Increasing experience with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has raised important questions about how it should be used in breast cancer screening, and for presurgical evaluation and posttherapy follow-up of women with this disease. Overall, the availability of MRI as an adjunct to mammography and ultrasound offers clear clinical benefit to women at increased risk of breast cancer development due to BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, and to women presenting with axillary adenopathy and an occult primary breast tumor. In contrast, its benefit for routine selection of breast conservation or further assessment of lobular carcinoma in women of average risk has not been demonstrated.This article reviews the use of MRI in these settings, with an emphasis on the clinical outcomes that have been observed to date.
Breast imaging has two distinct roles: to screen asymptomatic women in an effort to detect cancer that is likely to be cured by therapeutic interventions, and to assist in the selection of local therapy. For many years, mammography was the only modality available for these purposes. The local therapy of breast cancer has changed dramatically over the past 30 years, and breast-conserving therapy (BCT) and neoadjuvant therapy for operable cancers have become part of routine clinical practice. Our understanding of breast cancer risk has also evolved with the recognition of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic mutations, allowing the identification of a subset of women at extremely high risk of breast cancer development.
In parallel with these changes, imaging techniques have also evolved. Ultrasound is now routinely used in the evaluation of the patient with known cancer, although its role in screening remains controversial. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast was added to the diagnostic armamentarium of the physician in 1984. Increasing experience with this technology has raised important questions about how it should be used in screening, and for presurgical evaluation and posttherapy follow-up of women with breast cancer. This article will review the use of MRI in these settings, with an emphasis on the clinical outcomes that have been observed to date.
Mammography remains the standard of care for screening and detection of breast cancer. It is the only breast screening tool that has been proven in randomized trials to reduce breast cancer mortality, and approximately 50% of the recently observed reduction in breast cancer mortality in the United States is attributed to the use of screening mammography. Mammography, however, cannot distinguish between solid and cystic masses, misses approximately 10% to 15% of cancers, and has a lower sensitivity for the detection of lobular cancers, cancers in dense breasts, and cancers occurring in the presence of breast implants.
Screening Known or Suspected BRCA1 and BRCA2 Carriers
The detection of cancer with MRI is dependent upon the increased vascularity of neoplasms, which results in enhancement after the injection of contrast material, and is not limited by the density of the breast tissue. Because benign lesions also enhance, the combination of the presence of enhancement, the kinetics of enhancement, and the morphology of the lesion are used to distinguish benign from malignant lesions. Large-scale trials of screening with MRI in unselected populations have not yet been carried out. Screening studies to date have focused on high-risk populations, particularly women known or suspected to have mutations of BRCA1 or 2. There is a clear biologic rationale for seeking improved screening techniques for this group of women since studies have demonstrated a high rate of interval cancers in mutation carriers screened with annual mammography alone.
Five prospective, nonrandomized screening trials comparing the use of mammography and MRI in high-risk women are summarized in Table 1.[3-7] Women were eligible for these trials if they had a lifetime risk of breast cancer development of at least 15%, and the proportion of proven BRCA1/2 mutation carriers ranged from 8% in the study by Kuhl et al to 100% in the study by Warner et al. In spite of the heterogeneity in study designs, the results of these trials are remarkably similar. The sensitivity of MRI for the detection of cancer ranged from 77% to 100% and was substantially higher than that observed for mammography (25%–40%). In all of the studies, the specificity of MRI was lower than that of mammography, although in the majority of the reports the difference was less than 5% (Table 1).
The exception to this trend was the study by Leach et al, which included 22 centers in the United Kingdom, and reported a specificity of 81% for MRI and 93% for mammography. These results are probably more representative than those reported from single-institution studies, where high volumes of MRI were performed and interpreted by individuals with great levels of expertise.
It is important to recognize that the lack of specificity of MRI potentially results in additional imaging in a significant number of women. In the study by Kreige et al, the recall rate for additional imaging based on MRI findings was 10.7% compared to 3.9% for mammography, and the biopsy rates for these modalities were 3.1% and 1.3% respectively. While this may be an acceptable trade-off for increased cancer detection rates in populations at extremely high risk of breast cancer development (such as mutation carriers), it represents a significant drawback to the more widespread use of MRI screening in women at a lower level of risk.
Although a reduction in breast cancer mortality has not been demonstrated with MRI screening in high-risk women, the higher detection rate of cancer—particularly invasive cancer—with MRI, coupled with the earlier stage at detection led the American Cancer Society to conclude that sufficient evidence exists to recommend annual MRI screening for women proven to be mutation carriers, untested first-degree relatives of mutation carriers, and women with a lifetime risk of breast cancer development of 20% or greater as determined by models based on a family history of breast cancer.
