Präoperatives Staging mit der Mamma-MRT: Pro und Kontra

In oncologic patients, staging of the disease extent is of paramount importance. Imaging studies are used to decide whether the patient is a surgical candidate; if this is the case, imaging is used for detailed planning of the surgical procedure itself. Even in patients with limited prognosis, the first priority is always to achieve clear margins. Due to the widespread use of screening mammography, breast cancers are among the few cancers that are almost always diagnosed in an operable stage and are operated on with curative intention. It is well established that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is far superior to mammography (with and without concomitant ultrasound) for mapping the local extent of breast cancer. Accordingly, there is good reason to suggest that a pre-operative breast MRI should be considered an integral part of breast conserving treatment. Still, it is only rarely used in clinical practice. Arguments against its use are: Its high costs, allegedly high number of false positive findings, lack of MR-guided breast biopsy facilities, lack of evidence from randomized prospective trials and, notably, fear of "overtreatment". This paper discusses the reservations against staging MRI and weighs them against its clinical advantages. The point is made that radiologists as well as breast surgeons should be aware of the possibility of overtreatment, i.e. unnecessary mastectomy for very small, "MRI-only" multicentric cancer foci that would indeed be sufficiently treated by radiation therapy. There is a clear need to adapt the guidelines established for treatment of mammography-diagnosed multicentric breast cancer to account for the additional use of MRI for staging. Until these guidelines are available, the management of additional, "MRI-only" diagnosed small multicentric cancer manifestations must be decided on wisely and with caution. MRI for staging may only be done in institutions that can also offer an MR-guided tissue sampling, preferably by MR-guided vacuum assisted biopsy, to provide pre-operative histological proof of lesions visible by breast MRI alone.     

Bildgebende Diagnostik des Mammakarzinoms

Advances in imaging of the female breast have substantially influenced the diagnosis and probably also the therapy and prognosis of breast cancer in the past few years. This article gives an overview of the most important imaging modalities in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Digital mammography is considered to be the gold standard for the early detection of breast cancer. Digital breast tomosynthesis can increase the diagnostic accuracy of mammography and is used for the assessment of equivocal or suspicious mammography findings. Other modalities, such as ultrasound and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) play an important role in the diagnostics, staging and follow-up of breast cancer. Percutaneous needle biopsy is a rapid and minimally invasive method for the histological verification of breast cancer. New breast imaging modalities, such as contrast-enhanced spectral mammography, diffusion-weighted MRI and MR spectroscopy can possibly further improve breast cancer diagnostics; however, further studies are necessary to prove the advantages of these methods so that they cannot yet be recommended for routine clinical use.     

乳腺良性叶状肿瘤术中乳腺内整形术10例分析

目的探讨乳腺良性叶状肿瘤临床诊断和治疗方法。方法回顾分析经手术病理确诊为乳腺良性叶状肿瘤10例患者的病历资料。结果乳腺肿块为首发症状且增长快速,术前超声、钼靶、核磁共振等影像学检查准确率50%,空芯针活检术前病理与术后病理相符率90%。局部扩大切除术随访至今未见复发,术中乳腺内成型能保证乳房的外形。结论术前空芯针活检是明确诊断的标准,局部扩大切除术可以作为乳腺良性叶状肿瘤的标准术式,术中乳腺瓣成型术能维持乳房的基本外形,值得推荐。     

Integrated screening concept in women with genetic predisposition for breast cancer

Summary Breast cancer is in 5 % of cases due to a genetic disposition. BRCA1 and BRCA2 are by far the most common breast cancer susceptibility genes. For a woman with a genetic predisposition, the individual risk of developing breast cancer sometime in her life is between 70 and 90 %. Compared to the spontaneous forms of breast cancer, woman with a genetic predisposition often develop breast cancer at a much younger age. This is why conventional screening programs on the basis of mammography alone cannot be applied without modification to this high-risk group. In this article, an integrated screening concept for women with genetic predisposition for breast cancer using breast self-examination, clinical examination, ultrasound, mammography and magnetic resonance imaging is introduced.      

