OBJECTIVE: Background parenchymal enhancement on breast MRI refers to normal enhancement of the patient's fibroglandular tissue. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of background parenchymal enhancement on short-interval follow-up, biopsy, and cancer detection rate on baseline screening MRI in a high-risk group. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred fifty baseline high-risk screening MRI examinations were reviewed. For each, the background parenchymal enhancement pattern was recorded (minimal, ≤ 25%; mild, 26-50%; moderate, 51-75%; and marked, > 75%), as were BI-RADS category, biopsy rate, and final pathology result. Results were compared for each enhancement category. RESULTS: Of the 250 MRI examinations, 24.8% showed minimal enhancement; 34%, mild; 24%, moderate; and 17.2%, marked enhancement. Women with minimal enhancement had a significantly higher number of BI-RADS categories 1 and 2 examinations (64.5%) than women with mild (38.8%), moderate (40%), or marked (25.6%) enhancement. The BI-RADS category 3 rate was 43.6% overall and was significantly lower for women with minimal enhancement (27.4% vs 47.1% for women with mild, 45.0% for women with moderate, and 58.1% for women with marked enhancement). At follow-up, 86.2% of the BI-RADS 3 lesions were converted to BI-RADS category 1 or 2 and 13.8% were converted to BI-RADS 4, with a malignancy rate of 0.9% for lesions undergoing short-interval follow-up. There was no significant difference in biopsy rate or cancer detection rate among enhancement categories. CONCLUSION: Mild, moderate, and marked background parenchymal enhancement is associated with a significantly lower rate of BI-RADS categories 1 and 2 assessments and a significantly higher rate of BI-RADS category 3 assessments than minimal enhancement. There was no significant difference in biopsy rate or cancer detection rate among the enhancement categories.
OBJECTIVE: Background parenchymal enhancement on breast MRI refers to normal enhancement of the patient's fibroglandular tissue. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of background parenchymal enhancement on short-interval follow-up, biopsy, and cancer detection rate on baseline screening MRI in a high-risk group. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred fifty baseline high-risk screening MRI examinations were reviewed. For each, the background parenchymal enhancement pattern was recorded (minimal, ≤ 25%; mild, 26-50%; moderate, 51-75%; and marked, > 75%), as were BI-RADS category, biopsy rate, and final pathology result. Results were compared for each enhancement category. RESULTS: Of the 250 MRI examinations, 24.8% showed minimal enhancement; 34%, mild; 24%, moderate; and 17.2%, marked enhancement. Women with minimal enhancement had a significantly higher number of BI-RADS categories 1 and 2 examinations (64.5%) than women with mild (38.8%), moderate (40%), or marked (25.6%) enhancement. The BI-RADS category 3 rate was 43.6% overall and was significantly lower for women with minimal enhancement (27.4% vs 47.1% for women with mild, 45.0% for women with moderate, and 58.1% for women with marked enhancement). At follow-up, 86.2% of the BI-RADS 3 lesions were converted to BI-RADS category 1 or 2 and 13.8% were converted to BI-RADS 4, with a malignancy rate of 0.9% for lesions undergoing short-interval follow-up. There was no significant difference in biopsy rate or cancer detection rate among enhancement categories. CONCLUSION: Mild, moderate, and marked background parenchymal enhancement is associated with a significantly lower rate of BI-RADS categories 1 and 2 assessments and a significantly higher rate of BI-RADS category 3 assessments than minimal enhancement. There was no significant difference in biopsy rate or cancer detection rate among the enhancement categories.
Authors: Valencia King; Yajia Gu; Jennifer B Kaplan; Jennifer D Brooks; Malcolm C Pike; Elizabeth A Morris Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-07-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Alana R Amarosa; Jason McKellop; Ana Paula Klautau Leite; Melanie Moccaldi; Tess V Clendenen; James S Babb; Anne Zeleniuch-Jacquotte; Linda Moy; Sungheon Kim Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-05-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Elizabeth S McDonald; Jennifer G Schopp; Sue Peacock; Wendy B DeMartini; Wendy D DeMartini; Habib Rahbar; Constance D Lehman; Savannah C Partridge Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Julie Sogani; Elizabeth A Morris; Jennifer B Kaplan; Donna D'Alessio; Debra Goldman; Chaya S Moskowitz; Maxine S Jochelson Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-07-04 Impact factor: 11.105