Contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a relatively new but increasingly used modality for the detection of breast cancer. MRI has demonstrated utility in identifying additional tumor foci and extent of disease in patients with known breast cancer. This is especially useful with invasive lobular carcinoma, which is difficult to evaluate on mammography. MRI has been found to identify the primary tumor in 70% to 86% of cases of occult breast cancer. Contrastenhanced breast MRI has shown some usefulness in the detection of residual cancer following surgery but is limited by postoperative changes. In patients who have undergone neoadjuvant chemotherapy, breast MRI is most accurate in those patients in whom there is little or no response to chemotherapy. The use of contrast-enhanced breast MRI for breast cancer screening is controversial. It has only been used in a few small studies of high-risk patients. The limitations of breast MRI include uptake in benign lesions and normal tissue, sensitivity for ductal carcinoma in situ, cost, and availability. This paper will discuss the uses, benefits, and limitations of contrast-enhanced breast MRI in the staging and screening of breast cancer.
Contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a relatively new modality for the detection of breast cancer, but its use has been increasing exponentially with the development of new techniques and applications. This paper will discuss the uses, benefits, and limitations of contrast-enhanced breast MRI in the staging and screening of breast cancer.
Gadolinium-diethylenetriamine penta-acetic acid (DTPA) contrastenhanced MRI to evaluate breast cancer was first described independently by two groups in 1989.[1,2] Since those first studies, a large amount of data has been accumulated, but there is no consensus as to technique, interpretation criteria, and indications for use (as there is for mammography and sonography). Breast MRI does offer a highly sensitive imaging modality for breast cancer without radiation, but MRI is not a replacement for mammography or breast ultrasound. It is, like ultrasound, another problem- solving tool for the detection of breast cancer.
Breast MRI involves evaluation of the breast or breasts prior to and after the administration of gadolinium- DTPA intravenous contrast. Images of the breast(s) are obtained immediately after the administration of the contrast bolus and repeated three to five times over several minutes. This results in multiple images of each slice of breast tissue, demonstrating the change in contrast enhancement over time. The presence, morphology, and pattern of contrast enhancement are evaluated for suspicious lesion(s).
Contrast-enhanced breast MRI is based on the production of angiogenic substances by tumors that result in the development of new vessels to supply the tumor. These new vessels are abnormal. They are permeable, have arterial-to-venous shunting, and are not associated with the concomitant production of lymphatics. This neovasuclarity results in rapid enhancement of the tumor relative to the normal issue. The sensitivity of contrast-enhanced MRI in detecting breast cancer is high, ranging from 88% to 100%,[1,2,4] but the specificity ranges from 37% to 96%.[1,2,4-6] This variable specificity is a limitation in the use of breast MRI.
Imaging of breast implants for rupture or free silicone was the first widely accepted indication for breast MRI. Evaluation of breast cancer patients for tumor extent, occult disease, and posttreatment planning are becoming common applications. Additional uses of breast MRI to further assist in the assessment of questionable mammographic or physical examination findings is emerging. Contrast-enhanced MRI for breast cancer screening is controversial.
Breast Cancer Staging With Contrast-Enhanced MRI
Multifocal or multicentric disease has been demonstrated in 31% of patients with known breast cancer. Residual breast cancer at the lumpeclumpectomy site can result in recurrence. Therefore, successful treatment depends on accurate presurgical knowledge of the extent of the disease. Mammography and sonography can often locate the primary tumor, but small, multifocal, or multicentric lesions may be missed unless they are actively sought out.
In a study comparing imaging modalities for assessing breast cancer, mammography found 90% of the index tumors, ultrasound found 85%, and MRI found 98%. Tumor size was underestimated by 14% on mammography and by 18% on ultrasound, but the size of the tumor at histology was not significantly different from that seen on MRI. In patients with a known primary tumor, breast MRI can better establish the extent of the disease (Figure 1). Contrast-enhanced breast MRI identified additional malignant foci in the ipsilateral breast in 22% to 34% of patients with known breast cancer.[6,7] Mammographically occult synchronous tumors in the contralateral breast were found in 5% of patients.