Bildgebende Diagnostik des Mammakarzinoms

Advances in female breast imaging have substantially influenced the diagnosis, therapy, and prognosis of breast cancer in the past few years. Mammography using conventional or digital technique is considered the gold standard for the early detection of breast cancer. Other modalities such as breast ultrasound and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the breast play an important role in diagnostic imaging, staging, and follow-up of breast cancer. Percutaneous needle biopsy is a faster, less invasive, and more cost-effective method than surgical biopsy for verifying the histological diagnosis. New methods such as breast tomosynthesis, contrast-enhanced mammography, and positron emission tomography promise to further improve breast imaging. Further studies are mandatory to adapt these new methods to clinical needs and to evaluate their performance in clinical practice.     

Magnetic resonance imaging of breast cancer: clinical indications and breast MRI reporting system

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is well suited to the investigation of breast cancer by virtue of its noninvasive nature and its multiplanar imaging abilities. MRI investigations showed high sensitivity but modest specificity for breast cancer detection and diagnosis. Most early studies tested the ability of MRI to evaluate and diagnose findings in the breast discovered by other imaging tests or by breast physical examination (1-4). When it was discovered that MRI identified small breast cancers undetected by mammography or breast ultrasound, MRI was used to estimate breast cancer extent in known cancer cases for surgical planning (5,6). These investigations led to the use of MRI in a multitude of breast imaging applications, raising further questions about the use of MRI in everyday practice: What are the indications for breast MRI in general practice? What is its role in light of other imaging tests? What are its benefits and limitations in each setting? How do I report these studies? The purpose of this article is to review the clinical background regarding indications for the use of MRI and relevant cases in which MRI can impact patient management in breast disease, and to describe new developments in reporting breast MRI studies. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2000;12:975-983.     

Surveillance mammography for detecting ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence and metachronous contralateral breast cancer: a systematic review

Objectives

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of surveillance mammography for detecting ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence and metachronous contralateral breast cancer in women previously treated for primary breast cancer.

Methods

A systematic review of surveillance mammography compared with ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), specialist-led clinical examination or unstructured primary care follow-up, using histopathological assessment for test positives and follow-up for test negatives as the reference standard.

Results

Nine studies met our inclusion criteria. Variations in study comparisons precluded meta-analysis. For routine ipsilateral breast tumour detection, surveillance mammography sensitivity ranged from 64?C67% and specificity ranged from 85?C97%. For MRI, sensitivity ranged from 86?C100% and specificity was 93%. For non-routine ipsilateral breast tumour detection, sensitivity and specificity for surveillance mammography ranged from 50?C83% and 57?C75% and for MRI 93?C100% and 88?C96%. For routine metachronous contralateral breast cancer detection, one study reported sensitivity of 67% and specificity of 50% for both surveillance mammography and MRI.

Conclusion

Although mammography is associated with high sensitivity and specificity, MRI is the most accurate test for detecting ipsilateral breast tumour recurrence and metachronous contralateral breast cancer in women previously treated for primary breast cancer. Results should be interpreted with caution because of the limited evidence base. Key Points ? Surveillance mammography is associated with high sensitivity and specificity ? Findings suggest that MRI is the most accurate test for detecting further breast cancer ? Robust conclusions cannot be made due to the limited evidence base ? Further research comparing surveillance mammography and other diagnostic tests is required     

MRI in routine breast cancer follow-up: correlation with clinical outcome.

AIM: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast has been shown to be useful as an additional imaging test in patients suspected of having recurrent disease, when clinical examination or mammography are equivocal. This study examines the utility of MRI as a routine test in the follow-up of treated breast cancer patients without equivocal clinical or imaging findings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Contrast-enhanced breast MRI was performed as part of routine breast cancer follow-up in 26 patients with equivocal clinical or mammographic findings and 33 control patients in whom clinical and imaging findings were consistent with post-treatment changes only. Clinical outcome was assessed at 3 years post MRI. RESULTS: Four patients with equivocal clinical or mammographic findings had abnormal MRI: all MRI abnormalities were subsequently shown to represent benign disease. None of the equivocal group developed local recurrence, although two of 26 developed distant metastases. One of the control group had unsuspected distant metastases detected by MRI: the other 32 patients had no significant abnormality on MRI. Three patients subsequently developed local tumour recurrence. CONCLUSION: A single normal breast MRI examination during follow-up is a poor predictor of subsequent local recurrence.     

