OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether magnetic resonance (MR) imaging features can predict the presence of occult invasion in cases of biopsy-proven pure ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 92 biopsy-proven pure DCIS in 92 women who underwent MR imaging. The following MR imaging findings were compared between confirmed DCIS and invasive breast cancer (IBC): lesion size, type, morphological and kinetic assessments by ACR BI-RADS MRI, and findings of fat-suppressed T2-weighted (FS-T2W) imaging. RESULTS: Sixty-eight of 92 (74%) were non-mass-like enhancements (NMLE) and 24 were mass lesions on MR imaging. Twenty-one of 68 (31%) NMLE and 13 of 24 (54%) mass lesions were confirmed as IBC. In NMLE lesions, large lesions (P = 0.007) and higher signal intensities (SI) on FS-T2W images (P = 0.032) were significantly associated with IBC. Lesion size remained a significant independent predictor of invasion in multivariate analysis (P = 0.032), and combined with FS-T2W SIs showed slightly higher observer performances (area under the curve, AUC, 0.71) than lesion size alone (AUC 0.68). There were no useful findings that enabled the differentiation of mass-type lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Breast MR imaging is potentially useful to predict the presence of occult invasion in biopsy-proven DCIS with NMLE. KEY POINTS: MR mammography permits more precise lesion assessment including ductal carcinoma in situ A correct diagnosis of occult invasion before treatment is important for clinicians This study showed the potential of MR mammography to diagnose occult invasion Treatment and/or aggressive biopsy can be given with greater confidence MR mammography can lead to more appropriate management of patients.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether magnetic resonance (MR) imaging features can predict the presence of occult invasion in cases of biopsy-proven pure ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 92 biopsy-proven pure DCIS in 92 women who underwent MR imaging. The following MR imaging findings were compared between confirmed DCIS and invasive breast cancer (IBC): lesion size, type, morphological and kinetic assessments by ACR BI-RADS MRI, and findings of fat-suppressed T2-weighted (FS-T2W) imaging. RESULTS: Sixty-eight of 92 (74%) were non-mass-like enhancements (NMLE) and 24 were mass lesions on MR imaging. Twenty-one of 68 (31%) NMLE and 13 of 24 (54%) mass lesions were confirmed as IBC. In NMLE lesions, large lesions (P = 0.007) and higher signal intensities (SI) on FS-T2W images (P = 0.032) were significantly associated with IBC. Lesion size remained a significant independent predictor of invasion in multivariate analysis (P = 0.032), and combined with FS-T2W SIs showed slightly higher observer performances (area under the curve, AUC, 0.71) than lesion size alone (AUC 0.68). There were no useful findings that enabled the differentiation of mass-type lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Breast MR imaging is potentially useful to predict the presence of occult invasion in biopsy-proven DCIS with NMLE. KEY POINTS: MR mammography permits more precise lesion assessment including ductal carcinoma in situ A correct diagnosis of occult invasion before treatment is important for clinicians This study showed the potential of MR mammography to diagnose occult invasion Treatment and/or aggressive biopsy can be given with greater confidence MR mammography can lead to more appropriate management of patients.
Authors: Lidewij E Hoorntje; Marguerite E I Schipper; Petra H M Peeters; Frank Bellot; Remmert K Storm; Inne H M Borel Rinkes Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: R J Jackman; F Burbank; S H Parker; W P Evans; M C Lechner; T R Richardson; A A Smid; H B Borofsky; C H Lee; H M Goldstein; K J Schilling; A B Wray; R F Brem; T H Helbich; D E Lehrer; S J Adler Journal: Radiology Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jennifer H Menell; Elizabeth A Morris; D David Dershaw; Andrea F Abramson; Edi Brogi; Laura Liberman Journal: Breast J Date: 2005 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Habib Rahbar; Savannah C Partridge; Peter R Eby; Wendy B Demartini; Robert L Gutierrez; Sue Peacock; Constance D Lehman Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-05-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Mary F Dillon; Enda W McDermott; Cecily M Quinn; Ann O'Doherty; Niall O'Higgins; Arnold D K Hill Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2006-06-01 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Wendie A Berg; Lorena Gutierrez; Moriel S NessAiver; W Bradford Carter; Mythreyi Bhargavan; Rebecca S Lewis; Olga B Ioffe Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-10-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Eric L Rosen; Stacy A Smith-Foley; Wendy B DeMartini; Peter R Eby; Sue Peacock; Constance D Lehman Journal: Breast J Date: 2007 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Michael R Harowicz; Ashirbani Saha; Lars J Grimm; P Kelly Marcom; Jeffrey R Marks; E Shelley Hwang; Maciej A Mazurowski Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-02-09 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Dorota Jakubowski Wisner; E Shelley Hwang; C Belinda Chang; Hilda H Tso; Bonnie N Joe; Juan N Lessing; Ying Lu; Nola M Hylton Journal: Breast J Date: 2013 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: K Takagi; T Ishida; Y Miki; H Hirakawa; Y Kakugawa; G Amano; A Ebata; N Mori; Y Nakamura; M Watanabe; M Amari; N Ohuchi; H Sasano; T Suzuki Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2013-06-11 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Kwan Ho Lee; Jeong Woo Han; Eun Young Kim; Ji Sup Yun; Yong Lai Park; Chan Heun Park Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2019-12-10 Impact factor: 4.430