Invasive Lobular Carcinoma
MRI is especially useful in evaluating invasive lobular carcinoma, as it is difficult to identify on mammography. It has been reported that 19% of patients with invasive lobular carcinoma have no mammographic findings.[ 10] This may be due to the growth pattern of invasive lobular carcinoma, which has been classically described as groups of malignant cells in a one- to two-cell-thick linear arrangement. This neoplasm does not form a sheet of tumor cells, so there is no tumor mass.
Often, what is seen on mammography is the body's desmoplastic response to the tumor. The most common mammographic appearance is an asymmetry or ill-defined mass that is the same density as the surrounding breast tissue and is hard to differentiate from the normal parenchyma. Sonography can identify almost 90% of cases of invasive lobular carcinoma, but often, ultrasound is only done when a mammographic or clinical abnormality is present in the area. Invasive lobular carcinoma is more likely to be multicentric and bilateral than ductal carcinoma. These factors combine to make diagnosis and treatment of invasive lobular carcinoma difficult.
MRI is useful in evaluating patients with invasive lobular carcinoma. MRI has identified additional tumor foci in 22% to 40% of patients with known invasive lobular carcinoma[ 12,13] and contralateral foci in 9% of patients. Although MRI has been seen to be sensitive for lobular carcinoma, reports have indicated false-negative MRI findings. A few cases have been reported in which there is little or no contrast enhancement.[8,14]
The enhancement pattern seen in invasive lobular carcinoma may also make detection difficult. A discrete mass was found with contrast-enhanced breast MRI in 30% to 56% of invasive lobular carcinoma cases, and 39% to 61% demonstrated multifocal or regional enhancement.[13,15] This regional enhancement can be confused with fibrocystic or glandular uptake and may be underidentified. The extent of disease on pathology has been seen to correlate with the MRI findings in 85% of patients. Due to MRI findings, 50% of patients with invasive lobular carcinoma undergoing preoperative breast MRI had a change in their surgical management.[ 16] MRI can be a useful addition to the evaluation of invasive lobular carcinoma and should be considered for preoperative evaluation of the disease (Figure 2).
Need for Cautious Interpretation
The identification of more extensive disease can determine if the patient is a candidate for mastectomy or breast-conservation therapy. Of the patients with additional foci, 13% to 21% had their treatment changed to mastectomy or to lumpectomy with wider local excision because of MRI findings.[7,16] Breast MRI can also determine chest wall invasion better than mammography or ultrasound. Tumor involvement of the chest wall, regardless of primary tumor size, changes the disease stage to IIIB.
However, prudence should be used with the application of breast MRI in evaluating breast cancer patients. There is overlap of contrast enhancement in benign and malignant breast processes on MRI, and 4% to 21% of the patients undergoing preoperative breast MRI have false-positive findings necessitating additional biopsy and worry.[7,9,16,17] The patient needs to realize that there is a possibility of false-positive and falsenegative findings with MRI. Physicians should help patients understand what this may mean in regard to their treatment plan.
The high sensitivity of contrastenhanced breast MRI has created the impression that it is the gold standard for evaluation of breast cancer. The assumption is made that any enhancing area on MRI is a carcinoma. It is important to recognize that 29% to 80% of lesions with suspicious enhancement on MRI are benign on histology.[ 7,9,16,17] Some patients have become so concerned by the presence of an abnormality on breast MRI that they go directly to prophylactic mastectomy, at which point no malignancy may be found in the specimen.[ 9,17] Liberman et al found that 9% of patients with a suspicious MRI finding underwent prophylactic contralateral mastectomy, compared to 3% with no findings.
