Effect of preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging on surgical decision making and cancer recurrence rates

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 47, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 128-135

  Pediconi, Federica ^a   Miglio, Elena ^a   Telesca, Marianna ^a   Luciani, Maria Laura ^a   Kirchin, Miles A ^b   Passariello, Roberto ^a   Catalano, Carlo ^a  

^a SAPIENZA UNIVERSITY OF ROME   (Italy)

^b Bracco Imaging SpA   (Italy)

Author keywords

breast; breast neoplasms MR; cancer recurrence; cancer staging; magnetic resonance (MR)

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; GADOBENATE DIMEGLUMINE;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER STAGING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASTECTOMY; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MUSCLE METASTASIS; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PARTIAL MASTECTOMY; PECTORALIS MAJOR MUSCLE; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEGMENTAL MASTECTOMY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; ULTRASOUND;

EID: 84855861779     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: 15360210     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e318230061c     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Fischer U, Kopka L, Grabbe E. Breast carcinoma: effect of preoperative contrast-enhanced MR imaging on the therapeutic approach. Radiology. 1999;213:881-888.
2. Lee JM, Orel SG, Czerniecki BJ, et al. MRI before re-excision surgery in patients with breast cancer. Am J Roentgenol. 2004;182:473-480. (Pubitemid 38116596)
3. Fisher B, Redmond C, Poisson R, et al. Eight-year results of a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy and lumpectomy with or without irradiation in the treatment of breast cancer̈Erratum in: N Engl J Med. 1994;330:1467. N Engl J Med. 1989;320:822-828. (Pubitemid 19094701)
4. van Dongen JA, Bartelink H, Fentiman IS, et al. Factors influencing local relapse and survival and results of salvage treatment after breast-conserving therapy in operable breast cancer: EORTC trial 10801, breast conservation compared with mastectomy in TNM stage I and II breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 1992;28A:801-805.
5. Veronesi U, Luini A, Galimberti V, et al. Conservation approaches for the management of stage I/II carcinoma of the breast: Milan Cancer Institute trials. World J Surg. 1994;18:70-75. (Pubitemid 24100695)
6. Fisher B, Anderson S, Redmond CK, et al. Reanalysis and results after 12 years of follow-up in a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy with lumpectomy with or without irradiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1995;333:1456-1461.
7. Jacobson JA, Danforth DN, Cowan KH, et al. Ten-year results of a comparison of conservation with mastectomy in the treatment of stage I and II breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1995;332:907-911.
8. Arriagada R, Le MG, Rochard F, et al. Conservative treatment versus mastectomy in early breast cancer: patterns of failure with 15 years of follow-up data. Institut Gustave-Roussy Breast Cancer Group. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:1558-1564. (Pubitemid 26134214)
9. Van Dongen JA, Voogd AC, Fentiman IS, et al. Long-term results of a randomized trial comparing breast-conserving therapy with mastectomy: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 10801 trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:1143-1150.
10. Dershaw DD. Breast imaging and the conservative treatment of breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am. 2002;40:501-516. (Pubitemid 34765036)
11. Morrow M, Strom EA, Bassett LW, et al. Standard for breast conservation therapy in the management of invasive breast carcinoma. CA Cancer J Clin. 2002;52:277-300. (Pubitemid 35345499)
12. Orel SG, Schnall MD. MR imaging of the breast for the detection, diagnosis and staging of breast cancer. Radiology. 2001;220:13-30. (Pubitemid 32577955)
13. 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. 2004;233:830-849.
14. Van Goethem M, Schelfout K, Dijckmans L, et al. MR mammography in the pre-operative staging of breast cancer in patients with dense breast tissue: comparison with mammography and ultrasound. Eur Radiol. 2004;14:809-816. (Pubitemid 38678900)
15. 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. Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183:1149-1157. (Pubitemid 44185114)
16. Kuhl C. The current status of breast MR imaging. Part I. Choice of technique, image interpretation, diagnostic accuracy, and transfer to clinical practice. Radiology. 2007;244:356-378. (Pubitemid 47080868)
17. Kuhl CK. Current status of breast MR imaging. Part II. Clinical applications. Radiology. 2007;244:672-691. (Pubitemid 47292079)
18. 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. (Pubitemid 32730090)
19. 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. 2004;292:1317-1325. (Pubitemid 39223222)
20. 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). Erratum in: Lancet. 2005;365:1848. Lancet. 2005;365:1769-1778. (Pubitemid 40744657)
21. Hagen AI, Kvistad KA, Maehle L, et al. Sensitivity of MRI versus conventional screening in the diagnosis of BRCA-associated breast cancer in a national prospective series. Breast. 2007;16:367-374. (Pubitemid 47157808)
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. Kuhl C, Weigel S, Schrading S, et al. Prospective multicenter cohort study to refine management recommendations for women at elevated familial risk of breast cancer: the EVA trial. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:1450-1457.
