scholarly journals Current and Future Directions of Breast MRI

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (23) ◽  
pp. 5668
Author(s):  
Margaret Houser ◽  
David Barreto ◽  
Anita Mehta ◽  
Rachel F. Brem
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Digital Breast Tomosynthesis ◽  
Breast Mri ◽  
Preoperative Assessment ◽  
Average Risk ◽  
Dense Breast Tissue ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
High Risk Populations ◽  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging Mri

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the most sensitive exam for detecting breast cancer. The American College of Radiology recommends women with 20% or greater lifetime risk of developing breast cancer be screened annually with MRI. However, other high-risk populations would also benefit. Hartmann et al. reported women with atypical hyperplasia have nearly a 30% incidence of breast cancer at 25-year follow-up. Women with dense breast tissue have up to a 4-fold increased risk of breast cancer when compared to average-risk women; their cancers are more likely to be mammographically occult. Because multiple cohorts of women are at high risk for developing breast cancer, there has been a movement to develop an abbreviated MRI (abMRI) protocol to expand the availability of MRI screening. Studies on abMRI effectiveness have been promising, with Weinstein et al. demonstrating a cancer detection rate of 27.4/1000 in women with dense breasts after a negative digital breast tomosynthesis. Breast MRI is also used to evaluate the extent of disease as part of preoperative assessment in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer, and to assess a patient’s response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This paper aims to explore the current uses of MRI and propose future indications and directions.

scholarly journals Role of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer management

2018 ◽  
Vol 07 (02) ◽  
pp. 069-071 ◽  
Author(s):  
Selvi Radhakrishna ◽  
S. Agarwal ◽  
Purvish M. Parikh ◽  
K. Kaur ◽  
Shikha Panwar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Breast Mri ◽  
Average Risk ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Cancer Management ◽  
Breast Cancer Management ◽  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging Mri

AbstractMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast is primarily used as a supplemental tool to breast screening with mammography or ultrasound. A breast MRI is mainly used for women who have been diagnosed with breast cancer, to help measure the size of the cancer, look for other tumors in the breast, and to check for tumors in the opposite breast. For certain women at high risk for breast cancer, a screening MRI is recommended along with a yearly mammogram. MRI is known to give some false positive results which mean more test and/or biopsies for the patient. Thus, although breast MRI is useful for women at high risk, it is rarely recommended as a screening test for women at average risk of breast cancer. Also, breast MRI does not show calcium deposits, known as micro-calcifications which can be a sign of breast cancer.

Breast Cancer in Young Women after Treatment with Irradiation for Hodgkin’s Lymphoma.

Blood ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 108 (11) ◽  
pp. 3333-3333
Author(s):  
Linda Lee ◽  
Melania Pintilie ◽  
David Hodgson ◽  
Michael Crump
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Breast Density ◽  
Young Women ◽  
Cumulative Incidence ◽  
Breast Mri ◽  
Increased Risk