Occult Breast Cancers
Axillary metastasis without clinical or mammographic evidence of the primary has been reported to occur in less than 1% of cases of breast cancer.[ 18] If the primary tumor cannot be found, the patient often undergoes modified radical mastectomy followed by chemotherapy.[18,19] Many surgeons are hesitant to perform a mastectomy without demonstrated breast malignancy. No evidence of carcinoma is found in one-third of these "blind" mastectomy specimens.
Although the number of patients is small, studies of occult breast cancer have found that 70% to 86% of the primary tumors can be identified on contrast-enhanced breast MRI.[19,20] The majority of the cancers appeared as focal-enhancing lesions with spiculated or irregular borders. False-positive findings included patients with no tumor found at pathology or cancer found in areas of the breast that were not the same as the enhancing lesion. Finding the primary tumor allowed 37% to 41% of these women to undergo breast-conservation therapy.[ 19,20] Tumor was found in 81% of the specimens in patients with MRI findings. The lack of an enhancing lesion on MRI changed the treatment plan to axillary lymph node dissection and breast radiation therapy in a few of the study cases.
Not all lesions seen on MRI are malignant, and biopsy is necessary before a final treatment course can be determined. Generally, once the lesion is found, the mammograms are reassessed and an ultrasound is performed. If the lesion is seen on ultrasound, then a faster and less expensive ultrasound-guided biopsy can be performed. Otherwise, MRI-directed biopsy can be performed at facilities with the appropriate equipment.
Follow-up Post-Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is given to patients after the diagnosis of malignancy has been made but prior to definitive surgical treatment, to decrease the size of the tumor. Recurrence rates and positive margins have been reported to be similar to those seen in patients with early-stage cancers.[ 21] Therefore, for a woman with advanced disease, neoadjuvant chemotherapy can enable the use of breast-conservation therapy as an alternative to mastectomy without a difference in survival.
The extent of response to chemotherapy and amount of residual tumor determines the treatment options in this setting. Delineating the response poses a clinical challenge. Traditionally, palpation, mammography, and sonography have been used, but edema and necrosis at the tumor site may hinder measurement of the tumor's true size. Clinical breast exam has been found to underestimate residual disease. In one study, the average tumor size after neoadjuvant chemotherapy was 2.2 cm on clinical breast exam and 3.0 cm on final pathology; 63% of patients who were thought to have had a complete response to chemotherapy on clinical exam had residual tumor on final pathology.
Mammography does not show much better results. Vinnicombe et al found that five of eight patients with complete response to chemotherapy on mammography had residual tumor at excision. Mammographic assessment of response is more difficult in denser breasts, with ill-defined tumors, or in areas of architectural distortion alone. Sonography may be more accurate with well-defined tumors but may still produce erroneous results. If conventional imaging evaluation is done during the course of chemotherapy, then this underestimation of response may cause continuation of ineffective therapy and delay in definitive treatment.
MRI provides not only an anatomic evaluation of the tumor but also a physiologic one. Necrosis and edema do not influence the MRI findings. As the MRI findings are based on the vascularity of the tumor, the effect of chemotherapy agents that inhibit tumor angiogenesis can be seen (Figure 3). In one study, specificity for partial response to chemotherapy was 93%, with 82% accuracy. In addition, studies have found that MRI is better at determining the lack of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy than at determining the extent of response.[22,26]
Rieber et al found that 56% of patients with a partial response to chemotherapy had an average MRI tumor measurement of 1.1 cm over the tumor size on final pathology. Among patients with complete response on MRI, 67% had residual tumor up to 5 cm in diameter at excision. This underestimation was more marked in invasive lobular carcinoma, with seven of nine patients showing larger tumors at final pathology than expected by MRI. This discrepancy may cause difficulty for the surgeon when selecting between mastectomy and lumpectomy. The result may be positive surgical margins with increased recurrence.
