Jill Gluskin1, Sarah Eliades2, Aradhna Raj3, Varadan Sevilimedu4, Richard Kinh Gian Do3. 1. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Radiology, New York, NY 10065, USA. Electronic address: gluskinj@mskcc.org. 2. New York Presbyterian Hospital-Weill Cornell Medical Center, Department of Radiology, New York, NY 10065, USA. 3. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Radiology, New York, NY 10065, USA. 4. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, New York, NY 10065, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine outcomes of incidental liver lesions on baseline breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) that were further evaluated with dedicated abdominal imaging. METHODS: Consecutive breast MRI reports from 2011 to 2016 were retrospectively reviewed to identify incidental liver lesions. Only patients without prior breast MRI, without prior abdominal imaging, and with subsequent abdominal imaging were included. Patient demographics, breast MRI indication, and final liver lesion diagnosis were recorded. RESULTS: Of 131 women (mean age 53.8 years), 94/131 (71.8%) underwent breast MRI for extent of disease evaluation, 25/131 (19.1%) for high-risk screening, 11/131 (8.4%) for implant evaluation, and 1/131 (0.8%) for problem-solving. Of 131 liver lesions (6-80 mm), 117/131 (89.3%) were deemed benign on subsequent abdominal imaging; 10/131 (7.6%) probably benign; and 4/131 lesions (3.1%) were confirmed breast cancer metastases. Metastatic liver lesions identified on breast MRI were more likely for women with a current diagnosis of breast cancer than for women without a current diagnosis of breast cancer: 4.3% vs 0%. Similarly, metastatic liver lesions identified on breast MRI were more likely for those with a higher prognostic stage (2 or 3) vs a lower prognostic stage (0 or 1) or no current breast cancer: 11.1% vs 0%. CONCLUSION: Baseline breast MRIs showing incidental liver lesions showed unsuspected liver metastases only in women with a current diagnosis of clinical stage 2 or 3 breast cancer. This suggests breast MRI indication and clinical staging of current breast cancer, if present, can help plan management and decisions to obtain follow-up of liver lesions.
PURPOSE: To examine outcomes of incidental liver lesions on baseline breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) that were further evaluated with dedicated abdominal imaging. METHODS: Consecutive breast MRI reports from 2011 to 2016 were retrospectively reviewed to identify incidental liver lesions. Only patients without prior breast MRI, without prior abdominal imaging, and with subsequent abdominal imaging were included. Patient demographics, breast MRI indication, and final liver lesion diagnosis were recorded. RESULTS: Of 131 women (mean age 53.8 years), 94/131 (71.8%) underwent breast MRI for extent of disease evaluation, 25/131 (19.1%) for high-risk screening, 11/131 (8.4%) for implant evaluation, and 1/131 (0.8%) for problem-solving. Of 131 liver lesions (6-80 mm), 117/131 (89.3%) were deemed benign on subsequent abdominal imaging; 10/131 (7.6%) probably benign; and 4/131 lesions (3.1%) were confirmed breast cancer metastases. Metastatic liver lesions identified on breast MRI were more likely for women with a current diagnosis of breast cancer than for women without a current diagnosis of breast cancer: 4.3% vs 0%. Similarly, metastatic liver lesions identified on breast MRI were more likely for those with a higher prognostic stage (2 or 3) vs a lower prognostic stage (0 or 1) or no current breast cancer: 11.1% vs 0%. CONCLUSION: Baseline breast MRIs showing incidental liver lesions showed unsuspected liver metastases only in women with a current diagnosis of clinical stage 2 or 3 breast cancer. This suggests breast MRI indication and clinical staging of current breast cancer, if present, can help plan management and decisions to obtain follow-up of liver lesions.
Authors: Pierluigi Rinaldi; M Costantini; P Belli; M Giuliani; E Bufi; R Fubelli; D Distefano; M Romani; L Bonomo Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-06-18 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Armando E Giuliano; James L Connolly; Stephen B Edge; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Hope S Rugo; Lawrence J Solin; Donald L Weaver; David J Winchester; Gabriel N Hortobagyi Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2017-03-14 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Gary A Ulaner; Raychel Castillo; Jonathan Wills; Mithat Gönen; Debra A Goldman Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-04-29 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: William J Gradishar; Benjamin O Anderson; Ron Balassanian; Sarah L Blair; Harold J Burstein; Amy Cyr; Anthony D Elias; William B Farrar; Andres Forero; Sharon Hermes Giordano; Matthew Goetz; Lori J Goldstein; Clifford A Hudis; Steven J Isakoff; P Kelly Marcom; Ingrid A Mayer; Beryl McCormick; Meena Moran; Sameer A Patel; Lori J Pierce; Elizabeth C Reed; Kilian E Salerno; Lee S Schwartzberg; Karen Lisa Smith; Mary Lou Smith; Hatem Soliman; George Somlo; Melinda Telli; John H Ward; Dorothy A Shead; Rashmi Kumar Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 11.908