25. Sardanelli F, Podo F, Santoro F, et al. Multicenter surveillance of women at high genetic breast cancer risk using mammography, ultrasonography, and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (the high breast cancer risk Italian 1 study): final results. Invest Radiol. 2011;46:94-105.
26. 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. 1999;17:110-119. (Pubitemid 29022384)
27. Tillman GF, Orel SG, Schnall MD, et al. Effect of breast magnetic resonance imaging on the clinical management of women with early-stage breast carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:3413-3423.
28. 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. 2003;98:468-473. (Pubitemid 36885985)
29. Thibault F, Nos C, Meunier M, et al. MRI for surgical planning in patients with breast cancer who undergo preoperative chemotherapy. Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183:1159-1168. (Pubitemid 44185115)
30. Houssami N, Ciatto S, Macaskill P, et al. Accuracy and surgical impact of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging: systematic review and meta-analysis in detection of multifocal and multicentric cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3248-3258.
31. Solin LJ, Orel SG, Hwang WT, et al. Relationship of breast magnetic resonance imaging to outcome after breast-conservation treatment with radiation for women with early-stage invasive breast carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:386-391. (Pubitemid 351171689)
32. Turnbull L, Brown S, Harvey I, et al. Comparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010; 375:563-571.
33. American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas (BIRADS Atlas). 4th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2003.
34. Knopp MV, Bourne MW, Sardanelli F, et al. Gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI of the breast: analysis of dose response and comparison with gadopentetate dimeglumine. Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181:663-676. (Pubitemid 37021833)
35. Pediconi F, Catalano C, Occhiato R, et al. Breast lesion detection and characterization at contrast-enhanced MR mammography: gadobenate dimeglumine versus gadopentetate dimeglumine. Radiology. 2005;237:45-56. (Pubitemid 41346145)
36. Pediconi F, Catalano C, Padula S, et al. Contrast-Enhanced MR Mammography: Improved lesion detection and differentiation with gadobenate dimeglumine. Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191:1339-1346.
37. Martincich L, Faivre-Pierret M, Zechmann CM, et al. Multicenter, doubleblind, randomized, intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine for MR imaging of the breast (DETECT). Radiology. 2011;258:396-408.
38. Carbonaro LA, Verardi N, Di Leo G, et al. Handling a high relaxivity contrast material for dynamic breast MR imaging using higher thresholds for the initial enhancement. Invest Radiol. 2010;45:114-120.
39. Veronesi U, Zurrida S, Viale G, et al. Rethinking TNM: a breast cancer classification to guide to treatment and facilitate research. Breast J. 2009;15: 291-295.
40. Sanchez C, Brem RF, McSwain AP, et al. Factors associated with re-excision in patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with breast conservation therapy. Am Surg. 2010;76:331-334.
41. Morrow M. Limiting breast surgery to the proper minimum. Breast. 2005; 14:523-526. (Pubitemid 41683575)
42. 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. 2005;200:527-537. (Pubitemid 40432320)
43. Boughey JC, Hoskin TL, Degnim AC, et al. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is associated with a survival advantage in high-risk women with a personal history of breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:2702-2709.
44. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, et al. Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA. 1996;276:33-38. (Pubitemid 26231053)
45. 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. (Pubitemid 30616482)
46. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology. 2002;225:165-175.
47. 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. 2006;30:140-147. (Pubitemid 43052315)
48. Reynolds HE. Core needle biopsy of challenging benign breast conditions: a comprehensive literature review. Am J Roentgenol. 2000;174:1245-1250. (Pubitemid 30261768)
49. 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. (Pubitemid 38668103)
50. Li CI, Malone KE, Saltzman BS, et al. Risk of invasive breast carcinoma among women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ and lobular carcinoma in situ, 1988-2001. Cancer. 2006;106:2104-2112. (Pubitemid 43673230)
51. Cangiarella J, Guth A, Axelrod D, et al. Is surgical excision necessary for the management of atypical lobular hyperplasia and lobular carcinoma in situ diagnosed on core needle biopsy? A report of 38 cases and review of the literature. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008;132:979-983. (Pubitemid 351918705)
52. Subhawong AP, Subhawong TK, Khouri N, et al. Incidental minimal atypical lobular hyperplasia on core needle biopsy: correlation with findings on follow-up excision. Am J Surg Pathol. 2010;34:822-828.
53. 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. 2004;14:1725-1731. (Pubitemid 39386618)
54. Morris EA. Should we dispense with preoperative breast MRI? Lancet. 2010;375:528-530.
55. Clarke M, Collins R, Darby S, et al. Effects of radiotherapy and of differences in the extent of surgery for early breast cancer on local recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 2005;366:2087-2106. (Pubitemid 41797643)
56. Fisher B, Jeong JH, Anderson S, et al. Twenty-five-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing radical mastectomy, total mastectomy, and total mastectomy followed by irradiation. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:567-575.
57. Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347: 1233-1241. (Pubitemid 35176242)