The diagnostic sensitivity of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and breast-specific gamma imaging in women with calcified and non-calcified DCIS

Abstract

Background

Early detection of breast cancer reduces mortality. Therefore, diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is important.

Purpose

To compare the sensitivities of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) and breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI) in pathologically proven calcified and non-calcified DCIS.

Material and Methods

Thirty-five patients with pathologically diagnosed DCIS from 1 June 2009 through 31 December 2011, underwent a protocol involving both breast MRI and BSGI. Each image was assessed by a separate dedicated breast radiologist. All lesions were divided into two groups; with or without microcalcifications on mammograms. In cases without microcalcifications, we recorded the mass, asymmetry, or negative findings on mammography. On MRI, the enhancement pattern was categorized as mass or non-mass-like enhancement. On BSGI, the uptake pattern was analyzed. The histopathological features of the lesions were obtained. Statistical analysis of the sensitivity of each modality was performed using McNemar’s test.

Results

Thirty-five women with a mean age of 48 years (range, 26–69 years) were enrolled in the study. The total sensitivities of MRI and BSGI in the 35 cases were 91.4% (32 of 35 DCIS) and 68.6% (24 of 35 DCIS), respectively. Eighteen cases with DCIS displayed microcalcifications on mammography, while 17 cases did not. Of these 17 cases without microcalcifications on mammography, 88.2% (15 of 17 DCIS) were detected by MRI and 52.9% (9 of 17 DCIS) by BSGI. Of 18 cases with microcalcifications on mammography, 94.4% (17 of 18 DCIS) were detected by MRI and 83.3% (15 of 19 DCIS) by BSGI.

Conclusion

MRI showed a higher sensitivity for the detection of calcified and non-calcified DCIS and is more helpful than BSGI in cases without microcalcifications on mammography.

Keywords

magnetic resonance imaging breast specific gamma imaging sensitivity microcalcification mammography

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Recht

Rutgers

Fentiman

. The Fourth EORTC DCIS Consensus Meeting (Chateau Marquette, Heemskerk, The Netherlands, 23-24 January 1998)—conference report. Eur J Center 1998; 34: 1664–1669.

Sumner

3rd Koniaris

Snell

. Results of 23,810 cases of ductal carcinoma in situ. Ann Surg Oncol 2007; 14: 1638–1643.

Stomper

Connolly

Meyer

. Clinically occult ductal carcinoma in situ detected with mammography: analysis of 100 cases with radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 1989; 172: 235–241.

Evans

Pinder

Wilson

. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: correlation between mammographic and pathologic findings. Am J Roentgenol 1994; 162: 1307–1311.

Yang

Tse

. Sonographic, mammographic, and histopathologic correlation of symptomatic ductal carcinoma in situ. Am J Roentgenol 2004; 182: 101–110.

Jansen

Newstead

Abe

. Pure ductal carcinoma in situ: kinetic and morphologic MR characteristics compared with mammographic appearance and nuclear grade. Radiology 2007; 245: 684–691.

Rosen

Smith-Foley

de Martini

. BI-RADS MRI enhancement characteristics of ductal carcinoma in situ. Breast J 2007; 13: 545–550.

Lehman

. Magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of ductal carcinoma in situ. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2010; 2010: 150–151.

Brem

Floerke

Rapelyea

. Breast-specific gamma imaging as an adjunct imaging modality for the diagnosis of breast cancer. Radiology 2008; 247: 651–657.

10.

Brem

Fishman

Rapelyea

. Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ with mammography, breast specific gamma imaging, and magnetic resonance imaging: a comparative study. Acad Radiol 2007; 14: 945–950.

11.

Menell

Morris

Dershaw

. Determination of the presence and extent of pure ductal carcinoma in situ by mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Breast J 2005; 11: 382–390.

12.

Ernster

Ballard-Barbash

Barlow

. Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in females undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2002; 94: 1546–1554.

13.

Mun

Shin

Kim

. Screening-detected calcified and non-calcified ductal carcinoma in situ: Differences in the imaging and histopathological features. Clin Radiol 2013; 68: e27–e35.

14.

Keto

Kirstein

Sanchez

. MRI versus breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI) in newly diagnosed ductal cell carcinoma in situ: a prospective head-to-head trial. Ann Surg Oncol 2012; 19: 249–252.

15.

Berg

Gutierrez

Ness-Aiver

. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology 2004; 233: 830–849.

16.

Papantoniou

Valsamaki

Sotiropoulou

. Increased breast density correlates with the proliferation-seeking radiotracer (99m)Tc(V)-DMSA uptake in florid epithelial hyperplasia and in mixed ductal carcinoma in situ with invasive ductal carcinoma but not in pure invasive ductal carcinoma or in mild epithelial hyperplasia. Mol Imaging 2011; 10: 370–376.

17.

Barreau

de Mascarel

Feuga

. Mammography of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: review of 909 cases with radiographic-pathologic correlations. Eur J Radiol 2005; 54: 55–61.

18.

Kim

Kim do

. Noncalcified ductal carcinoma in situ: imaging and histologic findings in 36 tumors. J Ultrasound Med 2009; 28: 903–910.

19.

Baur A, Bahrs SD, Speck S, et al. Breast MRI of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: Sensitivity of diagnosis and influence of lesion characteristics. Eur J Radiol 2013;82:1731–1737.

20.

Liu

Peng

. MRI morphological classification of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) correlating with different biological behavior. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81: 214–217.

21.

Kim

Son

Youk

. MRI findings of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: Kinetic characteristics compared according to lesion type and histopathologic factors. Am J Roentgenol 2011; 196: 1450–1456.

22.

Chan S, Chen JH, Agrawal G, et al. Characterization of pure ductal carcinoma in situ on dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging: Do nonhigh grade and high grade show different imaging features? J Oncol 2010; Epub 2010 Sep 21.

23.

Huang

Cheung

. MRI findings of cancers preoperatively diagnosed as pure dcis at core needle biopsy. Acta Radiol 2011; 52: 1064–1068.

24.

Marcotte-Bloch

Balu-Maestro

Chamorey

. MRI for the size assessment of pure ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): A prospective study of 33 patients. Eur J Radiol 2011; 77: 462–467.

25.

Brem

Petrovitch

Rapelyea

. Breast-specific gamma imaging with 99mTc-Sestamibi and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of breast cancer—a comparative study. Breast J 2007; 13: 465–469.