Literature DB >> 18369582

[Magnetic resonance imaging in preoperative staging for breast cancer: pros and contras].

C K Kuhl1, M Braun.   

Abstract

In oncologic patients, staging of the disease extent is of paramount importance. Imaging studies are used to decide whether the patient is a surgical candidate; if this is the case, imaging is used for detailed planning of the surgical procedure itself. Even in patients with limited prognosis, the first priority is always to achieve clear margins. Due to the widespread use of screening mammography, breast cancers are among the few cancers that are almost always diagnosed in an operable stage and are operated on with curative intention. It is well established that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is far superior to mammography (with and without concomitant ultrasound) for mapping the local extent of breast cancer. Accordingly, there is good reason to suggest that a pre-operative breast MRI should be considered an integral part of breast conserving treatment. Still, it is only rarely used in clinical practice. Arguments against its use are: Its high costs, allegedly high number of false positive findings, lack of MR-guided breast biopsy facilities, lack of evidence from randomized prospective trials and, notably, fear of "overtreatment". This paper discusses the reservations against staging MRI and weighs them against its clinical advantages. The point is made that radiologists as well as breast surgeons should be aware of the possibility of overtreatment, i.e. unnecessary mastectomy for very small, "MRI-only" multicentric cancer foci that would indeed be sufficiently treated by radiation therapy. There is a clear need to adapt the guidelines established for treatment of mammography-diagnosed multicentric breast cancer to account for the additional use of MRI for staging. Until these guidelines are available, the management of additional, "MRI-only" diagnosed small multicentric cancer manifestations must be decided on wisely and with caution. MRI for staging may only be done in institutions that can also offer an MR-guided tissue sampling, preferably by MR-guided vacuum assisted biopsy, to provide pre-operative histological proof of lesions visible by breast MRI alone.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18369582     DOI: 10.1007/s00117-008-1665-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiologe        ISSN: 0033-832X            Impact factor:   0.635


  67 in total

1.  MR imaging-guided breast biopsy using a coaxial technique with a 14-gauge stainless steel core biopsy needle and a titanium sheath.

Authors:  Constance D Lehman; Peter R Eby; Xiaoming Chen; Katherine E Dee; Bonnie Thursten; John McCloskey
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  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.

Authors:  Francesco Sardanelli; Gian M Giuseppetti; Pietro Panizza; Massimo Bazzocchi; Alfonso Fausto; Giovanni Simonetti; Vincenzo Lattanzio; Alessandro Del Maschio
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Conservative surgery with radiation therapy in clinical stage I and II breast cancer. Results of a 20-year experience.

Authors:  B G Haffty; N B Goldberg; M Rose; B Heil; D Fischer; M Beinfield; C McKhann; J B Weissberg
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  1989-11

4.  The natural history of breast carcinoma: what have we learned from screening?

Authors:  L Tabár; S W Duffy; B Vitak; H H Chen; T C Prevost
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1999-08-01       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Ten-year results of a comparison of conservation with mastectomy in the treatment of stage I and II breast cancer.

Authors:  J A Jacobson; D N Danforth; K H Cowan; T d'Angelo; S M Steinberg; L Pierce; M E Lippman; A S Lichter; E Glatstein; P Okunieff
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1995-04-06       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  The influence of preoperative MRI of the breasts on recurrence rate in patients with breast cancer.

Authors:  Uwe Fischer; Olivier Zachariae; Friedemann Baum; Dorit von Heyden; Matthias Funke; Torsten Liersch
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2004-07-10       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Eighteen-year results in the treatment of early breast carcinoma with mastectomy versus breast conservation therapy: the National Cancer Institute Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Matthew M Poggi; David N Danforth; Linda C Sciuto; Sharon L Smith; Seth M Steinberg; David J Liewehr; Cynthia Menard; Marc E Lippman; Allen S Lichter; Rosemary M Altemus
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2003-08-15       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Contrast-enhanced MR imaging of breast lesions and effect on treatment.

Authors:  K Schelfout; M Van Goethem; E Kersschot; C Colpaert; A M Schelfhout; P Leyman; I Verslegers; I Biltjes; J Van Den Haute; J P Gillardin; W Tjalma; J C Van Der Auwera; P Buytaert; A De Schepper
Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 4.424

9.  MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer.

Authors:  Constance D Lehman; Constantine Gatsonis; Christiane K Kuhl; R Edward Hendrick; Etta D Pisano; Lucy Hanna; Sue Peacock; Stanley F Smazal; Daniel D Maki; Thomas B Julian; Elizabeth R DePeri; David A Bluemke; Mitchell D Schnall
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-03-28       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Breast tumors: comparative accuracy of MR imaging relative to mammography and US for demonstrating extent.

Authors:  C Boetes; R D Mus; R Holland; J O Barentsz; S P Strijk; T Wobbes; J H Hendriks; S H Ruys
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  6 in total

1.  [The relevance of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the detection and exclusion of prostate cancer].

Authors:  J Stattaus; M Forsting
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 0.639

2.  The diverse pathology and kinetics of mass, nonmass, and focus enhancement on MR imaging of the breast.

Authors:  Sanaz A Jansen; Akiko Shimauchi; Lindsay Zak; Xiaobing Fan; Gregory S Karczmar; Gillian M Newstead
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 4.813

Review 3.  Digital Analysis in Breast Imaging.

Authors:  Giovanna Negrão de Figueiredo; Michael Ingrisch; Eva Maria Fallenberg
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2019-06-04       Impact factor: 2.860

4.  Diagnostic accuracy of fused positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance mammography: initial results.

Authors:  T A Heusner; S Hahn; C Jonkmanns; S Kuemmel; F Otterbach; M E Hamami; A R Stahl; A Bockisch; M Forsting; G Antoch
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2010-10-19       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Subject-specific models of susceptibility-induced B0 field variations in breast MRI.

Authors:  Caroline D Jordan; Bruce L Daniel; Kevin M Koch; Huanzhou Yu; Steve Conolly; Brian A Hargreaves
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2012-08-03       Impact factor: 4.813

6.  Impact of Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging on Surgical Outcomes in Women with Invasive Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Li Li; Qinghong Zhang; Chunrui Qian; Huien Lin
Journal:  Int J Clin Pract       Date:  2022-08-25       Impact factor: 3.149

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.