The changing world of breast cancer: A radiologist's perspective

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 50, Issue 9, 2015, Pages 615-628

  Kuhl, Christiane K ^a  

^a RWTH AACHEN UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

breast cancer; breast MRI; breast ultrasound; DBT; digital breast tomosynthesis; mammography; MR spectroscopy; multiparametric MRI; neoadjuvant chemotherapy; Overdiagnosis; response assessment; screening; Staging; tumor biology

Indexed keywords

BREAST CANCER; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER SURGERY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HISTORY OF MEDICINE; HUMAN; IMAGE GUIDED BIOPSY; LYMPH NODE METASTASIS; LYMPHOSCINTIGRAPHY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MULTIMODALITY CANCER THERAPY; PATIENT MONITORING; PERCUTANEOUS BIOPSY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; SPECIALIZATION; TREATMENT RESPONSE; TUMOR BIOPSY; BREAST; BREAST NEOPLASMS; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATHOLOGY;

BREAST; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MAMMOGRAPHY; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, MAMMARY;

EID: 84939507796     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: 15360210     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000166     Document Type: Review

References (136)

1. American College of Radiology (ACR). ACR BI-RADS-mammography; ultrasound; magnetic resonance imaging. In: ACR Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, Breast Imaging Atlas. 2nd ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2015.
2. Ikeda DM, Hylton NM, Kinkel K, Development, standardization, and testing of a lexicon for reporting contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging studies. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001; 13: 889-895.
3. Kim SJ, Morris EA, Liberman L, Observer variability and applicability of BI-RADS terminology for breast MR imaging: invasive carcinomas as focal masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001; 177: 551-557.
4. Lehman CD, Blume JD, Thickman D, Added cancer yield of MRI in screening the contralateral breast of women recently diagnosed with breast cancer: results from the International Breast Magnetic Resonance Consortium (IBMC) trial. J Surg Oncol. 2005; 92: 9-15; discussion -6.
5. Schnall MD, Blume J, Bluemke DA, MRI detection of distinct incidental cancer in women with primary breast cancer studied in IBMC 6883. J Surg Oncol. 2005; 92: 32-38.
6. Bluemke DA, Gatsonis CA, Chen MH, Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast prior to biopsy. JAMA. 2004; 292: 2735-2742.
7. Lame EL, Pendergrass EP,. An addition to the technique of simple breast roentgenography. Radiology. 1947; 48: 266-268.
8. DeLand FH,. A modified technique of ultrasonography for the detection and differential diagnosis of breast lesions. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med. 1969; 105: 446-452.
9. Calderon C, Vilkomerson D, Mezrich R, Differences in the attenuation of ultrasound by normal, benign, and malignant breast tissue. J Clin Ultrasound. 1976; 4: 249-254.
10. Cole-Beuglet C, Beique RA,. Continuous ultrasound B-scanning of palpable breast masses. Radiology. 1975; 117: 123-128.
11. Youk JH, Gweon HM, Son EJ, Diagnostic value of commercially available shear-wave elastography for breast cancers: integration into BI-RADS classification with subcategories of category 4. Eur Radiol. 2013; 23: 2695-2704.
12. Heywang SH, Hahn D, Schmidt H, MR imaging of the breast using gadolinium-DTPA. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1986; 10: 199-204.
13. Kaiser WA, Zeitler E,. MR imaging of the breast: fast imaging sequences with and without Gd-DTPA. Preliminary observations. Radiology. 1989; 170 (3 pt 1): 681-686.
14. Harms SE, Flamig DP, Hesley KL, MR imaging of the breast with rotating delivery of excitation off resonance: clinical experience with pathologic correlation. Radiology. 1993; 187: 493-501.
15. Fischer U, von Heyden D, Vosshenrich R, Signal characteristics of malignant and benign lesions in dynamic 2D-MRT of the breast [in German]. Rofo. 1993; 158: 287-292.
16. Kuhl CK, Kreft BP, Hauswirth A, MR mammography at 0.5 Tesla. II. The capacity to differentiate malignant and benign lesions in MR mammography at 0.5 and 1.5 T [in German]. Rofo. 1995; 162: 482-491.
17. Kuhl CK, Bieling HB, Lutterbey G, Standardization and acceleration of quantitative analysis of dynamic MR mammographies via parametric images and automatized ROI definition [in German]. Rofo. 1996; 164: 475-482.
18. Kuhl CK, Schild HH,. Dynamic image interpretation of MRI of the breast. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2000; 12: 965-974.
19. 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.
20. Harms SE, Flamig DP,. Staging of breast cancer with MR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 1994; 2: 573-584.
21. Kuhl CK, Schmutzler RK, Leutner CC, Breast MR imaging screening in 192 women proved or suspected to be carriers of a breast cancer susceptibility gene: preliminary results. Radiology. 2000; 215: 267-279.
22. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005; 353: 1773-1783.
23. Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE, Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology. 1997; 205: 399-406.
24. Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M, Prospective study of breast tomosynthesis as a triage to assessment in screening. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012; 133: 267-271.
25. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol. 2013; 14: 583-589.
26. Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Bujnoch LJ, Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013; 200: 1401-1408.
27. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2013; 267: 47-56.
28. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Eben EB, Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. Radiology. 2014; 271: 655-663.
29. Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL, Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA. 2014; 311: 2499-2507.
30. Svahn TM, Houssami N, Sechopoulos I, Review of radiation dose estimates in digital breast tomosynthesis relative to those in two-view full-field digital mammography. Breast. 2015; 24: 93-99.
31. Gur D, Zuley ML, Anello MI, Dose reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening using synthetically reconstructed projection images: an observer performance study. Acad Radiol. 2012; 19: 166-171.
32. Lawaczeck R, Diekmann F, Diekmann S, New contrast media designed for x-ray energy subtraction imaging in digital mammography. Invest Radiol. 2003; 38: 602-608.
33. Diekmann F, Diekmann S, Jeunehomme F, Digital mammography using iodine-based contrast media: initial clinical experience with dynamic contrast medium enhancement. Invest Radiol. 2005; 40: 397-404.
34. Luczyńska E, Heinze-Paluchowska S, Dyczek S, Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: comparison with conventional mammography and histopathology in 152 women. Korean J Radiol. 2014; 15: 689-696.
35. Blum KS, Rubbert C, Mathys B, Use of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for intramammary cancer staging: preliminary results. Acad Radiol. 2014; 21: 1363-1369.
36. Fallenberg EM, Dromain C, Diekmann F, Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: Does mammography provide additional clinical benefits or can some radiation exposure be avoided? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014; 146: 371-381.
37. Cheung YC, Lin YC, Wan YL, Diagnostic performance of dual-energy contrast-enhanced subtracted mammography in dense breasts compared to mammography alone: interobserver blind-reading analysis. Eur Radiol. 2014; 24: 2394-2403.
38. Jeukens CR, Lalji UC, Meijer E, Radiation exposure of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography compared with full-field digital mammography. Invest Radiol. 2014; 49: 659-665.
39. Gruber S, Pinker K, Zaric O, Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of breast tumors at 3 and 7 T: a comparison. Invest Radiol. 2014; 49: 354-362.
40. Pinker K, Bogner W, Baltzer P, Improved diagnostic accuracy with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the breast using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging, and 3-dimensional proton magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging. Invest Radiol. 2014; 49: 421-430.
41. Korteweg MA, Veldhuis WB, Visser F, Feasibility of 7 Tesla breast magnetic resonance imaging determination of intrinsic sensitivity and high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging, and (1)H-magnetic resonance spectroscopy of breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy. Invest Radiol. 2011; 46: 370-376.
42. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Strobel K, Abbreviated breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): first postcontrast subtracted images and maximum-intensity projection-A novel approach to breast cancer screening with MRI. J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32: 2304-2310.
43. Bertos NR, Park M,. Breast cancer-one term, many entities? J Clin Invest. 2011; 121: 3789-3796.
44. Brenton JD, Carey LA, Ahmed AA, Molecular classification and molecular forecasting of breast cancer: ready for clinical application? J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23: 7350-7360.
45. Bae MS, Park SY, Song SE, Heterogeneity of triple-negative breast cancer: mammographic, US, and MR imaging features according to androgen receptor expression. Eur Radiol. 2015; 25: 419-427.
46. Norum JH, Andersen K, Sorlie T,. Lessons learned from the intrinsic subtypes of breast cancer in the quest for precision therapy. Br J Surg. 2014; 101: 925-938.
47. Tran B, Bedard PL,. Luminal-B breast cancer and novel therapeutic targets. Breast Cancer Res. 2011; 13: 221.
48. O'Shaughnessy J, Schwartzberg L, Danso MA, Phase III study of iniparib plus gemcitabine and carboplatin versus gemcitabine and carboplatin in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32: 3840-3847.
