Jean M Seely1, Leslie Lamb2, Neera Malik2, Jacqueline Lau2. 1. Department of Medical Imaging, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, 501 Smyth Rd, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada. jeseely@ottawahospital.on.ca. 2. Department of Medical Imaging, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, 501 Smyth Rd, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the yield of pre-operative breast MRI according to breast tissue density. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 665 consecutive patients who underwent breast MRI in 2012 for pre-operative staging of biopsy-proven breast cancer, 582 of whom had digital mammograms available within 6 months of the MRI were evaluated for breast tissue density and additional lesions seen on breast MRI not identified on mammography. Lesions that could change surgical management if positive were confirmed by percutaneous biopsy. RESULTS: MRI identified additional lesions changing surgical management in 19 of 61 patients (31%) with fat density, 94/269 (35%) with scattered fibroglandular parenchyma, 89/210 (42%) with heterogeneously dense breasts, and 26/42 (62%) with dense breasts. There was a significant difference between breast density and number of additional findings on MRI (p<0.0001). Patients with dense breasts were 5.1x more likely to have additional findings on MRI in comparison to patients with fat density breasts (95% CI 2.2-12.1, p=0.0001). CONCLUSION: Patients with dense breasts are more likely to have additional findings on pre-operative breast MRI in comparison to patients with fat tissue density breasts; if selective use of pre-operative MRI is necessary, patients with dense breast tissue density seem to show the maximal benefit. HIGHLIGHTS: • Preoperative MRI detects many additional lesions not seen on mammography. • Increased breast density correlates with more findings on preoperative breast MRI (p<0.0001). • Extremely dense breasts are more likely to have additional findings on MRI. • Increased breast density is associated with more MRI findings that changed management.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the yield of pre-operative breast MRI according to breast tissue density. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 665 consecutive patients who underwent breast MRI in 2012 for pre-operative staging of biopsy-proven breast cancer, 582 of whom had digital mammograms available within 6 months of the MRI were evaluated for breast tissue density and additional lesions seen on breast MRI not identified on mammography. Lesions that could change surgical management if positive were confirmed by percutaneous biopsy. RESULTS: MRI identified additional lesions changing surgical management in 19 of 61 patients (31%) with fat density, 94/269 (35%) with scattered fibroglandular parenchyma, 89/210 (42%) with heterogeneously dense breasts, and 26/42 (62%) with dense breasts. There was a significant difference between breast density and number of additional findings on MRI (p<0.0001). Patients with dense breasts were 5.1x more likely to have additional findings on MRI in comparison to patients with fat density breasts (95% CI 2.2-12.1, p=0.0001). CONCLUSION:Patients with dense breasts are more likely to have additional findings on pre-operative breast MRI in comparison to patients with fat tissue density breasts; if selective use of pre-operative MRI is necessary, patients with dense breast tissue density seem to show the maximal benefit. HIGHLIGHTS: • Preoperative MRI detects many additional lesions not seen on mammography. • Increased breast density correlates with more findings on preoperative breast MRI (p<0.0001). • Extremely dense breasts are more likely to have additional findings on MRI. • Increased breast density is associated with more MRI findings that changed management.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast MRI; Breast cancer; Breast conserving therapy; Breast density; Staging
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
Authors: Huong T Le-Petross; Gary J Whitman; Deanne P Atchley; Ying Yuan; Angelica Gutierrez-Barrera; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Jennifer K Litton; Banu K Arun Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-03-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Nehmat Houssami; Robin Turner; Petra Macaskill; Lindsay W Turnbull; David R McCready; Todd M Tuttle; Neha Vapiwala; Lawrence J Solin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-01-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ellen Warner; Hans Messersmith; Petrina Causer; Andrea Eisen; Rene Shumak; Donald Plewes Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-05-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Manuel Debald; Alina Abramian; Lisa Nemes; Michael Döbler; Christina Kaiser; Mignon-Denise Keyver-Paik; Claudia Leutner; Tobias Höller; Michael Braun; Christiane Kuhl; Walther Kuhn; Hans H Schild Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2015-09-01 Impact factor: 4.872
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