The change in appearance on postchemotherapy MRI may be due to decreased tumor size, change in tumor cellularity, or change in tumor vascularity. Diminished contrast enhancement following chemotherapy would support a reduction in tumor vascularity. Decrease in peak contrast uptake and flattening of the contrast uptake curve have been seen in tumors following chemotherapy.[22,26] The shape of the contrast uptake curve is a factor in the evaluation of an enhancing lesion to determine if it is suspicious for malignancy. Due to the neovascularity, there is a greater vascular supply to the carcinoma, resulting in contrast reaching the tumor faster than the surrounding normal parenchyma. This rapid "wash in" is accompanied by a rapid "wash out" in highly suspicious lesions as the contrast moves out of the tumor through arterial venous shunting. Therefore, a tumor would be expected to have an early, steep rise to peak enhancement with a decrease in enhancement almost as quickly. The change in the contrast uptake curve may account for the underestimation of response to chemotherapy and may mask satellite lesions. If neoadjuvant chemotherapy is being considered, a prechemotherapy MRI would permit identification of the extent of the disease and allow for more accurate posttreatment evaluation.
MRI prior to initiating neoadjuvant chemotherapy is especially important if the disease is multicentric or diffuse. These lesions are not very conspicuous and become even less so with decreased contrast enhancement resulting from neoadjuvant chemotherapy. MRI can also suggest that the carcinoma is more extensive than what is found at final pathology. Rosen et al found that contrast-enhanced MRI overestimated tumor size by 1 cm or more in 33% of their patients. Most of these were nonfocal lesions.[ 22] Enhancement in diffuse disease may mimic benign breast enhancement, causing it to appear larger. MRI evaluation during the chemotherapy course may readily demonstrate a lack of response and allow earlier changes to the treatment regimen. Rieber et al found that more reliable results were obtained with contrast-enhanced breast MRI imaging performed at least 6 weeks after the initiation of chemotherapy.
1. Kaiser W, Zeitler E: MR imaging of the breast: Fast imaging sequences with and without Gd-DTPA. Preliminary observations. Radiology 170:681-686, 1989.
2. Heywang S, Wolf A, Pruss E, et al: MR imaging of the breast with Gd-DTPA: Use and limitations. Radiology 171:95-103, 1989.
3. Passe T, Bluemke D, Siegelman S: Tumor angiogenesis: Tutorial on implications for imaging. Radiology 203:593-600, 1997.
4. Teifke A, Hlawatsch A, Beier T, et al: Undetected Malignancies of the Breast: Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging at 1.0 T. Radiology 224:881-888, 2002.
5. Kinkel K, Helbich TH, Esserman LJ, et al: Dynamic high-spatial-resolution MR imaging of suspicious breast lesions: Diagnostic criteria and interobserver variability. Am J Roentgenol 175:35-43, 2000.
6. Harms S, Flamig D, Hesley K, et al: MR imaging of the breast with rotating delivery of excitation off resonance: Clinical experience with pathologic correlation. Radiology 187:493- 501, 1993.
7. Hlawatsch A, Teifke A, Schmidt M, et al: Preoperative assessment of breast cancer: Sonography versus MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179:1493-1501, 2002.
8. Boetes C, Mus R, Holland R, et al: Breast tumors: Comparative accuracy of MR imaging relative to mammography and US for demonstrating extent. Radiology 197:743-747, 1995.
9. Liberman L, Morris EA, Kim CM, et al: MR Imaging findings in the contralateral breast of women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. Am J Roentgenol 180:333-341, 2003.
10. Krecke K, Gisvold J: Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: Mammographic findings and extent of disease at diagnosis in 184 patients. Am J Roentgenol 161:957-960, 1993.
11. Butler R, Venta L, Wiley E, et al: Sonographic evaluation of infiltrating lobular carcinoma. Am J Roentgenol 172:325-330, 1999.
12. Quan ML, Sclafani L, Heerdt AS, et al: Magnetic resonance imaging detects unsuspected disease in patients with invasive lobular cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 10:1048-1053, 2003.
13. Weinstein SP, Orel SG, Heller R, et al: MR imaging of the breast in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma. Am J Roentgenol 176:399-406, 2001.