49. Schrading S, Kuhl CK,. Mammographic, US, and MR imaging phenotypes of familial breast cancer. Radiology. 2008; 246: 58-70.
50. Mori N, Ota H, Mugikura S, Luminal-Type breast cancer: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficients with the Ki-67 labeling index. Radiology. 2015; 274: 66-73.
51. De Felice C, Cipolla V, Guerrieri D, Apparent diffusion coefficient on 3.0 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging and prognostic factors in breast cancer. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2014; 35: 408-414.
52. Eyal E, Shapiro-Feinberg M, Furman-Haran E, Parametric diffusion tensor imaging of the breast. Invest Radiol. 2012; 47: 284-291.
53. Joe BN, Chen VY, Salibi N, Evaluation of 1H-magnetic resonance spectroscopy of breast cancer pre- and postgadolinium administration. Invest Radiol. 2005; 40: 405-411.
54. Kim JY, Kim SH, Kim YJ, Enhancement parameters on dynamic contrast enhanced breast MRI: do they correlate with prognostic factors and subtypes of breast cancers? Magn Reson Imaging. 2015; 33: 72-80.
55. Koo HR, Cho N, Song IC, Correlation of perfusion parameters on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI with prognostic factors and subtypes of breast cancers. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012; 36: 145-151.
56. Kuzucan A, Chen JH, Bahri S, Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging for assessing tumor response in patients with HER2-negative breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with molecular biomarker profile. Clin Breast Cancer. 2012; 12: 110-118.
57. Liu M, Guo X, Wang S, BOLD-MRI of breast invasive ductal carcinoma: correlation of R2∗ value and the expression of HIF-1alpha. Eur Radiol. 2013; 23: 3221-3227.
58. Jagannathan NR, Kumar M, Seenu V,. Evaluation of total choline from in-vivo volume localized proton MR spectroscopy and its response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2001; 84: 1016-1022.
59. Bartella L, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, Proton MR spectroscopy with choline peak as malignancy marker improves positive predictive value for breast cancer diagnosis: preliminary study. Radiology. 2006; 239: 686-692.
60. Tozaki M, Oyama Y, Fukuma E,. Preliminary study of early response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy after the first cycle in breast cancer: comparison of 1H magnetic resonance spectroscopy with diffusion magnetic resonance imaging. Jpn J Radiol. 2010; 28: 101-109.
61. Danishad KK, Sharma U, Sah RG, Assessment of therapeutic response of locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) monitored using sequential magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging (MRSI). NMR Biomed. 2010; 23: 233-241.
62. Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S, Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology. 1999; 211: 101-110.
63. Kuhl CK, Klaschik S, Mielcarek P, Do T2-weighted pulse sequences help with the differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions in dynamic breast MRI? J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999; 9: 187-196.
64. Bogner W, Pinker K, Zaric O, Bilateral diffusion-weighted MR imaging of breast tumors with submillimeter resolution using readout-segmented echo-planar imaging at 7 T. Radiology. 2015; 274: 74-84.
65. Kuhl CK,. MRI of breast tumors. Eur Radiol. 2000; 10: 46-58.
66. Strobel K, Schrading S, Hansen NL, Assessment of BI-RADS category 4 lesions detected with screening mammography and screening US: utility of MR imaging. Radiology. 2015; 274: 343-351.
67. Gilles R, Guinebretière JM, Toussaint C, Locally advanced breast cancer: contrast-enhanced subtraction MR imaging of response to preoperative chemotherapy. Radiology. 1994; 191: 633-638.
68. Schrading S, Kuhl C,. Influence of taxanes (docetaxel, paclitaxel) on response assessment in DCE MRI. Radiology. 2015. In Press.
69. Paci E, Broeders M, Hofvind S, EUROSCREEN Working Group. European breast cancer service screening outcomes: a first balance sheet of the benefits and harms. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014; 23: 1159-1163.
70. Etzioni R, Xia J, Hubbard R, A reality check for overdiagnosis estimates associated with breast cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014; 106.
71. Puliti D, Duffy SW, Miccinesi G, EUROSCREEN Working Group. Overdiagnosis in mammographic screening for breast cancer in Europe: a literature review. J Med Screen. 2012; 19 (suppl 1): 42-56.
72. Shwartz M,. Estimates of lead time and length bias in a breast cancer screening program. Cancer. 1980; 46: 844-851.
73. Habbema JD, van Oortmarssen GJ, van Putten DJ,. An analysis of survival differences between clinically and screen-detected cancer patients. Stat Med. 1983; 2: 279-285.
74. Gordon PB, Goldenberg SL,. Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound. A retrospective review. Cancer. 1995; 76: 626-630.
75. Buchberger W, Niehoff A, Obrist P, Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions: detection and classification with high-resolution sonography. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2000; 21: 325-336.
