Use Of Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging Research Articles

The 2013 Society of Surgical Oncology Susan G. Komen for the Cure Symposium: MRI in Breast Cancer: Where Are We Now?

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been widely applied in the contemporary management of patients with breast cancer and as a screening tool for those at increased risk; however, prospective evidence that the use of breast MRI improves patient outcomes remains limited to screening of known BRCA mutation carriers or women at increased risk based on a strong family history. Despite this, the role of MRI in the routine evaluation of the newly diagnosed breast cancer patient remains a subject of much debate, with widely divergent views on the value of MRI in selecting local therapy. The application of MRI in patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy is an area of active investigation, with several potential benefits, including predicting response to therapy. We review the current state of the literature on the topics of MRI for screening, MRI and short-term surgical outcomes, MRI and long-term surgical outcomes, and MRI and neoadjuvant chemotherapy as presented at the 2013 Society of Surgical Oncology Susan G. Komen for the Cure Symposium, 9 March 2013.

Variability of Preoperative Breast MRI Utilization among Older Women with Newly Diagnosed Early-stage Breast Cancer

While magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is frequently used following breast cancer diagnosis, routine use of breast MRI for preoperative evaluation remains contentious. We identified factors associated with preoperative breast MRI utilization and investigated the variation among physicians. We used the surveillance, epidemiology, and end Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database to analyze the preoperative breast MRI utilization among patients with stage 0, I, or II breast cancer diagnosed between 2002 and 2007. Multilevel logistic regression models were used to identify patient- and physician-level predictors of preoperative MRI utilization. Of 56,743 women with early-stage breast cancer who were treated with surgery and evaluated by a preoperative mammogram and/or ultrasound during the study period, 8.7% (n = 4,913) received preoperative breast MRI. While patient and tumor characteristics did predict preoperative breast MRI utilization, they explained only 15.4% of the variation in utilization rates. Differences in preoperative breast MRI utilization across physicians were large, after controlling patient-level factors and physicians' volumes. Accounting for clustering of patients within individual physicians (n = 3,144), the multilevel logistic regression models explained 36.4% of variation. The median odds ratio of 3.2, corresponding with the median value of the relative odds of receiving preoperative breast MRI between two randomly chosen physicians, indicated a large individual physician effect. Our study found that preoperative breast MRI has been adopted rapidly and variably. Although patient characteristics were associated with preoperative breast MRI utilization, physician practice was a major determinant of whether women received preoperative breast MRI. Future studies should evaluate whether routine use of preoperative breast MRI in newly diagnosed early-stage breast cancer improves clinical outcomes.

Trends and clinical implications of preoperative breast MRI in Medicare beneficiaries with breast cancer

While there has been increasing interest in the use of preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for women with breast cancer, little is known about trends in MRI use, or the association of MRI with surgical approach among older women. Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare database, we identified a cohort of women diagnosed with breast cancer from 2000 to 2009 who underwent surgery. We used Medicare claims to identify preoperative breast MRI and surgical approach. We evaluated temporal trends in MRI use according to age and type of surgery, and identified factors associated with MRI. We assessed the association between MRI and surgical approach: breast-conserving surgery (BCS) versus mastectomy, bilateral versus unilateral mastectomy, and use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Among the 72,461 women in our cohort, 10.1 % underwent breast MRI. Preoperative MRI use increased from 0.8 % in 2000-2001 to 25.2 % in 2008-2009 (p < 0.001). Overall, 43.3 % received mastectomy and 56.7 % received BCS. After adjustment for clinical and demographic factors, MRI was associated with an increased likelihood of having a mastectomy compared to BCS (adjusted odds ratio = 1.21, 95 % CI 1.14-1.28). Among women who underwent mastectomy, MRI was significantly associated with an increased likelihood of having bilateral cancer diagnosed (9.7 %) and undergoing bilateral mastectomy (12.5 %) compared to women without MRI (3.7 and 4.1 %, respectively, p < 0.001 for both). In conclusion, the use of preoperative breast MRI has increased substantially among older women with breast cancer and is associated with an increased likelihood of being diagnosed with bilateral cancer, and more invasive surgery.

