Patterns of malignant non-mass enhancement on 3-T breast MRI help predict invasiveness: using the BI-RADS lexicon fifth edition

Abstract

Background

Non-mass enhancements (NME) with invasive components account for 10–42% of total malignant NMEs. The factors associated with invasiveness on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) could be useful for clinical assessment and treatment.

Purpose

To evaluate the clinical significances of the distributions and internal enhancement patterns (IEP) of malignant NMEs on 3-T breast MRI.

Material and Methods

A total of 448 consecutive women with newly diagnosed breast cancer that had undergone preoperative MRI and surgery between February 2013 and March 2016 were identified. After exclusions, 72 malignant NMEs without a mass in 72 women (mean age = 51.5 years) were included. Two readers independently assessed distributions and IEPs of NME, according to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System lexicon fifth edition. Collected data included the presence of invasion and histopathologic factors.

Results

A clustered ring IEP was significantly associated with invasive cancer (75.0%, P = 0.001, Reader1; 72.9%, P < 0.001, Reader 2), absence of necrosis (79.0%, P < 0.001; 72.1%, P < 0.001, respectively), and high Ki-67 expression (74.2%, P = 0.048; 74.2%, P = 0.003, respectively). A clumped IEP was related to ductal carcinoma in situ (33.3%, P = 0.025; 50.0%, P = 0.001, respectively), absence of lymph node metastasis (24.1%, P = 0.029; 31.5%, P = 0.030, respectively), and presence of necrosis (34.5%, P = 0.003; 44.8%, P = 0.001, respectively).

Conclusion

The presence of a clustered ring IEP in patients with breast cancer was found to be significantly associated with invasive breast cancer and high Ki-67 expression.

Keywords

Breast cancer magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)non-mass enhancement (NME)invasiveness Ki-67 expression

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

D’Orsi

Sickles

Mendelson

et al.

ACR BI-RADS atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system , Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2013.

Rao

Feneis

Lalonde

et al.

A pictorial review of changes in the BI-RADS fifth edition. Radiographics 2016; 36: 623–639.

Jansen

Shimauchi

Zak

et al.

The diverse pathology and kinetics of mass, nonmass and focus enhancement on MR imaging of the breast. J Magn Reson Imaging 2011; 33: 1382–1389.

Goto

Yuen

Akazawa

et al.

The role of breast MR imaging in pre-operative determination of invasive disease for ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed by needle biopsy. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 1255–1264.

Liberman

Morris

Lee

et al.

Breast lesions detected on MR imaging: features and positive predictive value. Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179: 171–178.

Orel

Mendonca

Reynolds

et al.

MR imaging of ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiology 1997; 202: 413–420.

Machida

Shimauchi

Tozaki

et al.

Descriptors of malignant non-mass enhancement of breast MRI: their correlation to the presence of invasion. Acad Radiol 2016; 23: 687–695.

Katz

Gage

Evans

et al.

Sentinel lymph node positivity of patients with ductal carcinoma in situ or microinvasive breast cancer. Am J Surg 2006; 191: 761–766.

Sakr

Bezu

Raoust

et al.

The sentinel lymph node procedure for patients with preoperative diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ: risk factors for unsuspected invasive disease and for metastatic sentinel lymph nodes. Int J Clin Pract 2008; 62: 1730–1735.

10.

Weinstein

Orel

Heller

et al.

MR imaging of the breast in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma. Am J Roentgenol 2001; 176: 399–406.

11.

Fischer

Baum

Luftner-Nagel

. Preoperative MR imaging in patients with breast cancer: preoperative staging, effects on recurrence rates, and outcome analysis. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2006; 14: 351–362.

12.

Gutierrez

DeMartini

Eby

et al.

BI-RADS lesion characteristics predict likelihood of malignancy in breast mri for masses but not for nonmasslike enhancement. Am J Roentgenol 2009; 193: 994–1000.

13.

Thomassin-Naggara

Salem

Darai

et al.

Non-masslike enhancement on breast MRI: interpretation pearls. J Radiol 2009; 90: 269–275.

14.

Agrawal

Nalcioglu

et al.

Significance of breast lesion descriptors in the ACR BI-RADS MRI lexicon. Cancer 2009; 115: 1363–1380.

15.

Tozaki

Fukuda

. High-spatial-resolution MRI of non-masslike breast lesions: interpretation model based on BI-RADS MRI descriptors. Am J Roentgenol 2006; 187: 330–337.

16.

Bane

. Ductal carcinoma in situ: what the pathologist needs to know and why. Int J Breast Cancer 2013; 2013: 914053–914053.

17.

Cheang

Chia

Voduc

et al.

Ki67 index, HER2 status, and prognosis of patients with luminal B breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009; 101: 736–750.

18.

Landis

Koch

. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159–174.

19.

Cohen

. Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 1968; 70: 213–220.

20.

Ferlay

Steliarova-Foucher

Lortet-Tieulent

et al.

Cancer incidence and mortality patterns in Europe: estimates for 40 countries in 2012. Eur J Cancer 2013; 49: 1374–1403.

21.

Chadashvili

Ghosh

Fein-Zachary

et al.

Nonmass enhancement on breast MRI: review of patterns with radiologic-pathologic correlation and discussion of management. Am J Roentgenol 2015; 204: 219–227.

22.

Yamada

Mori

Watanabe

et al.

Radiologic-pathologic correlation of ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiographics 2010; 30: 1183–1198.

23.

Lee

Lai

et al.

Preoperative clinicopathologic factors and breast magnetic resonance imaging features can predict ductal carcinoma in situ with invasive components. Eur J Radiol 2016; 85: 780–789.

24.

Hahn

Han

et al.

MR features to suggest microinvasive ductal carcinoma of the breast: can it be differentiated from pure DCIS?

Acta Radiol 2013; 54: 742–748.

25.

Tozaki

Igarashi

Fukuda

. Breast MRI using the VIBE sequence: clustered ring enhancement in the differential diagnosis of lesions showing non-masslike enhancement. Am J Roentgenol 2006; 187: 313–321.

26.

Price J. Interpreting breast MRI studies. In: Handbook of Breast MRI. New York; Cambridge University Press, 2011:48–91.

27.

Wirapati

Sotiriou

Kunkel

et al.

Meta-analysis of gene expression profiles in breast cancer: toward a unified understanding of breast cancer subtyping and prognosis signatures. Breast Cancer Res 2008; 10: R65–R65.

28.

Inwald

Klinkhammer-Schalke

Hofstadter

et al.

Ki-67 is a prognostic parameter in breast cancer patients: results of a large population-based cohort of a cancer registry. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2013; 139: 539–552.

29.

Raza

Vallejo

Chikarmane

et al.

Pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a range of MRI features. Am J Roentgenol 2008; 191: 689–699.

30.

Jansen

Newstead

Abe

et al.

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

31.

Anderson

Daling

et al.

Trends in incidence rates of invasive lobular and ductal breast carcinoma. JAMA 2003; 289: 1421–1424.

32.

Daling

. Changes in breast cancer incidence rates in the United States by histologic subtype and race/ethnicity, 1995 to 2004. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007; 16: 2773–2780.