76. Kaplan SS,. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology. 2001; 221: 641-649.
77. 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.
78. Crystal P, Strano SD, Shcharynski S, Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003; 181: 177-182.
79. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, ACRIN 6666 Investigators. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA. 2008; 299: 2151-2163.
80. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Bieling HB, MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study. Lancet. 2007; 370: 485-492.
81. Morris EA, Liberman L, Ballon DJ, MRI of occult breast carcinoma in a high-risk population. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003; 181: 619-626.
82. Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening Study Group. 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.
83. Leach MO, Boggis CR, Dixon AK, 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. 2005; 365: 1769-1778.
84. Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA, Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA. 2004; 292: 1317-1325.
85. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, 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.
86. Kuhl CK,. MR imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2006; 14: 391-402.
87. Kuhl C, Weigel S, Schrading S, 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.
88. Sardanelli F, Podo F, Santoro F, 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.
89. Riedl CC, Luft N, Bernhart C, Triple-modality screening trial for familial breast cancer underlines the importance of magnetic resonance imaging and questions the role of mammography and ultrasound regardless of patient mutation status, age, and breast density. J Clin Oncol. 2015: 1128-1135.
90. Sung JS, Lee CH, Morris EA, Screening breast MR imaging in women with a history of chest irradiation. Radiology. 2011; 259: 65-71.
91. Sung JS, Malak SF, Bajaj P, Screening breast MR imaging in women with a history of lobular carcinoma in situ. Radiology. 2011; 261: 414-420.
92. Port ER, Park A, Borgen PI, Results of MRI screening for breast cancer in high-risk patients with LCIS and atypical hyperplasia. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007; 14: 1051-1057.
93. Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D, ACRIN 6666 Investigators. Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA. 2012; 307: 1394-1404.
94. Kuhl CK,. Why do purely intraductal cancers enhance on breast MR images? Radiology. 2009; 253: 281-283.
95. Urban JA, Baker HW,. Radical mastectomy in continuity with en bloc resection of the internal mammary lymph-node chain; a new procedure for primary operable cancer of the breast. Cancer. 1952; 5: 992-1008.
96. Parker JM, Russo PE, Oesterreicher DL,. Investigation of cause of lymphedema of the upper extremity after radical mastectomy. Radiology. 1952; 59: 538-545.
97. Fischer U, Kopka L, Grabbe E,. Breast carcinoma: effect of preoperative contrast-enhanced MR imaging on the therapeutic approach. Radiology. 1999; 213: 881-888.
98. Drew PJ, Chatterjee S, Turnbull LW, 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. 1999; 6: 599-603.
99. Tan JE, Orel SG, Schnall MD, Role of magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging guided surgery in the evaluation of patients with early-stage breast cancer for breast conservation treatment. Am J Clin Oncol. 1999; 22: 414-418.
100. Liberman L, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, MR imaging of the ipsilateral breast in women with percutaneously proven breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003; 180: 901-910.
101. Pediconi F, Miglio E, Telesca M, Effect of preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging on surgical decision making and cancer recurrence rates. Invest Radiol. 2012; 47: 128-135.
102. Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology. 2004; 233: 830-849.
103. Olivas-Maguregui S, Villaseñor-Navarro Y, Ferrari-Carballo T, Importance of the preoperative evaluation of multifocal and multicentric breast cancer with magnetic resonance imaging in women with dense parenchyma. Rev Invest Clin. 2008; 60: 382-389.
104. Al-Hallaq HA, Mell LK, Bradley JA, Magnetic resonance imaging identifies multifocal and multicentric disease in breast cancer patients who are eligible for partial breast irradiation. Cancer. 2008; 113: 2408-2414.
105. Braun M, Pölcher M, Schrading S, Influence of preoperative MRI on the surgical management of patients with operable breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008; 111: 179-187.
106. Grobmyer SR, Mortellaro VE, Marshall J, Is there a role for routine use of MRI in selection of patients for breast-conserving cancer therapy? J Am Coll Surg. 2008; 206: 1045-1050.
107. Pengel KE, Loo CE, Teertstra HJ, The impact of preoperative MRI on breast-conserving surgery of invasive cancer: a comparative cohort study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009; 116: 161-169.
