Pure ductal carcinoma in situ: Kinetic and morphologic MR characteristics compared with mammographic appearance and nuclear grade

Radiology

Volumn 245, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 684-691

  Jansen, Sanaz A ^a   Newstead, Gillian M ^a   Abe, Hiroyuki ^a   Shimauchi, Akiko ^a   Schmidt, Robert A ^a   Karczmar, Gregory S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GADODIAMIDE;

ARTICLE; BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST CARCINOMA; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER GRADING; CARCINOMA IN SITU; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; KINETICS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MORPHOLOGY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; X RAY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA, INTRADUCTAL, NONINFILTRATING; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 36249032074     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2453062061     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Recht A, Rutgers EJ, Fentiman IS, Kurtz JM, Mansel RE, Sloane JP. The fourth EORTC DCIS consensus meeting (Heemskerk, the Netherlands, 23-24 January 1998): conference report. Eur J Cancer 1998;34:1664-1669.
2. DiPiro PJ, Meyer JE, Denison CM, Frenna TH, Harvey SC, Smith DN. Image-guided core breast biopsy of ductal carcinoma in situ presenting as a non-calcified abnormality. Eur J Radiol 1999;30:231-236.
3. Dershaw DD, Abramson A, Kinne DW. Ductal carcinoma in situ: mammographic findings and clinical implications. Radiology 1989;170:411-415.
4. Ikeda DM, Andersson I. Ductal carcinoma in situ: atypical mammographic appearances. Radiology 1989;172:661-666.
5. Stomper PC, Connolly JL, Meyer JE, Harris JR. Clinically occult ductal carcinoma in situ detected with mammography: analysis of 100 cases with radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 1989;172:235-241.
6. 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.
7. Abraham DC, Jones RC, Jones SE, et al. Evaluation of neoadjuvant chemotherapeutic response of locally advanced breast cancer by magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer 1996;78:91-100.
8. Bone B, Aspelin P, Bronge L, Isberg B, Perbeck L, Veress B. Sensitivity and specificity of MR mammography with histopathological correlation in 230 breasts. Acta Radiol 1990;37:208-213.
9. Stomper PC, Herman S, Klippenstein DL, et al. Suspect breast lesions: findings at dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging correlated with mammographic and pathologic features. Radiology 1995;197:387-395.
10. Kuhl CK, Schild HH. Dynamic image interpretation of MRI of the breast. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000;12:965-974.
11. 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.
12. Menell JH, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, Abramson AF, Brogi E, Liberman L. Determination of the presence and extent of pure ductal carcinoma in situ by mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Breast J 2005;11:382-390.
13. Neubauer H, Li M, Kuehne-Heid R, Schneider A, Kaiser WA. High grade and non-high grade ductal carcinoma in situ on dynamic MR mammography: characteristic findings for signal increase and morphological pattern of enhancement. Br J Radiol 2003;76:3-12.
14. Fischer U, Westerhof JP, Brinck U, Korabiowska M, Schauer A, Grabbe E. Ductal carcinoma in situ in dynamic MR-mammography at 1.5 T [in German]. Rofo 1996; 164:290-294.
15. Vieliweg P, Lampe D, Buchmann J, Heywang-Kobrunner SH. In situ and minimally invasive breast cancer: morphologic and kinetic features on contrast-enhanced MR imaging. MAGMA 2000;11:129-137.
16. Van Goethem M, Schelfout K, Kersschot E, et al. Comparison of MRI features of different grades of DCIS and invasive carcinoma of the breast. JBR-BTR 2005;88:225-232.
17. Orel SG, Mendonca MH, Reynolds C, Schnall MD, Solin LJ, Sullivan DC. MR imaging of ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiology 1997;202:413-420.
18. Gilles R, Zafrani B, Guinebretiere JM, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ: MR imaging-histopathologic correlation. Radiology 1995; 196:415-419.