Radiological diagnosis of mammary carcinomas. I: pathology and x-ray mammography

Breast cancer is the most common malignant tumor in women: almost 10 % will suffer from breast cancer during their life and almost half of these will die of it. The spectrum of radiologic methods for diagnosing breast cancer is wide, including X-ray mammography, ultrasound, magnetic resonance mammography, and minimally invasive biopsies. After long-lasting controversies, breast cancer screening using X-ray mammography has now been introduced in Germany, following the projects in the Netherlands and Sweden. However, assessing mammographic films under screening conditions requires skills distinctly different from those needed under clinical conditions. This first part of two covers the histopathological basics and X-ray mammography; the second will deal with ultrasound of the breast and magnetic resonance mammography.     

Fat necrosis of the breast: mammographic, sonographic, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging findings

Fat necrosis of the breast is a benign inflammatory process that may be mistaken for cancer in clinical examination or imaging studies. Although its mammographic manifestations are well known, data from other imaging modes, particularly sonography and magnetic resonance imaging, are limited. With the growing number of breast surgeries performed today (eg, breast-conserving, autologous tissue reconstruction, mammoplasty), fat necrosis is seen more often in daily practice. Knowledge of its imaging features could improve clinical management, including the avoidance of unnecessary biopsy procedures. The main objectives of this article are to review the literature and to relate the manifestations of fat necrosis on mammography, sonography, magnetic resonance imaging, and computed tomography to their associated histopathologic events.     

术前超声及钼靶BI-RADS分类对早期乳腺癌的诊断价值

 目的 探索术前超声及钼靶BI-RADS分类对早期乳腺癌的诊断价值。方法 收集2015-08至2017-08在医院确诊为早期乳腺癌(TNM分期为Ⅰ、Ⅱ期)且术前同时行超声及钼靶检查的43例患者资料,共44个病灶。以BI-RADS分类≤3判为良性,=4a为可疑恶性,≥4b判为恶性,回顾性分析超声、钼靶及两者联合对早期乳腺癌的诊断价值。结果 早期乳腺癌术前超声BI-RADS分类判为可疑恶性及恶性的比例为93.2%(41/44),明显高于钼靶75.0%(33/44),差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05),两者联合诊断比例为95.5%(42/44)。其中对于黏液腺癌,超声判读为可疑恶性及恶性的比例明显高于钼靶,而浸润性导管癌、导管内癌及其他类型乳腺癌超声与钼靶BI-RADS分类无差异。其中两者联合仍判为良性的2个病灶分别为导管内癌和髓样癌。结论 对于早期乳腺癌尤其是黏液腺癌,术前超声BI-RADS分类判为可疑恶性及恶性的比例较钼靶更高;术前超声和钼靶判为可疑恶性及恶性的比例与乳腺癌病理类型密切相关;而对于特殊类型的早期乳腺癌及导管内癌两者结合仍有可能漏诊。     

Diagnostic intervention in breast disease

Imaging-guided percutaneous biopsy techniques have been developed to diagnose the lesions detected in breast cancer screening programs based on mammography. Although traditional fine-needle aspiration cytology continues to be indicated in some cases, in many others it has been supplanted by more modern techniques like core biopsy or vacuum-assisted biopsy guided by ultrasonography, stereotaxy, or magnetic resonance imaging. These highly reliable techniques have minimized the need for surgical biopsy. Radiologists play a key role in the histological diagnosis of breast cancer in the early stages of disease and in the evaluation of its local and regional extension through magnetic resonance imaging and sentinel node biopsy.     