Quality of post-treatment surveillance of early stage breast cancer in Texas

Only annual mammography and physical examination are recommended for the post-treatment surveillance of early stage breast cancer. We used Texas Cancer Registry-Medicare linked data (2001-2007) to identify physician visits and use of mammography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), and positron emission tomography (PET) CT in patients ≥ 66 years old with ductal carcinoma in situ and stage I-III ductal carcinoma who underwent curative-intent operations. We also evaluated the trends in use of recommended and nonrecommended tests. We identified 8,598 patients with resected ductal carcinoma in situ (37.3%) or invasive ductal cancer (62.7%). Breast-conserving therapy was performed in 59%. Only 55% saw a physician twice a year for 2 years and underwent annual mammography for 2 consecutive years in the surveillance period. Mammography use decreased from 81% in 2001 to 75% in 2007 (P < .0001), and breast MRI use rose from 0.5% to 7.0% (P < .0001). For asymptomatic patients, the use of CT/MRI of the abdomen, chest, and head was 27%, 23%, and 22%, and this slightly increased during the study period. There was a significant increase in PET/PET CT use, from 2% in 2001 to 9% in 2007 (P < .0001). There was a concomitant decrease in bone scan use from 21% in 2001 to 13% in 2007 (P < .0001). Adherence to evidence-based guidelines has been substandard and the use of nonrecommended tests has persisted over the study period. The rise in PET use and attendant decrease in bone scan implicates a population receiving PET scan in lieu of bone scan for surveillance of asymptomatic metastatic disease. In an elderly population of breast cancer patients in Texas, these findings imply both underuse and overuse.

Advanced diagnostic breast cancer imaging: variation and patterns of care in Washington state.

Because receipt of breast imaging likely occurs in nonrandom patterns, selection bias is an important issue in studies that attempt to elucidate associations between imaging and breast cancer outcomes. The purpose of this study was to analyze use of advanced diagnostic imaging in a cohort of patients with breast cancer insured by commercial, managed care, and public health plans by demographic, health insurance, and clinical variables from 2002 to 2009. We identified women with breast cancer diagnoses from a Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registry whose data could be linked to claims from participating health plans. We examined imaging that occurred between cancer diagnosis and initiation of treatment and classified patients according to receipt of (1) mammography or ultrasound only; (2) breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); and (3) other advanced imaging (computed tomography [CT] of the chest, abdoment, and pelvis; positron emission tomography [PET]; or PET-CT). We used logistic regression to identify factors associated with receipt of breast MRI as well as other advanced imaging. Commercial health plan, younger age, and later year of diagnosis were strongly associated with receipt of breast MRI and other advanced imaging. Women with prescription drug plans and those who had less comorbidities were more likely to have received breast MRI. Use of breast MRI and other advanced imaging is increasing among patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer; individual patient and insurance-related factors are associated with receipt of these imaging tests. Whether use of diagnostic advanced imaging affects outcomes such as re-excision, cancer recurrence, mortality rates, and costs of breast cancer treatment remains to be determined.

Impact of Preoperative Breast MRI on Surgical Decision Making and Clinical Outcomes: A Systematic Review

Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly used in the workup of breast cancer patients and could lead to changes in surgical management. It is unclear how the information gained from MRI studies affects surgical decision making and influences clinical outcomes. These issues are addressed in this review. PubMed database searches were performed to retrieve and analyze respective original research and review articles on preoperative MRI in the evaluation of breast cancer patients. Preoperative MRI is a highly sensitive but nonspecific method that leads to changes in surgical management with increased numbers of more extended surgical interventions. It appears that a relatively large proportion of MRI-driven changes in surgical management result in overtreatment without conclusively proven beneficial effects on such clinical outcomes as decrease in reoperation rates or improved patient survival. Thus, routine use of supplementary preoperative breast MRI should be discouraged until compelling evidence of its effectiveness is available.