14. Rodenko G, Harms S, Pruneda J, et al: MR imaging in the management before surgery of lobular carcinoma of the breast: Correlation with pathology. Am J Roentgenol 167:1415- 1419, 1996.
15. Qayyum A, Birdwell RL, Daniel BL, et al: MR imaging features of infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast: Histopathologic correlation. Am J Roentgenol 178:1227-1232, 2002.
16. Bedrosian I, Mick R, Orel S, et al: Changes in the surgical management of patients with breast carcinoma based on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer 98:468- 473, 2003.
17. Lee SG, Orel SG, Woo IJ, et al: MR Imaging screening of the contralateral breast in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer: Preliminary results. Radiology 226:773-778, 2003.
18. Baron PL, Moore MP, Kinne DW, et al: Occult breast cancer presenting with axillary metastases. Updated management. Arch Surg 125:210-214, 1990.
19. Olson JA Jr, Morris EA, Van Zee KJ, et al: Magnetic resonance imaging facilitates breast conservation for occult breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 7:411-415, 2000.
20. Orel SG, Weinstein SP, Schnall MD, et al: Breast MR imaging in patients with axillary node metastases and unknown primary malignancy. Radiology 212:543-549, 1999.
21. Inaji H, Komoike Y, Motomura K, et al: Breast-conserving treatment after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in large breast cancer. Breast Cancer 9:20-25, 2002.
22. Rosen EL, Blackwell KL, Baker JA, et al: Accuracy of MRI in the detection of residual breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Am J Roentgenol 181:1275-1282, 2003.
23. Partridge SC, Gibbs JE, Lu Y, et al: Accuracy of MR imaging for revealing residual breast cancer in patients who have undergone neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Am J Roentgenol 179:1193-1199, 2002.
24. Vinnicombe S, MacVicar A, Guy R, et al: Primary breast cancer: Mammographic changes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, with pathologic correlation. Radiology 198:333- 340, 1996.
25. Segel M, Paulus D, Hortobagyi G: Advanced primary breast cancer: Assessment at mammography of response to induction chemotherapy. Radiology 169:49-54, 1988.
26. Rieber A, Brambs H, Gabelmann A, et al: Breast MRI for monitoring response of primary breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur Radiol 12:1711-1719, 2001.
27. Lee C, Smith R, Levine J, et al: Clinical usefulness of MR imaging of the breast in the evaluation of the problematic mammogram. Am J Roentgenol 173:1323-1329, 1999.
28. Warren RM, Crawley A: Is breast MRI ever useful in a mammogrpahic screening programme? Clin Radiol 57:1090-1097, 2002.
29. Sakuhara Y, Shinozaki T, Hozumi Y, et al: MR imaging of diabetic mastopathy. Am J Roentgenol 179:1201-1203, 2002.
30. Lee JM, Orel SG, Czerniecki BJ, et al: MRI before reexcision surgery in patients with breast cancer. Am J Roentgenol 182:473-480, 2004.
31. Frei K, Kinkel K, Bonel H, et al: MR imaging of the breast with positive margins after lumpectomy: Influence of the time interval between lumpectomy and MR imaging. Am J Roentgenol 175:1577-1584, 2000.
32. Rieber A, Schramm K, Helms G, et al: Breast-conserving surgery and autogenous tissue reconstruction in patients with breast cancer: Efficacy of MRI of the breast in the detection of recurrent disease. Eur Radiol 13:780- 787, 2003.
33. Morakkabati N, Leutner CC, Schmiedel A, et al: Breast MR imaging during or soon after radiation therapy. Radiology 229:893-901, 2003.
34. Kuhl CK, Schmutzler RK, Leutner CC, et al: 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, 2000.
35. Morris EA, Liberman L, Ballon DJ, et al: MRI of cccult breast carcinoma in a high-risk population. Am J Roentgenol 181:619-626, 2003.