Mammakarzinom

Breast cancer is the most common malignant tumor in women: Almost 10% will suffer from breast cancer during their life; almost half of these will die of it. The spectrum of radiologic methods for diagnosing breast cancer is wide, including X-ray mammography, ultrasound, magnetic resonance mammography, and minimally invasive biopsies. This second part of two covers ultrasound of the breast and magnetic resonance mammography.     

Breast cancer. Sonography and magnetic resonance mammography

Breast cancer is the most common malignant tumor in women: Almost 10% will suffer from breast cancer during their life; almost half of these will die of it. The spectrum of radiologic methods for diagnosing breast cancer is wide, including X-ray mammography, ultrasound, magnetic resonance mammography, and minimally invasive biopsies. This second part of two covers ultrasound of the breast and magnetic resonance mammography.     

Accuracy of tumour size assessment in the preoperative staging of breast cancer: comparison of digital mammography, tomosynthesis, ultrasound and MRI

Purpose

Accurate measurement of breast tumour size is fundamental for treatment planning. We compared the accuracy of digital mammography (DM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the preoperative evaluation of breast cancer size.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively reviewed 149 breast cancers in 110 patients who underwent DM, DBT, US and MRI between January 2010 and December 2011, before definitive surgery. The lesions were measured by two radiologists, without knowledge of the final histological examination, considered the gold standard. For each imaging modality, the maximum tumour size was measured to the nearest millimetre; the measurements were considered concordant if they were within ±5 mm. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was calculated for each imaging modality.

Results

The median pathological tumour size was 22.3 mm. MRI and DBT had a level of concordance with pathology of 70% and 66%, respectively, which was higher than that of DM (54%). DBT and MRI measurements had a better correlation with pathological tumour size (R:0.89 and R:0.92, respectively) compared to DM (R:0.83) and US (R:0.77).

Conclusions

DBT and MRI are superior to DM and US in the preoperative assessment of breast tumour size. DBT seems to improve the accuracy of DM, although MRI remains the most accurate imaging modality for breast cancer extension.     

Monitoring therapeutic efficacy in breast carcinomas

The aim of imaging during and after neoadjuvant therapy is to document and quantify tumor response: has the tumor size been accurately measured? Certainly, the most exciting information for the oncologists is: can we identify good or nonresponders, and can we predict the pathological response early after the initiation of treatment? This review article will discuss the role and the performance of the different imaging modalities (mammography, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging and FDG-PET imaging) for evaluating this therapeutic response. It is important to emphasize that, at this time, clinical examination and conventional imaging (mammography and ultrasound) are the only methods recognized by the international criteria. Magnetic resonance imaging and FDG-PET imaging are very promising for predicting the response early after the initiation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy.     

Scintimammography with 99mTc-MIBI versus dynamic MRI for non-invasive characterization of breast masses

Although mammography remains the technique of choice for the early detection of breast cancer, several imaging techniques, including scintimammography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), have recently been proposed as adjuncts for this purpose and included in many diagnostic protocols. This study was undertaken to assess the clinical accuracy of scintimammography with technetium-99m methoxyisobutylisonitrile (MIBI) and contrast-enhanced MRI in the detection of primary breast carcinoma in patients with equivocal mammographic findings. Forty-nine patients with a suspicious breast mass detected either by physical examination or by mammography and ultrasound (US) were studied. All patients underwent scintimammography and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI 1 week apart. The results of the two techniques were compared and correlated to the final diagnoses. Two independent readers reported the scans using a four-point confidence scale. The areas under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were obtained. Scintimammography showed an accuracy for tumour detection of 84%, with a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 88%. MRI showed an accuracy of 86%, with a sensitivity and specificity of 96% and 75%, respectively. Comparison of the two areas under the ROC curves showed no significant differences between MRI, 0.91+/-0.05 (mean+/-SD), and scintimammography, 0.88+/-0.05 (P=0.9). It is concluded that dynamic MRI and scintimammography possess comparable accuracy in the diagnosis of primary breast carcinoma in patients with equivocal mammographic or US findings.     