Factors Associated with Breast MRI Use: A Population-Based Analysis

Although controversial, the use of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is widespread. We sought to determine factors that influenced its use in a population-based sample. The National Health Interview Survey is conducted annually by the Centers for Disease Control and is designed to be representative of the American population. Data from 2010 were queried for the use of breast MRI and associated sociodemographic and risk characteristics. Of the 11,222 women aged ≥30years who were surveyed, 4.7% reported ever having a breast MRI. Nearly a quarter were done as part of a "routine exam" and <5% were done for "family history" or for "high risk." Factors correlating with MRI use on univariate analysis included age, race, personal and/or family history of breast cancer, history of benign breast biopsy, perceived risk, and insurance. On multivariate analysis, African-American race (p=0.001), personal history (p<0.001), history of benign biopsy (p<0.001), and high perceived risk (p<0.001) were significantly associated with increased MRI use. In a cohort without a personal history of breast cancer, race, history of benign biopsy, and perceived risk were independent correlates of breast MRI, whereas family history, age, and insurance were no longer significant. Personal history is the strongest factor associated with breast MRI use. However, whereas race, history of benign biopsy, and perceived risk were independently associated with MRI use, family history was not. These findings call into question whether current practice patterns follow evidence-based guidelines.

Is There a Role for Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Diagnosing Palpable Breast Masses When Mammogram and Ultrasound Are Negative?

The use of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for screening high-risk patients is well established. However, the role of MRI as a diagnostic problem-solving tool is less well studied. With the increasing availability of MRI, its use for problem solving has increased. This small retrospective study examines the use and utility of breast MRI in evaluating palpable breast masses with negative diagnostic mammogram and ultrasound studies. We reviewed our breast MRI database, selecting breast MRI studies performed to assess palpable abnormalities with negative mammogram and ultrasound findings. Evidence of cancer was determined by biopsy. Seventy-seven studies were included, comprising 1.3% of all breast MRI studies performed at our institution during the study period (2005-2011). Twenty-two patients underwent biopsy, and 55 were followed clinically without biopsy. Approximately half (27 of 55) of the patients without biopsy were lost to follow-up after negative MRI, and the rest had no evidence of cancer on imaging or clinical examination at 1 year. Of the 22 patients who underwent biopsy, 2 were diagnosed with cancer, both with positive MRI studies. Sensitivity of MRI when compared to tissue diagnosis was 100%, and specificity was 70%. Positive and negative predictive values were 25% and 100%, respectively. When used for evaluation of a palpable breast mass with negative traditional imaging, breast MRI likely offers low yield of cancer diagnosis and low specificity. Negative MRI results may cause a low compliance rate for recommended follow-up. Because a biopsy is indicated for persistent palpable masses, the addition of diagnostic MRI only adds another step, with associated costs and burdens.

Yield of Selective Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Preoperative Workup of Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer Patients Planned for Breast Conserving Surgery

The role of routine preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients planned for breast conserving surgery is presently being debated. In our medical center we practice selective use of preoperative MRI; we sought to examine the yield of MRI in this highly selected group of patients. A retrospective study of all newly diagnosed breast cancer patients presenting between January 2007 and July 2010 to the Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center (Tel Aviv, Israel) was completed. Patients planned for breast conserving surgery who underwent preoperative MRI were included in this study. Patients and tumor characteristics, indication for MRI, findings on MRI, consequent workup, and impact on surgical treatment were recorded. Association between preoperative characteristics and yield of MRI was examined. During the study period, 105 patients that were candidates for breast conserving surgery underwent preoperative evaluation with MRI. Use of breast MRI increased over time. Rates of mastectomy were stable throughout the study years. Dense mammogram was the most frequent (51, 68%) indication for MRI. Additional suspicious findings were found in 41 (39%) patients, prompting further workup including 36 biopsies in 25 patients, of which 22 (61%) were with cancer. These additional findings prompted a change in the surgical plan in a third of the patients. In most patients (92; 88%) clear margins were achieved. Limiting the use of MRI in the preoperative workup of breast cancer patients to a selected group of patients can increase the yield of MRI.

