OBJECTIVES: Core biopsy underestimates invasion in more than 20% of patients with preoperatively diagnosed ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) without evidence of invasion (pure DCIS). The aim of the current study was to evaluate the efficacy of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to discriminate between patients with DCIS who are at high risk of invasive breast cancer and patients at low risk. METHODS: One hundred and twenty-five patients, preoperatively diagnosed with pure DCIS (128 lesions; 3 bilateral) by core-needle biopsy, were prospectively included. Clinical, mammographic, histological (core biopsy) and MRI features were assessed. All patients underwent breast surgery. Analyses were performed to identify features associated with presence of invasion. RESULTS: Eighteen lesions (14.1%) showed invasion on final histology. Seventy-three lesions (57%) showed suspicious enhancement on MRI with a type 1 (n = 12, 16.4%), type 2 (n = 19, 26.0%) or type 3 curve, respectively (n = 42, 57.5%). At multivariate analysis, the most predictive features for excluding presence of invasive disease were absence of enhancement or a type 1 curve on MRI (negative predictive value 98.5%; A(Z) 0.80, P = 0.00006). CONCLUSION: Contrast medium uptake kinetics at MRI provide high negative predictive value to exclude presence of invasion and may be useful in primary surgical planning in patients with a preoperative diagnosis of pure DCIS. KEY POINTS: It is important to determine invasion in breast DCIS. • MRI contrast medium uptake kinetics can help exclude the presence of invasion. • However, the positive predictive value for the presence of invasion is limited. • MRI features were more accurate at predicting invasion than mammographic features alone.
OBJECTIVES: Core biopsy underestimates invasion in more than 20% of patients with preoperatively diagnosed ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) without evidence of invasion (pure DCIS). The aim of the current study was to evaluate the efficacy of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to discriminate between patients with DCIS who are at high risk of invasive breast cancer and patients at low risk. METHODS: One hundred and twenty-five patients, preoperatively diagnosed with pure DCIS (128 lesions; 3 bilateral) by core-needle biopsy, were prospectively included. Clinical, mammographic, histological (core biopsy) and MRI features were assessed. All patients underwent breast surgery. Analyses were performed to identify features associated with presence of invasion. RESULTS: Eighteen lesions (14.1%) showed invasion on final histology. Seventy-three lesions (57%) showed suspicious enhancement on MRI with a type 1 (n = 12, 16.4%), type 2 (n = 19, 26.0%) or type 3 curve, respectively (n = 42, 57.5%). At multivariate analysis, the most predictive features for excluding presence of invasive disease were absence of enhancement or a type 1 curve on MRI (negative predictive value 98.5%; A(Z) 0.80, P = 0.00006). CONCLUSION: Contrast medium uptake kinetics at MRI provide high negative predictive value to exclude presence of invasion and may be useful in primary surgical planning in patients with a preoperative diagnosis of pure DCIS. KEY POINTS: It is important to determine invasion in breast DCIS. • MRI contrast medium uptake kinetics can help exclude the presence of invasion. • However, the positive predictive value for the presence of invasion is limited. • MRI features were more accurate at predicting invasion than mammographic features alone.
Authors: B Doyle; M Al-Mudhaffer; M M Kennedy; A O'Doherty; F Flanagan; E W McDermott; M J Kerin; A D Hill; C M Quinn Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 2009-02-03 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Melvin J Silverstein; Abram Recht; Michael D Lagios; Ira J Bleiweiss; Peter W Blumencranz; Terri Gizienski; Steven E Harms; Jay Harness; Roger J Jackman; V Suzanne Klimberg; Robert Kuske; Gary M Levine; Michael N Linver; Elizabeth A Rafferty; Hope Rugo; Kathy Schilling; Debu Tripathy; Frank A Vicini; Pat W Whitworth; Shawna C Willey Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2009-08-20 Impact factor: 6.113
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: Lidia Rosi Medeiros; Célia Scapin Duarte; Daniela Dornelles Rosa; Maria Isabel Edelweiss; Marcia Edelweiss; Fábio Rosa Silva; Erik Paul Winnnikow; Patrícia Duarte Simões Pires; Maria Inês Rosa Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2011-01-08 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Massimo Bazzocchi; Chiara Zuiani; Pietro Panizza; Chiara Del Frate; Franca Soldano; Miriam Isola; Francesco Sardanelli; Gian Marco Giuseppetti; Giovanni Simonetti; Vincenzo Lattanzio; Alessandro Del Maschio Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 3.959
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