Screening Other High-Risk Women
Very little information is available to assess the benefits of MRI screening in women at risk for reasons other than family history. Port and coauthors performed a retrospective study of 252 women with lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) and 126 with atypical hyperplasia followed with and without MRI. Patients selected for MRI screening were younger and had stronger family histories of breast cancer than their counterparts screened with mammography. Cancer was identified in 1% of the 478 MRIs performed, and 25% of the patients undergoing MRI received a biopsy recommendation during the study period, the majority of which were generated by findings seen on MRI alone. In comparison, abnormalities on physical exam or mammogram prompted biopsy in 11% of patients. In addition, 48% of patients undergoing MRI had at least one study requiring short-interval follow-up. A total of 8 cancers were found in the MRI group, 6 by MRI alone. The sensitivity of MRI was 75%, the specificity 92%, and the positive predictive value was 13%.
These data do not provide clear evidence of benefit for MRI screening in the population of women with LCIS and atypical hyperplasia, but they clearly illustrate the costs of screening in terms of follow-up examinations and biopsies. Further evaluation of the impact of recall, short-interval follow-up, and benign biopsies on compliance with screening is warranted before widespread adoption of MRI screening in populations at lower risk than women with known or suspected BRCA1/2 mutations is undertaken.
In a study of a subset of 611 women included in the United Kingdom MRI screening study, 89% reported that they would definitely return for further screening, but 4% found MRI "extremely distressing" and 47% reported intrusive thoughts about the MRI exam 6 weeks later.
The current American Cancer Society recommendations for breast MRI screening are summarized in Table 2. It is important to note that breast MRI is an adjunct to mammography, not a replacement, and that clinical breast exam remains an important part of the surveillance of women at high risk. Cancers seen on mammography but not MRI continue to be observed, and although the problem of interval cancers is reduced by MRI screening, it is not eliminated.
The authors have no significant financial interest or other relationship with the manufacturers of any products or providers of any service mentioned in this article.
1. Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK, et al: Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med 353:1784-1792, 2005.
2. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al: Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 353:1773-1783, 2005.
3. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, et al: Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:8469-8476, 2005.
4. Leach MO, Boggis CR, Dixon AK, et al: Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: A prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS). Lancet 365:1769-1778, 2005.
5. Lehman CD, Blume JD, Weatherall P, et al: Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer 103:1898-1905, 2005.
6. Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA, et al: Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA 292:1317-1325, 2004.
7. Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, 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.
8. Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al: American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA: Cancer J Clin 57:75-89, 2007.
9. Port ER, Park A, Borgen PI, et al: Results of MRI screening for breast cancer in high-risk patients with LCIS and atypical hyperplasia. Ann Surg Oncol 14:1051-1057, 2007.
10. Morrow M, Harris JR: Practice guideline for breast conservation therapy in the management of invasive breast cancer. J Am Coll Surg 205:362-376, 2007.
11. Morrow M, Schmidt R, Hassett C: Patient selection for breast conservation therapy with magnification mammography. Surgery 118:621-626, 1995.
12. Morrow M, Schmidt RA, Bucci C: Breast conservation for mammographically occult carcinoma. Ann Surg 227:502-506, 1998.
13. Yeatman TJ, Cantor AB, Smith TJ, et al: Tumor biology of infiltrating lobular carcinoma. Implications for management. Ann Surg 222:549-561 (incl discussion), 1995.
14. Morrow M, Keeney K, Scholtens D, et al: Selecting patients for breast-conserving therapy: The importance of lobular histology. Cancer 106:2563-2568, 2006.
15. Wapnir I, Anderson S, Mamounas E, et al: Survival after IBTR in NSABP node negative protocols B-13, B-14, B-19, B-20 and B-23 (abstract 517). J Clin Oncol 23(16S):8s, 2005.
16. Orel SG, Schnall MD, Powell CM, et al: Staging of suspected breast cancer: Effect of MR imaging and MR-guided biopsy. Radiology 196:115-122, 1995.
17. Boetes C, Mus RD, Holland R, et al: Breast tumors: Comparative accuracy of MR imaging relative to mammography and us for demonstrating extent. Radiology 197:743-747, 1995.
18. Mumtaz H, Hall-Craggs MA, Davidson T, et al: Staging of symptomatic primary breast cancer with MR imaging. AJR 169:417-424, 1997.
19. Fischer U, Kopka L, Grabbe E: Breast carcinoma: Effect of preoperative contrast-enhanced MR imaging on the therapeutic approach. Radiology 213:881-888, 1999.
20. Drew PJ, Chatterjee S, Turnbull LW, et al: Dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the breast is superior to triple assessment for the pre-operative detection of multifocal breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 6:599-603, 1999.
