Contrast-enhanced MR mammography for evaluation of the contralateral breast in patients with diagnosed unilateral breast cancer or high-risk lesions

Radiology

Volumn 243, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 670-680

  Pediconi, Federica ^a   Catalano, Carlo ^a   Roselli, Antonella ^a   Padula, Simona ^a   Altomari, Fiorella ^a   Moriconi, Enrica ^a   Pronio, Anna Maria ^a   Kirchin, Miles A ^b   Passariello, Roberto ^a  

^a SAPIENZA UNIVERSITY OF ROME   (Italy)

^b Bracco Imaging ^*  (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GADOBENATE DIMEGLUMINE; SPECTRIS; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ADULT; AGED; APPARATUS; ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; BREAST FIBROADENOMA; BREAST IMAGING REPORTING DATA SYSTEM; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; ECHOGRAPHY; EVALUATION; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE MAMMOGRAPHY; PHYSICAL EXAMINATION; PICTURE ARCHIVING AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEM; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RATING SCALE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING;

ADULT; AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CONTRAST MEDIA; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEGLUMINE; MIDDLE AGED; ORGANOMETALLIC COMPOUNDS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 34249024009     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2433060838     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Roubidoux MA, Helvie MA, Lai NE, Paramagul C. Bilateral breast cancer: early detection with mammography. Radiology 1995; 196:427-431.
2. Roubidoux MA, Lai NE, Paramagul C, Joynt LK, Helvie MA. Mammographic appearance of cancer in the opposite breast: comparison with the first cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;166:29-31.
3. Chen Y, Thompson W, Semenciw R, Mao Y. Epidemiology of contralateral breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1999;8: 855-861.
4. Rosen PP, Groshen S, Kinne DW, Hellman S. Contralateral breast carcinoma: an assessment of risk and prognosis in stage I (T1N0M0) and stage II (T1N1M0) patients with 20-year follow-up. Surgery 1989;106: 904-910.
5. Liberman L, Morris EA, Kim CM, et al. MR imaging findings in the contralateral breast of women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180: 333-341.
6. Ganott MA, Sumkin JH, King JL, et al. Screening mammography: do women prefer a higher recall rate given the possibility of earlier detection of cancer? Radiology 2006; 238:793-800.
7. Boetes C, Mus RD, Holland R, et al. Breast tumors: comparative accuracy of MR imaging relative to mammography and US for demonstrating extent. Radiology 1995;197: 743-747.
8. Orel SG, Schnall MD. MR imaging of the breast for the detection, diagnosis, and staging of breast cancer. Radiology 2001;220: 13-30.
9. Warner E, Plewes DB, Shumak RS, 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 2001;19: 3524-3531.
10. 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 2004;351:427-437.
11. 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 2005;23:8469-8476.
12. Boetes C, Veltman J. Screening women at increased risk with MRI. Cancer Imaging 2005;5(suppl):S10-S15.
13. Jackson VP, Hendrick RE, Feig SA, Kopans DB. Imaging of the radiographically dense breast. Radiology 1993;188:297-301.
14. Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval-and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1081-1087.
15. Kawashima H, Matsui O, Suzuki M, et al. Breast cancer in dense breast: detection with contrast-enhanced dynamic MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000;11:233-243.
16. Echevarria JJ, Martin M, Saiz A, et al. Overall breast density in MR mammography: diagnostic and therapeutic implications in breast cancer. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2000;30:140-147.
17. Leis HP. Managing the remaining breast. Cancer 1980;40:1020-1030.
18. Lee SG, Orel SG, Woo IJ, et al. MR imaging screening of the contralateral breast in patients with newly diagnosed breasl cancer: preliminary results. Radiology 2003;220:773-778.
19. Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Obdeijn IM, Bartels kC, de Koning HJ, Oudkerk M. First experiences in screening women at high risk for breast cancer with MR imaging. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2000;03:53-00.
20. Kinkel K, Helbich TH, Esserman IJ, et al. Dynamic high-spatial-resolution MR imaging of suspicious breast lesions: diagnostic criteria and interobserver variability. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;175:35-43.
21. Slaretz PJ, Ednrister WB, Yeh ED, Talele AC, Kopans DB. Occult contralateral breast carcinoma incidentally detected by breast magnetic resonance imaging. Breast J 2002;8:145-148.
22. Vichweg P, Rotter K, Laniado M, et al. MR inragirrg of the contralateral breast in patients after breast-conserving therapy. Eur Radiol 2004;14:402-408.