Abstract BACKGROUND: Women who are survivors of Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (HL) are at increased risk of developing breast cancer (BCa) as a long-term complication due to the use of extended field (mantle) irradiation (RT) of disease above the diaphragm. Many young women are at significantly increased risk of BCa prior to the age at which routine screening mammography is recommended for the general population. The sensitivity of mammography is lower in these women, in part due to increased breast tissue density characteristic of young pre-menopausal women. Currently, there is a paucity of information on the optimal screening modality and surveillance frequency for these women. METHODS: We reviewed the current BCa screening strategies used for this high risk group at our centre and described the incidence, method of detection, and characteristics of secondary BCas in a cohort of 115 women who received supradiaphragmatic RT for HL before age 30 between 1965 and 2000 at Princess Margaret Hospital (PMH) and who subsequently accepted long-term follow-up in a high-risk screening clinic. RESULTS: Median age at treatment was 22 (range 9–30). Radiation fields were mantle in 106 women, modified mantle in 6, and involved field in 3 (median dose delivered: 35 Gy, range 15–60). RT alone was used for 44 patients while 71 received combined modality therapy, of which 45 (65%) received MOPP. Treatment induced amenorrhea occurred in 15 women (median age 38); hormone replacement therapy was subsequently used by 9. Of the 107 women who participated in annual radiographic BCa screening, 95 were screened with mammogram alone, 1 with breast MRI alone, 8 with mammogram and MRI, and 3 with mammogram and ultrasound. Median age at first mammogram was 36; however, median age decreased with more recent year of HL diagnosis (age 40 for women diagnosed before 1985 compared to age 33 for women diagnosed after 1985, p<0.0001). Women with high breast density received MRI screening more often (p=0.02); however, breast density was not significantly associated with previous breast radiation dose or age at last follow-up. Twelve women were diagnosed with BCa in this cohort, following active breast surveillance for a median of 5 years (representing 584 person-years). The 20-year cumulative incidence of breast cancer was 10.9% (95% CI 5.3–18.8%) in this group of women. This was comparable to the 20-year cumulative incidence of breast cancer of 12% (95% CI 8–17%) in all 448 women with HL treated with supradiaphragmatic radiation before age 30 at PMH during the same time period. BCa occurred after a median of 17 years after treatment for HL (range 13–28). Median age at BCa diagnosis was 40 (range 31–51). Seven cancers were detected by physical exam (6 node-positive invasive BCas, 1 in-situ BCa) and 5 were detected on annual mammograms (1 node-positive invasive BCa, 4 in-situ BCas). CONCLUSIONS: Although women in the more recent treatment cohort are receiving their first mammogram at a younger age, the majority of BCas were still detected clinically, and these BCas had less favorable pathological characteristics. More frequent breast imaging should be considered in women who have had supradiaphragmatic RT for HL. Prospective evaluation of breast MRI as a screening strategy for HL survivors has been initiated at PMH in an effort to detect BCa at an earlier stage.

Comparison of false positive rates for screening breast MRI in high risk women when studies are done stacked versus alternating.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1512-1512
Author(s):  
Edress Othman ◽  
Jue Wang ◽  
Brian Sprague ◽  
Yongli Ji ◽  
Sally D. Herschorn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
False Positive ◽  
Brca Mutation ◽  
False Positive Rate ◽  
Menopausal Status ◽  
Breast Mri ◽  
High Risk Women ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Optimal Screening

1512 Background: Screening breast MRI added to mammography increases screening sensitivity for high risk women. However, false positive rates are high for MRI and the optimal screening schedule is unclear. In this study we compare rates of false positive MRI when studies were performed on a stacked or alternating schedule. Methods: We reviewed charts for women at increased risk for breast cancer who had screening breast MRI between 2004 - 2012 at the University of Vermont. Eligible women had at least 1 MRI and 1 mammogram performed within one year. Charts were abstracted for clinical, radiological, and biopsy data. Screening was considered stacked if both studies were performed within 90 days and alternating if studies were 4-8 months apart. False positive was defined as MRI result of BI-RADS 3-4-5-0 with additional negative imaging within 12 months or benign biopsy. Results: 143 women had screening which met inclusion criteria; 45 per stacked schedule, 52 alternating, 40 mixed and 6 neither. Women in this study had similar characteristics with respect to age, ethnicity, menopausal status and indications for MRI (i.e. family history, BRCA mutation, biopsy history and prior chest irradiation). 371 MRIs were reviewed (165 stacked and 206 alternating). The overall false positive rate was higher in the stacked group vs. alternating [30(18.2%) vs. 21(10.2%), p=0.0264]. Using only BI-RADS 4-5-0 as a positive result that difference was lost. There were significantly more BI-RADS category 3 interpretations in the stacked vs. alternating MRIs [16(9.7%) vs. 6(2.9%), p=0.006]. The rate of BI-RADS category 4-5-0 was not different between the two groups [16(9.7%) vs. 17(8.3%), p= 0.6272]. A similar number of biopsies were performed in both groups Conclusions: MRI added to mammography for women at increased risk for breast cancer was associated with higher rates of false positive interpretations when studies were done on a stacked compared to alternating schedule. In this study the greater number of BI-RADS 3 interpretations with a stacked schedule accounted for this difference. Further studies are needed to identify the optimal screening schedule when adding MRI to mammography.