Diagnostic accuracy of new imaging techniques in breast diseases

During the last decade, the hypothetical carcinogenic effects of mammography have lead to new technical developments in X-ray diagnosis and to the use of other imaging techniques such as ultrasonography (US), transillumination, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Many preliminary studies were published but few clinical trials are really convincing. According to the definition of a diagnostic tool, none of these new modalities is supposed to supplant mammography in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Improvements are expected by digital mammography in the near future.     

Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer

PURPOSE: To prospectively assess accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, ultrasonography (US), and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in preoperative assessment of local extent of breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval and informed patient consent were obtained. Results of bilateral mammography, US, and contrast-enhanced MR imaging were analyzed from 111 consecutive women with known or suspected invasive breast cancer. Results were correlated with histopathologic findings. RESULTS: Analysis included 177 malignant foci in 121 cancerous breasts, of which 89 (50%) foci were palpable. Median size of 139 invasive foci was 18 mm (range, 2-107 mm). Mammographic sensitivity decreased from 100% in fatty breasts to 45% in extremely dense breasts. Mammographic sensitivity was highest for invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) in 89 of 110 (81%) cases versus 10 of 29 (34%) cases of invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) (P < .001) and 21 of 38 (55%) cases of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (P < .01). US showed higher sensitivity than did mammography for IDC, depicting 104 of 110 (94%) cases, and for ILC, depicting 25 of 29 (86%) cases (P < .01 for each). US showed higher sensitivity for invasive cancer than DCIS (18 of 38 [47%], P < .001). MR showed higher sensitivity than did mammography for all tumor types (P < .01) and higher sensitivity than did US for DCIS (P < .001), depicting 105 of 110 (95%) cases of IDC, 28 of 29 (96%) cases of ILC, and 34 of 38 (89%) cases of DCIS. In anticipation of conservation or no surgery after mammography and clinical examination in 96 breasts, additional tumor (which altered surgical approach) was present in 30. Additional tumor was depicted in 17 of 96 (18%) breasts at US and in 29 of 96 (30%) at MR, though extent was now overestimated in 12 of 96 (12%) at US and 20 of 96 (21%) at MR imaging. After combined mammography, clinical examination, and US, MR depicted additional tumor in another 12 of 96 (12%) breasts and led to overestimation of extent in another six (6%); US showed no detection benefit after MR imaging. Bilateral cancer was present in 10 of 111 (9%) patients; contralateral tumor was depicted mammographically in six and with both US and MR in an additional three. One contralateral cancer was demonstrated only clinically. CONCLUSION: In nonfatty breasts, US and MR imaging were more sensitive than mammography for invasive cancer, but both MR imaging and US involved risk of overestimation of tumor extent. Combined mammography, clinical examination, and MR imaging were more sensitive than any other individual test or combination of tests.     

The choice of the correct imaging modality in breast cancer management

This brief overview discusses which of the diagnostic options are more reliable and effective for breast cancer imaging with a view to avoiding the unjustified use of techniques that are suboptimal. The technological development of diagnostic imaging has been very impressive, and both radiological (mammography, ultrasonography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging) and nuclear medicine tools (bone scan, planar and SPECT scintigraphy, sentinel node biopsy, positron emission tomography) have helped to overcome past limitations in the detection of small lesions. Furthermore, new approaches have been developed that permit successful differential diagnosis of doubtful lesions and rapid identification of systemic metastases, and allow non-invasive characterisation of the biology of cancer tissue. There is evidence that these advances may have helped in optimising therapeutic strategies. Importantly, the metabolic information provided by nuclear medicine procedures may be combined with the anatomical data supplied by radiological techniques in order to assist in predicting tumour response, planning radiotherapy and monitoring patient outcome. It is difficult to formulate conclusive diagnostic guidelines for application in the work-up of breast cancer, because while the role of some examinations, such as mammography and ultrasonography, is well established, that of others, such as magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography, is still a matter of debate. There is a need for further prospective evaluations with appropriate clinical trials designed to evaluate the impact of these approaches in improving survival and quality of life.