36. Stoutjesdijk MJ, Boetes C, Jager GJ, et al: Magnetic resonance imaging and mammography in women with a hereditary risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 93:1095-1102, 2001.
37. Tilanus-Linthorst M, Obdeeijn I, Bartels K, et al: First experiences in screening women at high risk for breast cancer with MR imaging. Breast Cancer Res 63:53-60, 2000.
38. Warner E, Plewes D, Shumak G, et al: Comparison of breast magnetic resonance imaging, mammography, and ultrasound for surveillance of women at high risk for hereditary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 19:3524-3531, 2001.
39. Kriege M, Brekelmans CTM, Boetes C, et al: Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med 351:427-437, 2004.
40. Kuhl C, Bieling H, Gieseke J, et al: Healthy premenopausal breast parenchyma in dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast: Normal contrast medium enhancement and cyclical- phase dependency. Radiology 203:137-144, 1997.
41. Teifke A, Lehr HA, Vomweg TW, et al: Outcome analysis and rational management of enhancing lesions incidentally detected on contrast- enhanced MRI of the breast. Am J Roentgenol 181:655-662, 2003.
42. Brown J, Smith R, Lee C: Incidental enhacing lesions found on MRI imaging of the breast. Am J Roentgenol 176:1249-1254, 2001.
43. Warren R, Pointon L, Caines R, et al:
What is the recall rate of breast MRI when used for screening aymptomatic women at hig hisk? Magn Reson Imaging 20:557-565, 2002.
44. Liberman L, Morris EA, CL B, et al: Probably benign lesions at breast magnetic resonance imaging: Preliminary experience in highrisk women. Cancer 98:377-388, 2003.
45. Lee C, Weinreb J: The use of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer screening. J Am Coll Radiol 1:176-182, 2004.
46. Orel S, Mendonca M, Reynolds C, et al: MR imaging of ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiology 202:413-420, 1997.
47. Kinkel K, Hylton N: Challenges to interpretation of breast MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 13:821-829, 2001.
48. Westerhof J, Fischer U, Moritz J, et al: MR imaging of mammographically detected clustered microcalcifications: Is there any value? Radiology 207:675-681, 1998.
49. Murphy K, Brunberg J, Cohan R: Adverse reactions to gadolinium contrast media: A review of 36 cases. Am J Roentgenol 167:847-849, 1996.
50. Cochran ST, Bomyea K, Sayre JW: Trends in adverse events After IV administration of contrast media. Am J Roentgenol 176:1385-1388, 2001.
51. Fischer U, Vosshenrich R, Doler W, et al: MR imaging-guided breast intervention: Experience with two systems. Radiology 195:533-538, 1995.
52. Morris EA, Liberman L, Dershaw DD, et al: Preoperative MR imaging—guided needle localization of breast lesions. Am J Roentgenol 178:1211-1220, 2002.
53. Kuhl C, Elevelt A, Leutner C, et al: Interventional breast MR imaging: Clinical use of a stereotactic localization and biopsy device. Radiology 204:667-675, 1997.
54. Kuhl CK, Morakkabati N, Leutner CC, et al: MR imaging-guided large-core (14-gauge) needle biopsy of small lesions visible at breast MR imaging alone. Radiology 220:31-39, 2001.
55. Liberman L, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, et al: Fast MRI-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: Initial experience. Am J Roentgenol 181:1283-1293, 2003.
56. Ikeda D, Hylton N, Kinkel K, et al: Developement, standardization and testing of a lexicon for reporting contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging studies. J Magn Reson Imaging 13:889-895, 2001.
57. Sinha S, Sinha U: Functional magnetic resonance of human breast tumors. Ann N Y Acad Sci 980:95-111, 2002.
58. Tse GMK, Cheung HS, Pang L-M, et al: Characterization of lesions of the breast with proton MR spectroscopy: Comparison of carcinomas, benign lesions, and phyllodes tumors. Am J Roentgenol 181:1267-1272, 2003.