Limited Value and Utility of Breast MRI in Patients Undergoing Breast-Conserving Cancer Surgery

Our aim was to compare the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography (US) in measuring the size of invasive breast cancer (IBC) and carcinoma in situ (CIS). We also examined the utility of routinely performing MRI in addition to US before breast-conserving surgery (BCS). Data from 1558 consecutive patients diagnosed with IBC and/or CIS between 2003 and 2005 were reviewed. For comparing the accuracy of US and MRI, paired t test was done comparing pathologic and imaging (US and MRI) tumor size in 821 patients who received both breast US and MRI. In instance of attempted BCS (n = 794), operative approach, resection margins, and clinical outcomes of non-MRI and MRI groups were compared. For CIS, IBC without CIS, and IBC with CIS, MRI was more accurate in estimating tumor size than US. When BCS was attempted (n = 794), the rate of tumor involvement in initial resection margins did not differ between non-MRI and MRI groups (23.0% and 23.4%, P = .926). Similarly, rates of re-excision (13.1% vs 17.5%, P = .130) and conversion to mastectomy (2.3% vs 2.1%, P = .893) were comparable, as were ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence, locoregional recurrence, and disease-free survival (log rank P = .284, .950, and .955, respectively). Breast MRI provided more accurate estimates of tumor size, correlating better with pathologic tumor size than US for both IBC and CIS. However, no clear benefit in terms of lower re-excision rate, higher breast conservation success, or reduced recurrence emerged for routine use of breast MRI before BCS.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Breast for Cancer Diagnosis and Staging

Gadolinium-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is optimally suited for the diagnosis and assessment of breast cancer. The complete breast MRI examination, which includes select nonenhanced sequences, yields abundant information about the nature and stage of disease. In this article, we will explore cancer diagnosis by examining the main imaging features of breast malignancy as well as the assessment of surrounding structures. We will then discuss current ideas in the use of breast MRI in breast cancer, including high-risk screening, evaluation of extent of disease, role in surgical planning, and the use of MRI in the patient receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast MRI plays an important role in the assessment of patients with breast malignancy-a role that is yet to be fully defined and used. By understanding the strengths and weakness of this imaging method in cancer evaluation, we hope to highlight the appropriate uses of the technique.

Early Uptake of Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging in a Community-Based Medical Practice, 2000–2004

Clinical applications of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast have expanded across the breast cancer detection and control spectrum over the past decade. Use appears to be growing, although evidence for or against its use is still accumulating. Using electronic health plan and medical record data, we documented early trends in breast MRI use from 2000 through 2004 in a large community practice setting with approximately 82,000 eligible female patients. During the study period, 225 women received at least one breast MRI; of those, 64 had subsequent MRI (for a total of 333 MRIs). Utilization grew from 6 MRIs in 2000 to 112 in 2004, with increasing use for screening, diagnosis, disease staging/treatment, and surveillance purposes. Diagnostic use accounted for nearly half of the breast MRIs (164 of 333). In this community-based practice, there was rapid uptake of this new technology despite paucity of evidence about its uses. As new evidence is generated, use of this technology will need to be monitored to minimize the risk of overuse and unintended downstream consequences.

