzyna J Macura; Peter B Barker; Mohamed R Habba; Michael A Jacobs; David A Bluemke Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 4.813