The Role of MRI in Breast Cancer Screening

2009 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
pp. 1109-1115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Constance D. Lehman ◽  
Robert A. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Breast Cancer Screening ◽  
Radiation Treatment ◽  
Breast Mri ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Average Risk ◽  
Degree Relative ◽  
Increased Risk

The 2009 NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis include significant updates for the role of MRI in screening women at increased risk for breast cancer. The NCCN now recommends considering breast MRI as an adjunct to annual mammography and clinical breast examination for women who have a BRCA1 or -2 mutation or who have a first-degree relative who has a BRCA1 or -2 mutation but who have not undergone genetic testing themselves; those who are determined to have a lifetime risk greater than 20% based on models that are highly dependent on family history; and those with a history of lobular carcinoma in situ. MRI is also recommended for patients who underwent radiation treatment to the chest between 10 and 30 years of age, and in those who carry or have a first-degree relative who carries a genetic mutation in the TP53 or PTEN genes (Li-Fraumeni, Cowden, and Bannahyan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndromes). MRI is specifically not recommended for screening women at average risk for breast cancer. This article describes the peer-reviewed, published clinical research trials evaluating breast MRI in high-risk patients, on which the NCCN guidelines were based, and provides suggestions for future research.

Supplemental Screening for Women with Dense Breasts: What Do Practicing Radiologists Recommend?

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tisha Singer ◽  
Ana P Lourenco ◽  
Grayson L Baird ◽  
Martha B Mainiero
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Breast Imaging ◽  
Digital Breast Tomosynthesis ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Breast Tomosynthesis ◽  
Dense Breasts ◽  
Additional Imaging ◽  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging Mri

Abstract Objective To evaluate radiologists’ supplemental screening recommendations for women with dense breasts, at average, intermediate, or high risk of breast cancer, and to determine if there are differences between their recommendations for their patients, their friends and family, and themselves. Methods This is an anonymous survey of Society of Breast Imaging (SBI) members. Demographics, knowledge of breast density as a risk factor, and recommendations for screening with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), ultrasound (US), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in women with dense breasts, at average, intermediate, or high- risk of breast cancer were assessed. The likelihood of their recommending the screening test for their patients, their family and friends, and themselves was assessed on a Likert scale from 0 to 4 (0 = “not at all likely” to 4 = “extremely likely”). Results There were 295 responses: 67% were women, and breast imaging comprised 95% of their practice. Among participants, 53% correctly answered the question on relative risk of breast cancer when comparing extremely dense versus fatty breasts, and 57% when comparing heterogeneously dense versus scattered breasts. US is recommended at a relatively low rate (1.0–1.4 on the 0–4 scale), regardless of risk. DBT is recommended at a relatively high rate (2.5–3.0 on the 0–4 scale), regardless of risk status. MR is recommended mainly for those at high risk (3.6 on the 0–4 scale). Radiologists were more likely to recommend additional imaging for themselves than for their patients and their family and friends. Conclusion For women with dense breasts, radiologists are “somewhat likely” to recommend US and “likely” to “very likely” to recommend DBT regardless of risk group. They are “very likely” to recommend MRI for high-risk groups.

