Abstract
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast is the most sensitive imaging technique for the diagnosis and local staging of primary breast cancer and yet, despite the fact that it has been in use for 20 years, there is little evidence that its widespread uncritical adoption has had a positive impact on patient-related outcomes.This has been attributed previously to the low specificity that might be expected with such a sensitive modality, but with modern techniques and protocols, the specificity and positive predictive value for malignancy can exceed that of breast ultrasound and mammography. A more likely explanation is that historically, clinicians have acted on MRI findings and altered surgical plans without prior histological confirmation. Furthermore, modern adjuvant therapy for breast cancer has improved so much that it has become a very tall order to show a an improvement in outcomes such as local recurrence rates.In order to obtain clinically useful information, it is necessary to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the technique and the physiological processes reflected in breast MRI. An appropriate indication for the scan, proper patient preparation and good scan technique, with rigorous quality assurance, are all essential prerequisites for a diagnostically relevant study.The use of recognised descriptors from a standardised lexicon is helpful, since assessment can then dictate subsequent recommendations for management, as in the American College of Radiology BI-RADS (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System) lexicon (Morris et al., ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, 2013). It also enables audit of the service. However, perhaps the most critical factor in the generation of a meaningful report is for the reporting radiologist to have a thorough understanding of the clinical question and of the findings that will influence management. This has never been more important than at present, when we are in the throes of a remarkable paradigm shift in the treatment of both early stage and locally advanced breast cancer.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40644-016-0078-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Highlights
The sensitivity of mammography for breast cancer detection in women over 50 years is well over 80 % [1] and in the symptomatic population, when combined with breast ultrasound (US), this figure increases to around 90 %
Numerous studies have shown that dynamic contrast-enhanced breast Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (DCE-MRI) of the breast is a far more sensitive screening modality than full field digital mammography (FFDM) or US in the detection of clinically occult breast cancer in women at greatly increased lifetime risk, especially those with BRCA mutations [11,12,13,14], with most studies showing a doubling of the cancer detection rate with breast MRI and little additional benefit from mammography
Patients undergoing local staging will usually have had image guided biopsy, which can results in peritumoural stranding, and mild enhancement – this should not be mistaken for the presence of an associated extensive ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)
Summary
The sensitivity of mammography for breast cancer detection in women over 50 years is well over 80 % [1] and in the symptomatic population, when combined with breast ultrasound (US), this figure increases to around 90 %. I will not carry out a breast MR scan unless I have access to all relevant prior imaging, whether it be conventional mammography or MRI, and all clinical details including timing of previous biopsies or interventions, surgery or radiotherapy, and any histology results.
Published Version (Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have