Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Diagnostic usefulness of segmental and linear enhancement in dynamic breast MRI

  • Breast
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study was the evaluation of the diagnostic usefulness of ductal or segmental enhancement in dynamic breast MRI. Segmental and ductal enhancement have been established as the breast MRI hallmarks of intraductal breast cancer (DCIS); however, the positive predictive value of this imaging finding is still unknown. In our study, we analysed the overall prevalence of a segmental or a linear enhancement pattern on breast MRI for an unselected cohort of patients. The aim was to evaluate the diagnostic usefulness of segmental or linear enhancement. Second, we asked whether biopsy was necessary also in the absence of mammographic findings suggestive of DCIS. Prospective, consecutive evaluation of 1,003 patients undergoing bilateral dynamic breast MRI. Studies were interpreted by two experienced breast radiologists. A diagnostic or screening two-view mammogram was available for all patients. Biopsy or short-term breast MRI follow-up was recommended for patients showing a segmental or a linear enhancement pattern on breast MRI. The patients’ final diagnoses were established by imaging guided excisional or core biopsy or by clinical plus conventional imaging follow-up for a period of 2 years. The prevalence of segmental or linear enhancement was determined for patients with a final diagnosis of benign breast disease compared with those with a diagnosis of breast cancer. One hundred twenty patients had invasive breast cancer, 24 patients had DCIS and 859 patients had unsuspicious breast MRI or benign breast disease. A segmental or a linear enhancement pattern was found for 50/1,003 (5%) patients (17 DCIS, 33 benign breast diseases). Accordingly, the positive predictive value of segmental and linear enhancement is 34% (17/50); the specificity of this criterion is 96% (826/859). For 4/24 (17%) patients, DCIS was visible as segmental or linear enhancement on dynamic breast MRI, whereas no abnormalities were visible on the corresponding mammogram. The overall prevalence of a ductal or a segmental enhancement pattern on breast MRI is low. But this finding has a high specificity and a moderate positive predictive value for intraductal neoplastic changes. We conclude that if segmental or linear enhancement is identified on breast MRI further work-up is necessary. We recommend either direct MR-guided vacuum-assisted core biopsy or short-term follow-up breast MRI within 3 months. If ductal enhancement then persists, MR-guided biopsy should be recommended even in the absence of mammographically visible signs of DCIS

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kuhl CK (2000) MRI of breast tumors. Review article. Eur Radiol 10:46–58

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wasser K, Sinn HP, Fink C et al (2003) Accuracy of tumor size measurement in breast cancer using MRI is influenced by histological regression induced by neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur Radiol 13:1213–1223. Epub 2002 Nov 30

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kristofferson Wiberg M, Aspelin P, Sylvan M, Bone B (2003) Comparison of lesion size estimated by dynamic MR imaging, mammography and histopathology in neoplasms. Eur Radiol 13:1207–1212. Epub 2002 Nov 19

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dao TH, Rahmouni A, Campana F (1993) Tumor recurrence versus fibrosis in the irradiated breast: differentiation with dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 751:187

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fischer U, Kopka L, Grabbe E (1999) Breast carcinoma: effect of preoperative contrast-enhanced MR imaging on the therapeutic approach. Radiology 213:881–888

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Liberman L, Morris EA, Kim CM, Kaplan JB, Abramson AF, Menell JH, Van Zee KJ, Dershaw DD (2003) MR imaging findings in the contralateral breast of women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. Am J Roentgenol 180:333–341

    Google Scholar 

  7. Lee SG, Orel SG, Woo IJ, Cruz-Jove E, Putt ME, Solin LJ, Czerniecki B, Schnall MD (2003) MR imaging screening of the contralateral breast in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer: preliminary results. Radiology 226:773–778

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Schelfout K, Van Goethem M, Kersschot E et al (2004) Preoperative breast MRI in patients with invasive lobular breast cancer. Eur Radiol 14:1209–1216. Epub 2004 Mar 18

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kuhl CK, Schmutzler RK, Leutner CK, Kempe A, Wardelmann E, Hocke A, Maringa M, Pfeifer U, Krebs D, Schild HH (2000) Breast MR imaging screening in 192 women proved or suspected to be carriers of a breast cancer susceptibility gene: preliminary results. Radiology 215:267–279

