Abstract
Objective
To investigate the diagnostic value of 3-Tesla (T) breast MRI in patients presenting with microcalcifications on mammography.
Methods
Between January 2006 and May 2009, 123 patients with mammographically detected BI-RADS 3–5 microcalcifications underwent 3-T breast MRI before undergoing breast biopsy. All MRIs of the histopathologically confirmed index lesions were reviewed by two breast radiologists. The detection rate of invasive carcinoma and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) was evaluated, as well as the added diagnostic value of MRI over mammography and breast ultrasound.
Results
At pathology, 40/123 (33 %) lesions proved malignant; 28 (70 %) DCIS and 12 (30 %) invasive carcinoma. Both observers detected all invasive malignancies at MRI, as well as 79 % (observer 1) and 86 % (observer 2) of in situ lesions. MRI in addition to conventional imaging led to a significant increase in area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve from 0.67 (95 % CI 0.56–0.79) to 0.79 (95 % CI 0.70–0.88, observer 1) and to 0.80 (95 % CI 0.71–0.89, observer 2), respectively.
Conclusions
3-T breast MRI was shown to add significant value to conventional imaging in patients presenting with suspicious microcalcifications on mammography.
Key points
• 3-T MRI is increasingly used for breast imaging in clinical practice.
• On 3-T breast MRI up to 86 % of DCIS lesions are detected.
• 3-T MRI increases the diagnostic value in patients with mammographically detected microcalcifications.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bluekens AM, Holland R, Karssemeijer N, Broeders MJ, den Heeten GJ (2012) Comparison of digital screening mammography and screen-film mammography in the early detection of clinically relevant cancers: a multicenter study. Radiology 265:707–714
Stomper PC, Connolly JL, Meyer JE, Harris JR (1989) Clinically occult ductal carcinoma in situ detected with mammography: analysis of 100 cases with radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 172:235–241
Verschuur-Maes AH, van Gils CH, van den Bosch MA, De Bruin PC, van Diest PJ (2011) Digital mammography: more microcalcifications, more columnar cell lesions without atypia. Mod Pathol 24:1191–1197
Feeley L, Kiernan D, Mooney T et al (2011) Digital mammography in a screening programme and its implications for pathology: a comparative study. J Clin Pathol 64:215–219
Kuzmiak CM, Dancel R, Pisano E et al (2006) Consensus review: a method of assessment of calcifications that appropriately undergo a six-month follow-up. Acad Radiol 13:621–629
Bagnall MJ, Evans AJ, Wilson AR et al (2001) Predicting invasion in mammographically detected microcalcification. Clin Radiol 56:828–832
Akita A, Tanimoto A, **no H, Kameyama K, Kuribayashi S (2009) The clinical value of bilateral breast MR imaging: is it worth performing on patients showing suspicious microcalcifications on mammography? Eur Radiol 19:2089–2096
Cilotti A, Iacconi C, Marini C et al (2007) Contrast-enhanced MR imaging in patients with BI-RADS 3-5 microcalcifications. Radiol Med 112:272–286
Peters NH, Borel Rinkes IH, Zuithoff NP, Mali WP, Moons KG, Peeters PH (2008) Meta-analysis of MR imaging in the diagnosis of breast lesions. Radiology 246:116–124
Bazzocchi M, Zuiani C, Panizza P et al (2006) Contrast-enhanced breast MRI in patients with suspicious microcalcifications on mammography: results of a multicenter trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:1723–1732
Westerhof JP, Fischer U, Moritz JD, Oestmann JW (1998) MR imaging of mammographically detected clustered microcalcifications: is there any value? Radiology 207:675–681
Mann RM, Kuhl CK, Kinkel K, Boetes C (2008) Breast MRI: guidelines from the European Society of Breast Imaging. Eur Radiol 18:1307–1318
Kuhl CK, Jost P, Morakkabati N, Zivanovic O, Schild HH, Gieseke J (2006) Contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast at 3.0 and 1.5 T in the same patients: initial experience. Radiology 239:666–676
Uematsu T, Kasami M, Yuen S, Igarashi T, Nasu H (2012) Comparison of 3- and 1.5-T dynamic breast MRI for visualization of spiculated masses previously identified using mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198:W611–W617
Peters NH, Borel Rinkes IH, Mali WP et al (2007) Breast MRI in nonpalpable breast lesions: a randomized trial with diagnostic and therapeutic outcome – MONET – study. Trials 8:40
Peters NH, van Esser S, van den Bosch MA et al (2011) Preoperative MRI and surgical management in patients with nonpalpable breast cancer: the MONET – randomised controlled trial. Eur J Cancer 47:879–886
Molleran V, Mahoney MC (2010) The BI-RADS breast magnetic resonance imaging lexicon. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 18:171–185, vii
Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S et al (1999) Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 211:101–110
Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, Holford TR, Feinstein AR (1996) A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 49:1373–1379
Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (1989) Applied logistic regression, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York
Jansen SA, Paunesku T, Fan X et al (2009) Ductal carcinoma in situ: X-ray fluorescence microscopy and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging reveals gadolinium uptake within neoplastic mammary ducts in a murine model. Radiology 253:399–406
Raza S, Vallejo M, Chikarmane SA, Birdwell RL (2008) Pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a range of MRI features. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:689–699
Yamada T, Mori N, Watanabe M et al (2010) Radiologic-pathologic correlation of ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiographics 30:1183–1198
Newstead GM (2010) MR imaging of ductal carcinoma in situ. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 18:225–240, viii
Jansen SA, Newstead GM, Abe H et al (2007) Pure ductal carcinoma in situ: kinetic and morphologic MR characteristics compared with mammographic appearance and nuclear grade. Radiology 245:684–691
Zhu J, Kurihara Y, Kanemaki Y et al (2007) Diagnostic accuracy of high-resolution MRI using a microscopy coil for patients with presumed DCIS following mammography screening. J Magn Reson Imaging 25:96–103
Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Bieling HB et al (2007) MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study. Lancet 370:485–492
Wang LC, Sullivan M, Du H, Feldman MI, Mendelson EB (2013) US appearance of ductal carcinoma in situ. RadioGraphics 33:213–228
Fatemi-Ardekani A, Boylan C, Noseworthy MD (2009) Identification of breast calcification using magnetic resonance imaging. Med Phys 36:5429–5436
James D, Clymer BD, Schmalbrock P (2001) Texture detection of simulated microcalcification susceptibility effects in magnetic resonance imaging of breasts. J Magn Reson Imaging 13:876–881
Mende J, Wild J, Ulucay D et al (2010) Acoustic radiation force contrast in MRI: detection of calcifications in tissue-mimicking phantoms. Med Phys 37:6347–6356
Acknowledgements
The patient data have been used in the publication of the MONET trial: Peters et al., Preoperative MRI and surgical management in patients with nonpalpable breast cancer: the MONET – randomised controlled trial. Eur J Cancer 47:879–86.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Stehouwer, B.L., Merckel, L.G., Verkooijen, H.M. et al. 3-T breast magnetic resonance imaging in patients with suspicious microcalcifications on mammography. Eur Radiol 24, 603–609 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-3029-1
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-3029-1