Clinical Outcome of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Detected Additional Lesions in Breast Cancer Patients

PurposeThe aim of this study was to investigate the clinical outcome of additional breast lesions identified with breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in breast cancer patients.MethodsA total of 153 patients who underwent breast MRI between July 2006 and March 2008 were retrospectively reviewed. Thirty-three patients (21.6&) were recommended for second-look ultrasound (US) for further characterization of additional lesions detected on breast MRI and these patients constituted our study population.ResultsAssessment for lesions detected on breast MRI consisted of the following: 25 benign lesions (73.5&), two indeterminate (5.9%), and seven malignant (20.6%) in 33 patients. Second-look US identified 12 additional lesions in 34 lesions (35.3%) and these lesions were confirmed by histological examination. Of the 12 lesions found in the 11 patients, six (50.0%) including one contralateral breast cancer were malignant. The surgical plan was altered in 18.2% (six of 33) of the patients. The use of breast MRI justified a change in treatment for four patients (66.7%) and caused two patients (33.3&) to undergo unwarranted additional surgical procedures.ConclusionBreast MRI identified additional multifocal or contralateral cancer which was not detected initially on conventional imaging in breast cancer patients. Breast MRI has become an indispensable modality in conjunction with conventional modalities for preoperative evaluation of patients with operable breast cancer.

Using Lifetime Risk Estimates to Recommend Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening for Breast Cancer Survivors

There are millions of breast cancer survivors in the United States currently, and expectations are that the number will continue to increase in the years to come. Survivors of early-stage breast cancer are at increased risk for developing second primary breast cancers. Data regarding the effectiveness of surveillance mammography among survivors of early-stage breast cancer are limited, but suggest that mammography may reduce breast cancer mortality for this cohort as it does when used to screen the general population. Although national guidelines recommend annual mammographic surveillance for survivors of early-stage breast cancer, studies suggest surveillance mammography is underutilized. Mammography is not a perfect test. In fact, it may be particularly insensitive at detecting breast cancer among selected high-risk populations, such as BRCA carriers, young women, and women with dense breast tissue. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has consistently demonstratedgreatersensitivityversusmammographyinthesepopulations. However, MRI screening is more costly and time consuming, requires the injection of intravenous contrast, generates more false-positive results, and has not been shown to impact breast cancer mortality. Debate regarding the role of MRI as a screening test led the American Cancer Society to convene an expert panel to develop guidelines in 2007. The panel recommended breast MRI screening as an adjunct to mammography for: BRCA mutation carriers and their first-degree relatives; women with a lifetime breast cancer risk 20% to 25%; women with a history of chest radiation between ages of 10 and 30 years; and women with predisposing genetic syndromes (eg, Li-Fraumeni, Cowden). The group felt there was insufficient evidence to recommend for or against MRI screening among women with a personal history of invasive breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ. On one hand, MRI surveillance may seem appropriate for breast cancer survivors. Compared to women with a higher than 20% lifetime risk of primary breast cancer as defined by BRCAPRO or other family history–based models, many survivors of early-stage breast cancer could experience an even greater risk of second primary breast cancer. In addition, the sensitivity of mammography among survivors could be impaired by changes in the breast caused by previous treatments. In contrast, no studies have explored the utility of surveillance MRI among survivors. Moreover, this cohort also faces a competing risk of mortality from the primary breast cancer diagnosis. Based on personal observations, use of surveillance MRI among women with a personal history of early-stage breast cancer appears to be increasing. These issues raise serious questions regarding the appropriate use of surveillance breast MRI among survivors of early-stage breast cancer. To explore the implications of applying the American Cancer Society risk threshold to women with a personal history of breast cancer who are not BRCA carriers, we constructed an analytic model to calculate lifetime risk of developing a second breast cancer after diagnosis of an initial breast cancer. Specifically, we sought to determine which subsets of breast cancer survivors met a 20% or 25% lifetime risk threshold of having a new cancer, taking into account the competing risk of cancer mortality from the first diagnosis and agedependent noncancer mortality. The model was designed to provide customized values for lifetime risk of developing breast cancer for each year after diagnosis, as a function of the initial cancer (hormone receptor–positive v –negative, mortality risk), its treatment (breastconserving surgery v mastectomy, and tamoxifen v not for hormone receptor–positive cancers), and age at initial diagnosis. Our model assumed the risk of developing a second breast cancer was constant over time, not related to a patient’s age, and the same for the ipsilateral versus contralateral breast—as demonstrated in multiple prospective and retrospective studies. Adjuvant tamoxifen therapy was associated with a 47% reduction in the risk of developing a new breast cancer over the 10-year period after the primary cancer diagnosis. Therefore, the risk of developing a second breast cancer was only a function of the number of intact breasts and use of tamoxifen. No assumptions were made regarding the sensitivity or specificity of MRI screening in women with a personal history of breast cancer. Mortality risk from the initial diagnosis was assumed to be constant and completed within 7 years for hormone receptor–negative cancers and 15 years for hormone receptor–positive cancers. Patients with an initial diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ were assumed to have no mortality risk associated with their primary breast cancer diagnosis. Nonbreast cancer mortality was determined using 2004 United States female life-tables. The annual likelihood of a survivor developing a second breast cancer was determined by multiplying the per year probability of developing a new breast cancer with the per year probability of being alive (ie, not dying from the primary breast cancer or a nonbreast cancer cause). The lifetime risk of developing a JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY COMMENTS AND CONTROVERSIES VOLUME 28 NUMBER 27 SEPTEMBER 2