108. Crowe JP, Patrick RJ, Rim A,. The importance of preoperative breast MRI for patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer. Breast J. 2009; 15: 52-60.
109. Obdeijn IM, Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Spronk S, Preoperative breast MRI can reduce the rate of tumor-positive resection margins and reoperations in patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013; 200: 304-310.
110. Nori J, Meattini I, Giannotti E, Role of preoperative breast MRI in ductal carcinoma in situ for prediction of the presence and assessment of the extent of occult invasive component. Breast J. 2014; 20: 243-248.
111. Fancellu A, Soro D, Castiglia P, Usefulness of magnetic resonance in patients with invasive cancer eligible for breast conservation: a comparative study. Clin Breast Cancer. 2014; 14: 114-121.
112. Lehman CD, Gatsonis C, Kuhl CK, ACRIN Trial 6667 Investigators Group. MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007; 356: 1295-1303.
113. Morrow M, Waters J, Morris E,. MRI for breast cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Lancet. 2011; 378: 1804-1811.
114. Houssami N, Ciatto S, Macaskill P, Accuracy and surgical impact of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging: systematic review and meta-Analysis in detection of multifocal and multicentric. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26: 3248-3258.
115. McCahill LE, Single RM, Aiello Bowles EJ, Variability in reexcision following breast conserving surgery. JAMA. 2012; 307: 467-475.
116. Center of Evidence Based Medicine-Levels of Evidence. Available at: http://www.cebm.net/?o=1025. Accessed March 9, 2015.
117. Peralta EA, Tucker FL,. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and large-format breast pathology: closing the loop. J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32: 2817-2818.
118. Tendulkar RD, Chellman-Jeffers M, Rybicki LA, Preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging in early breast cancer: implications for partial breast irradiation. Cancer. 2009; 115: 1621-1630.
119. Kühr M, Wolfgarten M, Stölzle M, Potential impact of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging of the breast on patient selection for accelerated partial breast irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011; 81: e541-e546.
120. Kowalchik KV, Vallow LA, McDonough M, Classification system for identifying women at risk for altered partial breast irradiation recommendations after breast magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2013; 87: 127-133.
121. Husarik DB, Steinert HC,. Single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography for sentinel node mapping in breast cancer. Semin Nucl Med. 2007; 37: 29-33.
122. Giuliano AE, Hunt KK, Ballman KV, Axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2011; 305: 569-575.
123. Suga K, Ogasawara N, Yuan Y, Visualization of breast lymphatic pathways with an indirect computed tomography lymphography using a nonionic monometric contrast medium iopamidol: preliminary results. Invest Radiol. 2003; 38: 73-84.
124. Schipper RJ, Smidt ML, van Roozendaal LM, Noninvasive nodal staging in patients with breast cancer using gadofosveset-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: a feasibility study. Invest Radiol. 2013; 48: 134-139.
125. Ahmed M, Purushotham AD, Douek M,. Novel techniques for sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer: a systematic review. Lancet Oncol. 2014; 15: e351-e362.
126. Roberts JG, Preece PE, Bolton PM, The 'Tru-cut' biopsy in breast cancer. Clin Oncol. 1975; 1: 297-303.
127. Foster RS Jr,. Core-cutting needle biopsy for the diagnosis of breast cancer. Am J Surg. 1982; 143: 622-623.
128. Kopans DB,. Review of stereotaxic large-core needle biopsy and surgical biopsy results in nonpalpable breast lesions. Radiology. 1993; 189: 665-666.
129. Meyer JE,. Value of large-core biopsy of occult breast lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1992; 158: 991-992.
130. Parker SH, Lovin JD, Jobe WE, Stereotactic breast biopsy with a biopsy gun. Radiology. 1990; 176: 741-747.
131. Harter LP, Curtis JS, Ponto G, Malignant seeding of the needle track during stereotaxic core needle breast biopsy. Radiology. 1992; 185: 713-714.
132. Diebold T, Hahn T, Solbach C, Evaluation of the stereotactic 8G vacuum-Assisted breast biopsy in the histologic evaluation of suspicious mammography findings (BI-RADS IV). Invest Radiol. 2005; 40: 465-471.
133. Liberman L, Bracero N, Morris E, MRI-guided 9-gauge vacuum-Assisted breast biopsy: initial clinical experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005; 185: 183-193.
134. Schrading S, Distelmaier M, Dirrichs T, Digital breast tomosynthesis-guided vacuum-Assisted breast biopsy: initial experiences and comparison with prone stereotactic vacuum-Assisted biopsy. Radiology. 2015; 274: 654-662.
135. Schrading S, Simon B, Braun M, MRI-guided breast biopsy: influence of the choice of vacuum biopsy system on the mode of biopsy of MRI-only breast lesions. AJR. 2010; 194: 1650-1657.
136. Schrading S, Strobel K, Dirrichs T, MR-guided large-volume vacuum-Assisted biopsy. Radiology. 2015.