21. Bedrosian I, Mick R, Orel SG, et al: Changes in the surgical management of patients with breast carcinoma based on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer 98:468-473, 2003.
22. Liberman L, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, et al: MR imaging of the ipsilateral breast in women with percutaneously proven breast cancer. AJR 180:901-910, 2003.
23. Bluemke DA, Gatsonis CA, Chen MH, et al: Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast prior to biopsy. JAMA 292:2735-2742, 2004.
24. Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, et al: Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology 233:830-849, 2004.
25. Deurloo EE, Peterse JL, Rutgers EJ, et al: Additional breast lesions in patients eligible for breast-conserving therapy by MRI: Impact on preoperative management and potential benefit of computerised analysis. Eur J Cancer 41:1393-1401, 2005.
26. Bilimoria KY, Cambic A, Hansen NM, et al: Evaluating the impact of preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging on the surgical management of newly diagnosed breast cancers. Arch Surg 142:441-447, 2007.
27. Weinstein SP, Orel SG, Heller R, et al: MR imaging of the breast in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma. AJR 176:399-406, 2001.
28. Schelfout K, Van Goethem M, Kersschot E, et al: Preoperative breast MRI in patients with invasive lobular breast cancer. Eur Radiol 14:1209-1216, 2004.
29. 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.
30. Peiro G, Bornstein BA, Connolly JL, et al: The influence of infiltrating lobular carcinoma on the outcome of patients treated with breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 59:49-54, 2000.
31. Santiago RJ, Harris EE, Qin L, et al: Similar long-term results of breast-conservation treatment for stage I and II invasive lobular carcinoma compared with invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. Cancer 103:2447-2454, 2005.
32. Winchester DJ, Chang HR, Graves TA, et al: A comparative analysis of lobular and ductal carcinoma of the breast: Presentation, treatment, and outcomes. J Am Coll Surg 186:416-422, 1998.
33. Morrow M, Bucci C, Rademaker A: Medical contraindications are not a major factor in the underutilization of breast conserving therapy. J Am Coll Surg 186:269-274, 1998.
34. Qualheim RE, Gall EA: Breast carcinoma with multiple sites of origin. Cancer 10:460-468, 1957.
35. Rosen PP, Fracchia AA, Urban JA, et al: "Residual" mammary carcinoma following simulated partial mastectomy. Cancer 35:739-747, 1975.
36. Lagios MD: Multicentricity of breast carcinoma demonstrated by routine correlated serial subgross and radiographic examination. Cancer 40:1726-1734, 1977.
37. Egan RL: Multicentric breast carcinomas: Clinical-radiographic-pathologic whole organ studies and 10-year survival. Cancer 49:1123-1130, 1982.
38. Schwartz GF, Patchesfsky AS, Feig SA, et al: Multicentricity of non-palpable breast cancer. Cancer 45:2913-2916, 1980.
39. Vaidya JS, Vyas JJ, Chinoy RF, et al: Multicentricity of breast cancer: Whole-organ analysis and clinical implications. Br J Cancer 74:820-824, 1996.
40. Anastassiades O, Iakovou E, Stavridou N, et al: Multicentricity in breast cancer. A study of 366 cases. Am J Clin Pathol 99:238-243, 1993.
41. Holland R, Veling SH, Mravunac M, et al: Histologic multifocality of Tis, T1-2 breast carcinomas. Implications for clinical trials of breast-conserving surgery. Cancer 56:979-990, 1985.
42. Sardanelli F, Giuseppetti GM, Panizza P, et al: Sensitivity of MRI versus mammography for detecting foci of multifocal, multicentric breast cancer in fatty and dense breasts using the whole-breast pathologic examination as a gold standard. AJR 183:1149-1157, 2004.
43. Fischer U, Zachariae O, Baum F, et al: The influence of preoperative MRI of the breasts on recurrence rate in patients with breast cancer. Eur Radiol 14:1725-1731, 2004.
44. Fisher B, Dignam J, Bryant J, et al: Five versus more than five years of tamoxifen therapy for breast cancer patients with negative lymph nodes and estrogen receptor-positive tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 88:1529-1542, 1996.
45. Fisher B, Dignam J, Mamounas EP, et al: Sequential methotrexate and fluorouracil for the treatment of node-negative breast cancer patients with estrogen receptor-negative tumors: Eight-year results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-13 and first report of findings from NSABP B-19 comparing methotrexate and fluorouracil with conventional cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil. J Clin Oncol 14:1982-1992, 1996.
46. Esserman L, Hylton N, Yassa L, et al: Utility of magnetic resonance imaging in the management of breast cancer: Evidence for improved preoperative staging. J Clin Oncol 17:110-119, 1999.