Counterview: Pre-operative breast MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) is not recommended for all patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer

For the woman with a newly diagnosed early stage breast cancer, the routine use of pre-operative breast MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) is not indicated beyond conventional breast imaging (i.e., mammography with correlation ultrasound as indicated). There is no consistent evidence that a pre-operative breast MRI confers a benefit to the patient by improving clinical outcomes or surgical procedures. In a meta-analysis of studies reporting on the use of pre-operative breast MRI for the patient with an established index cancer, multifocal or multicentric disease was found on breast MRI in 16% of the patients, a rate substantially higher than the rate of local recurrence after breast conserving surgery plus definitive radiation treatment. In the largest retrospective study of patients treated with breast conserving surgery plus radiation, no gain was found for adding a breast MRI to conventional breast imaging. No randomized clinical trial has been designed to evaluate long term clinical outcomes associated with adding a pre-operative breast MRI. Adding pre-operative breast MRI can alter clinical management in ways that are potentially harmful to patients, for example, increased ipsilateral mastectomies, increased contralateral prophylactic mastectomies, increased work-ups, and delay to definitive surgery. In summary, the routine use of pre-operative breast MRI is not warranted for the typical patient with a newly diagnosed early stage breast cancer.

Breast Conservation Treatment With Radiation: An Ongoing Success Story

Breast Conservation Treatment With Radiation: An Ongoing Success Story

Breast magnetic resonance imaging as a problem-solving modality in mammographic BI-RADS 3 lesions

The probability of a mammographic Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 3 lesion being cancer is considered to be less than 2%. Therefore, the work-up of a mammographic BI-RADS 3 lesion should be biopsy or follow-up mammography after 6 months. However, most patients referred for biopsy have benign disease. Although the negative predictive value (NPV) of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is highest of all imaging techniques, it is not yet common practice to use breast MRI as a problem-solving modality to exclude patients for further diagnostic work-up. Therefore, in this meta-analysis the usefulness of breast MRI as a problem-solving modality in mammographic BI-RADS 3 lesions is investigated. After a systematic search only 5 out of 61 studies met the inclusion criteria. The NPV in 2 of those studies was reported to be 100%. It was concluded that MRI can be used as an adjunctive tool to mammographic BI-RADS 3 findings to exclude patients for further diagnostic work-up. The other 3 studies assessed the accuracy of MRI in mammographic BI-RADS 3 microcalcifications. These studies reported an NPV of MRI between 76% and 97%. Therefore, MRI cannot be implemented as a diagnostic tool to evaluate mammographic microcalcifications at this time. The first solid data indicate that breast MRI might be useful as a problem-solving modality to exclude patients with non-calcified mammographic BI-RADS 3 lesions for further diagnostic work-up. However, further research is needed to verify these results.

