Literature DB >> 12595319

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

H Neubauer1, Mengxia Li, R Kuehne-Heid, A Schneider, W A Kaiser.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12595319     DOI: 10.1259/bjr/14883856

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  32 in total

1.  MRI of the breast in patients with DCIS to exclude the presence of invasive disease.

Authors:  Eline E Deurloo; Jincey D Sriram; Hendrik J Teertstra; Claudette E Loo; Jelle Wesseling; Emiel J Th Rutgers; Kenneth G A Gilhuijs
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-02-26       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Contrast enhancement kinetics of normal breast parenchyma in dynamic MR mammography: effects of menopausal status, oral contraceptives, and postmenopausal hormone therapy.

Authors:  Katrin Hegenscheid; Carsten O Schmidt; Rebecca Seipel; René Laqua; Ralf Ohlinger; Norbert Hosten; Ralf Puls
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-07-08       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Kinetic analysis of lesions without mass effect on breast MRI using manual and computer-assisted methods.

Authors:  Tibor Vag; Pascal A T Baltzer; Matthias Dietzel; Ramy Zoubi; Mieczyslaw Gajda; Oumar Camara; Werner A Kaiser
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-11-10       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 4.  DCIS, cytokeratins, and the theory of the sick lobe.

Authors:  Tibor Tot
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2005-05-31       Impact factor: 4.064

5.  DCEMRI of breast lesions: is kinetic analysis equally effective for both mass and nonmass-like enhancement?

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

6.  Detection of invasive components in cases of breast ductal carcinoma in situ on biopsy by using apparent diffusion coefficient MR parameters.

Authors:  Naoko Mori; Hideki Ota; Shunji Mugikura; Chiaki Takasawa; Junya Tominaga; Takanori Ishida; Mika Watanabe; Kei Takase; Shoki Takahashi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-06-04       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 7.  The role of radiological-pathological correlation in diagnosing early breast cancer: the pathologist's perspective.

Authors:  Tibor Tot; László Tabár
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2010-11-03       Impact factor: 4.064

8.  Segmental enhancement on breast MR images: differential diagnosis and diagnostic strategy.

Authors:  Sachiko Yuen; Takayoshi Uematsu; Kasami Masako; Yoshihiro Uchida; Tsunehiko Nishimura
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-05-20       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  What is the sensitivity of mammography and dynamic MR imaging for DCIS if the whole-breast histopathology is used as a reference standard?

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

10.  Morphologic blooming in breast MRI as a characterization of margin for discriminating benign from malignant lesions.

Authors:  Alan Penn; Scott Thompson; Rachel Brem; Constance Lehman; Paul Weatherall; Mitchell Schnall; Gillian Newstead; Emily Conant; Susan Ascher; Elizabeth Morris; Etta Pisano
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 3.173

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.