C. Boetes

New evidence on breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) screening has become available since the American Cancer Society (ACS) last issued guidelines for the early detection of breast cancer in 2003. A guideline panel has reviewed this evidence and developed new recommendations for women at different defined levels of risk. Screening MRI is recommended for women with an approximately 20-25% or greater lifetime risk of breast cancer, including women with a strong family history of breast or ovarian cancer and women who were treated for Hodgkin disease. There are several risk subgroups for which the available data are insufficient to recommend for or against screening, including women with a personal history of breast cancer, carcinoma in situ, atypical hyperplasia, and extremely dense breasts on mammography. Diagnostic uses of MRI were not considered to be within the scope of this review.

BACKGROUND: The value of regular surveillance for breast cancer in women with a genetic or familial predisposition to breast cancer is currently unproven. We compared the efficacy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with that of mammography for screening in this group of high-risk women. METHODS: Women who had a cumulative lifetime risk of breast cancer of 15 percent or more were screened every six months with a clinical breast examination and once a year by mammography and MRI, with independent readings. The characteristics of the cancers that were detected were compared with the characteristics of those in two different age-matched control groups. RESULTS: We screened 1909 eligible women, including 358 carriers of germ-line mutations. Within a median follow-up period of 2.9 years, 51 tumors (44 invasive cancers, 6 ductal carcinomas in situ, and 1 lymphoma) and 1 lobular carcinoma in situ were detected. The sensitivity of clinical breast examination, mammography, and MRI for detecting invasive breast cancer was 17.9 percent, 33.3 percent, and 79.5 percent, respectively, and the specificity was 98.1 percent, 95.0 percent, and 89.8 percent, respectively. The overall discriminating capacity of MRI was significantly better than that of mammography (P<0.05). The proportion of invasive tumors that were 10 mm or less in diameter was significantly greater in our surveillance group (43.2 percent) than in either control group (14.0 percent [P<0.001] and 12.5 percent [P=0.04], respectively). The combined incidence of positive axillary nodes and micrometastases in invasive cancers in our study was 21.4 percent, as compared with 52.4 percent (P<0.001) and 56.4 percent (P=0.001) in the two control groups. CONCLUSIONS: MRI appears to be more sensitive than mammography in detecting tumors in women with an inherited susceptibility to breast cancer.

The aim of breast MRI is to obtain a reliable evaluation of any lesion within the breast. It is currently always used as an adjunct to the standard diagnostic procedures of the breast, i.e., clinical examination, mammography and ultrasound. Whereas the sensitivity of breast MRI is usually very high, specificity—as in all breast imaging modalities—depends on many factors such as reader expertise, use of adequate techniques and composition of the patient cohorts. Since breast MRI will always yield MR-only visible questionable lesions that require an MR-guided intervention for clarification, MRI should only be offered by institutions that can also offer a MRI-guided breast biopsy or that are in close contact with a site that can perform this type of biopsy for them. Radiologists involved in breast imaging should ensure that they have a thorough knowledge of the MRI techniques that are necessary for breast imaging, that they know how to evaluate a breast MRI using the ACR BI-RADS MRI lexicon, and most important, when to perform breast MRI. This manuscript provides guidelines on the current best practice for the use of breast MRI, and the methods to be used, from the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI).

PURPOSE: To evaluate the comparative accuracy of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging relative to mammography and ultrasonography (US) for assessing the extent of breast tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Histologic results and preoperative imaging findings (mammography, US, MR imaging) were analyzed regarding tumor size and multifocality of 61 tumors in 60 women undergoing mastectomy for carcinoma. RESULTS: In 10% of cases, the index tumor was not seen at mammography. With US, 15% of the index tumors were not recognized, while MR imaging missed 2% of the index tumors. On mammographic and US images, tumor size was underestimated significantly (P < .005), by 14% and 18%, respectively, while MR imaging showed no significant difference in size compared with that found in a pathologic evaluation. Mammography showed 31% of the additional invasive lesions, while US showed 38% and MR imaging showed 100%. CONCLUSION: MR imaging was the most accurate of the three preoperative imaging modalities in assessing the size and number of malignant lesions in the breast.