47. Wallace AM, Daniel BL, Jeffrey SS, et al: Rates of reexcision for breast cancer after magnetic resonance imaging-guided bracket wire localization. J Am Coll Surg 200:527-537, 2005.
48. Buchanan CL, Morris EA, Dorn PL, et al: Utility of breast magnetic resonance imaging in patients with occult primary breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 12:1045-1053, 2005.
49. 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.
50. 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.
51. Henry-Tillman RS, Harms SE, Westbrook KC, et al: Role of breast magnetic resonance imaging in determining breast as a source of unknown metastatic lymphadenopathy. Am J Surg 178:496-500, 1999.
52. Morris EA, Schwartz LH, Dershaw DD, et al: MR imaging of the breast in patients with occult primary breast carcinoma. Radiology 205:437-440, 1997.
53. McMahon K, Medoro L, Kennedy D: Breast magnetic resonance imaging: An essential role in malignant axillary lymphadenopathy of unknown origin. Australas Radiol 49:382-389, 2005.
54. Stomper PC, Waddell BE, Edge SB, et al: Breast MRI in the evaluation of patients with occult primary breast carcinoma. Breast J 5:230-234, 1999.
55. Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Obdeijn AI, Bontenbal M, et al: MRI in patients with axillary metastases of occult breast carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res Treat 44:179-182, 1997.
56. Foroudi F, Tiver KW: Occult breast carcinoma presenting as axillary metastases. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 47:143-147, 2000.
57. Varadarajan R, Edge SB, Yu J, et al: Prognosis of occult breast carcinoma presenting as isolated axillary nodal metastasis. Oncology 71:456-459, 2007.
58. Kothari AS, Beechey-Newman N, Hamed H, et al: Paget disease of the nipple: A multifocal manifestation of higher-risk disease. Cancer 95:1-7, 2002.
59. Echevarria JJ, Lopez-Ruiz JA, Martin D, et al: Usefulness of MRI in detecting occult breast cancer associated with Paget's disease of the nipple-areolar complex. Br J Radiol 77:1036-1039, 2004.
60. Kaufmann M, von Minckwitz G, Smith R, et al: International expert panel on the use of primary (preoperative) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: Review and recommendations. J Clin Oncol 21:2600-2608, 2003.
61. Segara D, Krop IE, Garber JE, et al: Does MRI predict pathologic tumor response in women with breast cancer undergoing preoperative chemotherapy? J Surg Oncol July 19, 2007 (epub ahead of print).
62. Gilles R, Guinebretiere JM, Toussaint C, et al: Locally advanced breast cancer: Contrast-enhanced subtraction MR imaging of response to preoperative chemotherapy. Radiology 191:633-638, 1994.
63. Rosen EL, Blackwell KL, Baker JA, et al: Accuracy of MRI in the detection of residual breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. AJR 181:1275-1282, 2003.
64. Julius T, Kemp SE, Kneeshaw PJ, et al: MRI and conservative treatment of locally advanced breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 31:1129-1134, 2005.
65. Schott AF, Roubidoux MA, Helvie MA, et al: Clinical and radiologic assessments to predict breast cancer pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 92:231-238, 2005.
66. Garimella V, Qutob O, Fox JN, et al: Recurrence rates after DCE-MRI image guided planning for breast-conserving surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer patients. Eur J Surg Oncol 33:157-161, 2007.
67. Belli P, Costantini M, Malaspina C, et al: MRI accuracy in residual disease evaluation in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Clin Radiol 61:946-953, 2006.
68. Denis F, Desbiez-Bourcier AV, Chapiron C, et al: Contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging underestimates residual disease following neoadjuvant docetaxel based chemotherapy for breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 30:1069-1076, 2004.
69. Voogd AC, van Tienhoven G, Peterse HL, et al: Local recurrence after breast conservation therapy for early stage breast carcinoma. Detection, treatment, and outcome in 266 patients. Cancer 85:437-446, 1999.
70. van Tienhoven G, Voogd AC, Peterse JL, et al: Prognosis after treatment for loco-regional recurrence after mastectomy or breast conserving therapy in two randomised trials (EORTC 10801 and DBCG-82tm). Eur J Cancer 35:32-38, 1999.
71. Veronesi U, Marubini E, Del Vecchio M, et al: Local recurrences and distant metastases after conservative breast cancer treatments: Partly independent events. J Natl Cancer Inst 87:19-27, 1995.
72. Lehman CD, Gatsonis C, Kuhl CK, et al: MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. N Engl J Med 356:1295-1303, 2007.
73. Gao X, Fisher SG, Emami B: Risk of second primary cancer in the contralateral breast in women treated for early-stage breast cancer: A population-based study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 56:1038-1045, 2003.
74. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group: Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: An overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 365:1687-1717, 2005.