Global tissue stiffness on breast MR elastography: High-risk dense breast patients have higher stiffness compared to average-risk dense breast patients.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 10541-10541
Author(s):  
Bhavika K. Patel ◽  
Kay Pepin ◽  
Kathy R Brandt ◽  
Gina L. Mazza ◽  
Barbara A. Pockaj ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Menopausal Status ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Average Risk ◽  
Tissue Stiffness ◽  
Tissue Properties ◽  
Dense Breasts ◽  
Risk Patients

10541 Background: Biomechanical tissue properties may vary in the breasts of patients at elevated risk for breast cancer. We aim to quantify in vivo biomechanical tissue properties in various breast densities and in both normal risk and high risk women using Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)/MRE and examine the association of biomechanical properties of the breast with cancer risk. Methods: In this IRB–approved prospective single-institution study, we recruited two groups of women differing by breast cancer risk to undergo a 3.0 T dynamic contrast enhanced MRI/MRE of the breast. Low-average risk women were defined as having no personal or significant family history of breast cancer, no prior high risk breast biopsies and a negative mammography within 12 months. High-risk breast cancer patients were recruited from those patients who underwent standard of care breast MR. Within each breast density group (non-dense versus dense), two-sample t-tests were used to compare breast stiffness, elasticity, and viscosity across risk groups (low-average vs high). Results: There were 50 low-average risk and 86 high-risk patients recruited to the study. The risk groups were similar on age (mean age = 55.6 and 53.6 years), density (68% vs. 64% dense breasts) and menopausal status (66.0% vs. 69.8%). Among patients with dense breasts, mean stiffness, elasticity, and viscosity were significantly higher in high risk patients ( N = 55) compared to low-average risk patients ( N = 34; all p < 0.001). In the multivariate logistic regression model, breast stiffness remained a significant predictor of risk status (OR=4.26, 95% CI [1.96, 9.25]) even after controlling for breast density, MRI BPE, age, and menopausal status. Similar results were seen for breast elasticity (OR=4.88, 95% CI [2.08, 11.43]) and viscosity (OR=11.49, 95% CI [1.15, 114.89]). Conclusions: Structurally-based, quantitative biomarker of tissue stiffness obtained from global 3D breast MRE is associated with differences in breast cancer risk in dense breasts. As such, tissue stiffness could provide a novel prognostic marker to help identify the subset of high-risk women with dense breasts who would benefit from increased surveillance.[Table: see text]

scholarly journals Can a subgroup at high risk for LRR be identified from T1-2 breast cancer with negative lymph nodes after mastectomy? A meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 39 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gongling Peng ◽  
Zhuohui Zhou ◽  
Ming Jiang ◽  
Fan Yang
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Lymph Nodes ◽  
Patient Population ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Histologic Grade ◽  
Surgical Margins ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Negative Lymph Nodes

Abstract Purpose: To identify a subgroup at high risk for loco-regional recurrence (LRR) from T1-2 breast cancer with negative lymph nodes (N0) after mastectomy by using a meta-analysis. Methods and materials: Published studies on the relationship between clinical features and LRR of breast cancer were identified from public databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. High-risk features for LRR in this patient population were defined based on the pooled results of meta-analysis. Results: For the meta-analysis, a total of 11244 breast cancers with pT1-2N0 after mastectomy from 20 publications were included for analysis. The pooled results indicated that age (hazard ratio (HR) 1.77, P=0.001), lymphovascular invasion (LVI) (HR 2.23, P&lt;0.001), histologic grade (HR 1.66, P&lt;0.001), HER2 status (HR 1.65, P=0.027), menopausal status (HR 1.36, P=0.015), and surgical margins (HR 2.56, P=0.014) were associated with a significantly increased risk of developing LRR in this patient population group, but not for tumor size (HR 1.32, P=0.23), systematic therapy (HR 1.67, P=0.20), and hormonal receptor status (HR 1.04, P=0.73). Conclusion: In the current study, patients with young age, positive LVI, high histologic grade, HER-2 positive, premenopausal, and positive surgical margins have an increased risk of developing LRR. Further prospective trials are needed to clearly define the role of adjuvant postmastectomy radiotherapy in T1-2N0 breast cancer at high risk of developing LRR.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document