23. Liberman L, Mason G, Morris HA, Dershaw DD. Does size matter? positive predictive value of MRI-detected breast lesions as a function of lesion size. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;180:420-430.
24. Rieber A, Merkle K, Böhm W, Brambs BJ, Tomczak R. MRI of histologically confirmed mammary carcinoma: clinical relevance of diagnostic procedures for detection of multifocal or contralateral secondary carcinoma. J Comput Assist Tornogr 1097;21:773-779.
25. Pediconi K, Catalano C, Occhiato R, et al. Breast lesion detection and characterization at contrast-enhanced MR mammography: gadobenate dimeglumine versus gadopentetate dimeglumine. Radiology 2005;237:45-50.
26. Kuhl CK, Bieling HB, 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 1997;203:137-144.
27. Müller-Schimplle M, Ohmenhäuser K, Stoll P, Dietz K, Claussen CD. Menstrual cycle and age: influence on parenchymal contrast medium enhancement in MR imaging of the breast. Radiology 1997;203:145-149.
28. Foster MC, Helvie MA, Gregory NE, et al. Lobular carcinoma in situ or atypical lobular hyperplasia at core-needle biopsy: is excisional biopsy necessary? Radiology 2004;231:813-819.
29. Li CI, Malone KE, Saltzman BS, Daling JR. Risk of invasive breast carcinoma among women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ and lobular carcinoma in situ, 1988-2001. Cancer 2000;100:2104-2112.
30. Denrirkazik FB. MR imaging features of breast lymphoma. Eur J Radiol 2002;42:62-64.
31. American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas (BI-RADS Atlas). 4th ed, Beston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2003.
32. Orel SG. Differentiating benign from malignant enhancing lesions identified at MR imaging of the breast: are time-signal intensity curves an accurate predictor? [editorial]. Radiology 1999;211:5-7.
33. Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S, et al. Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 1999;211:101-110.
34. kuhl CK, Sehild HH. Dynamic image interpretation of MRI of the breast. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000;12:905-974.
35. Cecil KM, Schnall MD, Siegehnan FS, Lenkinski RK. The evaluation of human breast lesions with magnetic resonance imaging and proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2001;68:45-54.
36. Jacobs MA, Barker PB, Bluemke DA, et al. Benign and malignant breast lesions: diagnosis with multiparametric MB imaging. Radiology 2003;229:225-223.
37. Piccoli CW. Contrast-enhanced breast MRI: factors affecting sensitivity and specificity. Eur Radiol 1997;7(suppl 5):281-288.
38. Stomper PC, Herman S, Klippenstein DL, et al. Suspect breast lesions: lindings at dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging correlated with mammographic and pathologic features. Radiology 1995;197:387-395.
39. Lin PF, Debatin JF, Caduff RF, Kael G, Garzoli E, Krestin GP. Improved diagnostic accuracy in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast by combined quantitative and qualitative analysis. Br J Radiol 1998;71:501-509.
40. 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 Am J Roentgenol 2004;183:1149-1157.
41. Knopp MY, Bourne MW, Sardanelli F, et al. Gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI of the breast: analysis of dose response and comparison with gadopentetate dimeglumine. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:663-676.
42. Prokop M, Schneider G, Vanzulli A, et al. Contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the renal arteries: blinded multicenter crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine. Radiology 2005;234:399-408.
43. Pintaske J, Martirosian P, Graf H, et al. Relaxivity of gadopentetate dimeglumine (Magnevist). gadobutrol (Gadovist). and gadobenate dimeglumine (Multillance) in human blood plasma at 0.2, 1.5, and 3 Tesla. Invest Radiol 2000;41:213-221. [Published correction appears in Invest Radiol 2000;41:859.]
44. Cavagna FM, Maggioni F, Castelli PM, et al. Gadolinium chelates with weak binding to serum proteins: a new class of high-efficiency, general purpose contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol 1997:32:780-790.
45. Helbich TH. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the breast. Eur J Radiol 2000;34:208-219.
46. Sardanelli F, Iozzelli A, Fausto A, Carriero A, Kirchin MA. Gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MR imaging breast vascular maps: association between invasive cancer and ipsilateral increased vascularity. Radiology 2005;235:791-797.
47. Philpotts FF, Will improved vascular mapping achieved with gadobenate dimeglumine aid in interpretation of breast MR images? Radiology 2005;235:717-718.
48. Daldrup-Fink HE, Brasch RC. Macromolecular contrast agents for MR mammography: current status. Eur Radiol 2003;13:354-305.
49. Hungness FS, Safa M, Shauglmessy FA, et al. Bilateral synchronous breast cancer: mode of detection and comparison of histologic features between the 2 breasts. Surgery 2000;128:702-707.