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gilles R, Zafrani B, Guinebretiere JM et al (1995) Ductal carcinoma in situ: MR-imaging–histopathologic correlation. Radiology 196:415–419

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Heywang SH (1994) Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the breast. Invest Radiol 29:94–104

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Harms SE, Flaming DP, Hesley KL et al (1993) MR imaging of the breast with rotating delivery of excitation off resonance: clinical experience with pathologic correlation. Radiology 187:493–501

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Tesoro-Tess JD, Amusoro A, Rovini D et al (1995) Microcalcifications in clinically normal breasts: the value of high field, surface coil, Gd-DTPA-enhanced MRI. Eur Radiol 5:417–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Sonderstrom CE, Harms SE, Copit DS et al (1996) Three-dimensional RODEO breast MR imaging of lesions containing ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiology 201:427–431

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Neubauer H, Li M, Kuehne-Heid R, Schneider A, Kaiser WA (2003) High grade and non-high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ on dynamic MR mammography: characteristic findings for sign increase and morphological pattern of enhancement. Br J Radiol 76:3–12

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gilles R, Meunier M, Lucidarme O et al (1996) Clustered breast microcalcifications: evaluation by dynamic contrast-enhanced subtraction MRI. J Comput Assist Tomogr 20:9–14

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kuhl CK, Mielcarek P, Leutner CC, Schild HH. Diagnostic criteria of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI: comparison with invasive breast cancer (IBC) and benign lesions. Proc. Int. Soc. Magn Reson Med 1998 p 93

  18. Fischer U, Westerhof JP, Brinck U, Korabiowska M, Schauer A, Grabbe E (1996) The ductal carcinoma in situ in contrast enhanced dynamic MR mammography. RöFo 164:290–294

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Westerhof JP, Fischer U, Mortiz JD, Oestmann JW (1998) MR imaging of mammographically detected clustered microcalcifications: is there any value? Radiology 207:675–681

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Liberman L, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, Abramson AF, Tan LK (2003) Ductal enhancement on MR imaging of the breast. Am J Roentgenol 181(2):519–525

    Google Scholar 

  21. Orel S, Medonca MH, Reynolds C, Schnall M, Lawrence JS, Sullivan DC (1997) MR imaging of ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiology 202:413–420

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Liberman L, Morris EA, Lee M, Kaplan JB, La Trenta LR, Menell JH, Abramson AF, Dashnow SM, Ballon DJ, Dershaw DD (2002) Breast lesions detected on MR imaging: features and positive predictive value. Am J Roentgenol 179:171–178

    Google Scholar 

  23. Van Goethem M, Schelfout K, Kersschot E et al (2004) Enhancing area surrounding breast carcinoma on MR mammography: comparison with pathological examination. Eur Radiol 14:1363–1370; Epub 2004 Mar 26

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kuhl CK, Mielcarek P, Klaschik S, Leutner C, Wardelmann E, Gieseke J, Schild HH (1999) Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 211:101–110

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Liberman L, Abramson AF, Squires FB, Glassman JR, Morris EA, Dershaw DD (1998) The breast imaging and reporting data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. Am J Roentgenol 171:35–40

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Morakkabati N, Schmiedel A, Leutner C, Kuhl CK (2000) Diagnostic usefulness of ductal or segmental enhancement in dynamic breast MR imaging. Radiology 217(P):526–527

    Google Scholar 

  27. Gulsun M, Demirkazik FB, Ariyurek M (2003) Evaluation of breast microcalcifications according to breast imaging reporting and data system and Le Gal’s classification. Eur Radiol 32:227–231

    Google Scholar 

  28. Lehman CD, Aikawa T (2004) MR-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: accuracy of targeting and success in sampling in a phantom model. Radiology. 232:911–914

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to N. Morakkabati-Spitz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Morakkabati-Spitz, N., Leutner, C., Schild, H. et al. Diagnostic usefulness of segmental and linear enhancement in dynamic breast MRI. Eur Radiol 15, 2010–2017 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-005-2755-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-005-2755-4

Keywords

Navigation