19. Shiraishi A, Kurosaki Y, Maehara T, Suzuki M, Kurosumi M. Extension of ductal carcinoma in situ: histopathological association with MR imaging and mammography. Magn Reson Med Sci 2003;2:159-163.
20. Schouten van der Velden AP, Boetes C, Bult P, Wobbes T. The value of magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis and size assessment of in situ and small invasive breast carcinoma. Am J Surg 2006;192:172-178.
21. Groves AM, Warren RM, Godward S, Rajan PS. Characterization of pure high-grade DCIS on magnetic resonance imaging using the evolving breast MR lexicon terminology: can it be differentiated from pure invasive disease? Magn Reson Imaging 2005;23:733-738.
22. Furman-Haran E, Schechtman E, Kelcz F, Kirshenbaum K, Degani H. Magnetic resonance imaging reveals functional diversity of the vasculature in benign and malignant breast lesions. Cancer 2005;104:708-718.
23. Oshida K, Nagashima T, Ueda T, et al. Pharmacokinetic analysis of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast using dynamic MR mammography. Eur Radiol 2005;15:1353-1360.
24. Szabo BK, Aspelin P, Wiberg MK, Bone B. Dynamic MR imaging of the breast: analysis of kinetic and morphologic diagnostic criteria. Acta Radiol 2003;44:379-386.
25. Esserman L, Hylton N, George T, Weidner N. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging to assess tumor histopathology and angiogenesis in breast carcinoma. Breast J 1999;5:13-21.
26. Su MY, Cheung YC, Fruehauf JP, et al. Correlation of dynamic contrast enhancement MRI parameters with microvessel density and VEGF for assessment of angiogenesis in breast cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 2003; 18:467-477.
27. Tuncbilek N, Unlu E, Karakas HM, Cakir B, Ozyilmaz F. evaluation of tumor angiogenesis with contrast-enhanced dynamic magnetic resonance mammography. Breast J 2003;9:403-408.
28. Buadu LD, Murakami J, Murayama S, et al. Breast lesions: correlation of contrast medium enhancement patterns on MR images with histopathologic findings and tumor angiogenesis. Radiology 1996;200:639-649.
29. Guidi AJ, Fischer L, Harris JR, Schnitt SJ. Microvessel density and distribution in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86:614-619.
30. Heffelfinger SC, Miller MA, Yassin R, Gear R. Angiogenic growth factors in preinvasive breast disease. Clin Cancer Res 1999;5: 2867-2876.
31. Heffelfinger SC, Yassin R, Miller MA, Lower E. Vascularity of proliferative breast disease and carcinoma in situ correlates with histological features. Clin Cancer Res 1996;2: 1873-1878.
32. James JJ, Evans AJ, Pinder SE, Macmillan RD, Wilson AR, Ellis IO. Is the presence of mammographic comedo calcification really a prognostic factor for small screen-detected invasive breast cancers? Clin Radiol 2003; 58:54-62.
33. Peacock C, Given-Wilson RM, Duffy SW. Mammographic casting-type calcification associated with small screen-detected invasive breast cancers: is this a reliable prognostic indicator? Clin Radiol 2004;59:165-170.
34. Tabar L, Tony Chen HH, Amy Yen MF, et al. Mammographic tumor features can predict long-term outcomes reliably in women with 1-14-mm invasive breast carcinoma. Cancer 2004;101:1745-1739.
35. Thurfjell E, Thurfjell MG, Lindgren A. Mammographic finding as predictor of survival in 1-9 mm invasive breast cancers: worse prognosis for cases presenting as calcifications alone. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2001; 67:177-180.
36. Zunzunegui RG, Chung MA, Oruwari J, Golding D, Marchant DJ, Cady B. Casting-type calcifications with invasion and high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ: a more aggressive disease? Arch Surg 2003;138:537-540.
37. Esserman LJ, Kumar AS, Herrera AF, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging captures the biology of ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:4603-4610.
38. Kumar AS, Chen DF, Au A, et al. Biologic significance of false-positive magnetic resonance imaging enhancement in the setting of ductal carcinoma in situ. Am J Surg 2006; 192:520-524.
39. Harms SE. The use of breast magnetic resonance imaging in ductal carcinoma in situ. Breast J 2005;11:379-381.