Diagnostic Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy

Preoperative use of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in women with breast cancer may increase rates of mastectomy. This study investigated relationships between breast MRI and therapeutic and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) in women with breast cancer. A total of 3606 women diagnosed with stage 0-III breast cancer from 1998 through 2000 (n = 1743; early period) or from 2003 through 2005 (n = 1863; late period) were retrospectively identified. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics were obtained from our institution's tumor registry. MRI use in the diagnostic evaluation was obtained from a prospective radiology database. Rates of therapeutic mastectomy, CPM, and associations with breast MRI were compared between the two time periods by multiple logistic regressions controlling for disease stage, age, family history, and calendar year of diagnosis. A total of 14.2% of women underwent MRI, 29.0% had mastectomy, and 5.3% had CPM. Use of breast MRI increased substantially between the two time periods (4.1% to 23.7%, P < 0.001). Mastectomy rates increased from 28% to 30% (P > 0.05). The rate of CPM increased by >50% from the early to late period (4.1% to 6.4%, P < 0.002). Women who underwent MRI were nearly twice as likely to have CPM (9.2 vs. 4.7%, P < 0.001). Multivariate models found MRI was associated with increased rates of CPM for women with stage I or II disease (odds ratio 2.04, P = 0.001). MRI changes the surgical treatment of breast cancer among subsets of women diagnosed with breast cancer, suggesting there are hidden monetary and nonmonetary costs associated with its use.

A Review of Current Evidence-Based Clinical Applications for Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an important new tool for imaging of the breast. MRI has now been demonstrated to be the most sensitive imaging method for detecting breast carcinoma, allowing depiction of cancers that are occult on mammography, ultrasound, and clinical breast examination. This is tempered by imperfect specificity due to overlap in the features of benign and malignant lesions, and by higher examination cost and more limited availability compared to other breast imaging tests. This article describes the current evidence-based clinical indications for use of breast MRI. Specifically, MRI has been shown to be advantageous for cancer assessment for screening patients at high risk, evaluating patients with a new breast cancer diagnosis, monitoring patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and evaluating patients with metastatic axillary adenocarcinoma and unknown primary site. This tool has also been shown to be useful for the evaluation of silicone breast implant integrity. Employment of breast MRI as a problem solving technique for equivocal mammographic or clinical findings is controversial. For each of these clinical applications, the evidence regarding the diagnostic accuracy of breast MRI will be reviewed. An understanding of the current evidence will facilitate the most appropriate utilization of this important medical resource.

The Efficacy of MRI as an Adjuvant to Traditional Mammography

The objective of our study is to assess the utility of breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) when used for indications other than those published in peer-reviewed studies. A retrospective chart review was conducted of the records of 588 women who underwent both mammography and breast MRI. Patients excluded from the study were those who had breast MRI for accepted indications based on published peer-review studies. Included on the study were the remaining 122 patients. An evaluation was then made in each case as to whether the MRI finding caused a change in the patient's management. In this review, subject age ranged from 27- to 85-years-old. The mean age of the sample was 54.5 years. Of the positive MRI results, 29 (27.7%) had additional findings. There were 25 (20.3%) subjects with a treatment change and 97 (79.5%) without. In conclusion, breast MRI affected the clinical management in 25 (20.3%) of 122 patients. The majority of the 25 patients have invasive ductal carcinoma, followed by ductal carcinoma in situ. We believe this is a significant percentage positively affected by the additional use of breast MRI. We suggest that indications for the use of breast MRI in addition to traditional breast imaging should include all patients with invasive ductal carcinoma.