Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer

被引:1093
作者
Berg, WA
Gutierrez, L
NessAiver, MS
Carter, WB
Bhargavan, M
Lewis, RS
Ioffe, OB
机构
[1] Amer Coll Radiol Imaging Network, Lutherville Timonium, MD 21093 USA
[2] Corp Nacl Canc, Santiago, Chile
[3] Univ Maryland, Dept Radiol, Baltimore, MD 21201 USA
[4] Univ Maryland, Dept Surg, Baltimore, MD 21201 USA
[5] Univ Maryland, Dept Pathol, Baltimore, MD 21201 USA
[6] Amer Coll Radiol Technol Assessment Studies Assis, Reston, VA USA
关键词
breast; abnormalities; MR; US; breast neoplasms; radiography;
D O I
10.1148/radiol.2333031484
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 [临床医学]; 100207 [影像医学与核医学]; 1009 [特种医学];
摘要
Purpose: To prospectively assess accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, ultrasonography (US), and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in preoperative assessment of local extent of breast cancer. Materials and Methods: Institutional review board approval and informed patient consent were obtained. Results of bilateral mammography, US, and contrast-enhanced MR imaging were analyzed from 111 consecutive women with known or suspected invasive breast cancer. Results were correlated with histopathologic findings. Results: Analysis included 177 malignant foci in 121 cancerous breasts, of which 89 (50%) foci were palpable. Median size of 139 invasive foci was 18 mm (range, 2-107 mm). Mammographic sensitivity decreased from 100% in fatty breasts to 45% in extremely dense breasts. Mammographic sensitivity was highest for invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) in 89 of 110 (81%) cases versus 10 of 29 (34%) cases of invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) (P<.001) and 21 of 38 (55%) cases of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (P<.01). US showed higher sensitivity than did mammography for IDC, depicting 104 of 110 (94%) cases, and for ILC, depicting 25 of 29 (86%) cases (P<.01 for each). US showed higher sensitivity for invasive cancer than DCIS (18 of 38 [47%],P<.001). MR showed higher sensitivity than did mammography for all tumor types (P<.01) and higher sensitivity than did US for DCIS (P<.001), depicting 105 of 110 (95%) cases of IDC, 28 of 29 (96%) cases of ILC, and 34 of 38 (89%) cases of DCIS. In anticipation of conservation or no surgery after mammography and clinical examination in 96 breasts, additional tumor ( which altered surgical approach) was present in 30. Additional tumor was depicted in 17 of 96 (18%) breasts at US and in 29 of 96 (30%) at MR, though extent was now overestimated in 12 of 96 (12%) at US and 20 of 96 (21%) at MR imaging. After combined mammography, clinical examination, and US, MR depicted additional tumor in another 12 of 96 (12%) breasts and led to overestimation of extent in another six (6%); US showed no detection benefit after MR imaging. Bilateral cancer was present in 10 of 111 (9%) patients; contralateral tumor was depicted mammographically in six and with both US and MR in an additional three. One contralateral cancer was demonstrated only clinically. Conclusion: In nonfatty breasts, US and MR imaging were more sensitive than mammography for invasive cancer, but both MR imaging and US involved risk of overestimation of tumor extent. Combined mammography, clinical examination, and MR imaging were more sensitive than any other individual test or combination of tests. (C) RSNA, 2004.
引用
收藏
页码:830 / 849
页数:20
相关论文
共 72 条
[1]
[Anonymous], BREAST IM REP DAT SY
[2]
Recurrence rates after treatment of breast cancer with standard radiotherapy with or without additional radiation. [J].
Bartelink, H ;
Horiot, J ;
Poortmans, P ;
Struikmans, H ;
Van den Bogaert, W ;
Barillot, I ;
Fourquet, A ;
Borger, J ;
Jager, J ;
Hoogenraad, W ;
Collette, L ;
Pierart, M .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2001, 345 (19) :1378-1387
[3]
Multicentric and multifocal cancer: Whole-breast US in preoperative evaluation [J].
Berg, WA ;
Gilbreath, PL .
RADIOLOGY, 2000, 214 (01) :59-66
[4]
Predictive value of specimen radiography for core needle biopsy of noncalcified breast masses [J].
Berg, WA ;
Jaeger, B ;
Campassi, C ;
Kumar, D .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1998, 171 (06) :1671-1678
[5]
Rationale for a trial of screening breast ultrasound: American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6666 [J].
Berg, WA .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2003, 180 (05) :1225-1228
[6]
CONTRALATERAL BREAST-CANCER - ANNUAL INCIDENCE AND RISK PARAMETERS [J].
BROET, P ;
DELAROCHEFORDIERE, A ;
SCHOLL, SM ;
FOURQUET, A ;
MOSSERI, V ;
DURAND, JC ;
POUILLART, P ;
ASSELAIN, B .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 1995, 13 (07) :1578-1583
[7]
Incidental enhancing lesions found on MR imaging of the breast [J].
Brown, J ;
Smith, RC ;
Lee, CH .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2001, 176 (05) :1249-1254
[8]
INTERVAL BREAST CANCERS IN THE SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY PROGRAM OF BRITISH-COLUMBIA - ANALYSIS AND CLASSIFICATION [J].
BURHENNE, HJ ;
BURHENNE, LW ;
GOLDBERG, F ;
HISLOP, TG ;
WORTH, AJ ;
REBBECK, PM ;
KAN, L .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1994, 162 (05) :1067-1071
[9]
BURHENNE HJ, 1994, AM J ROENTGENOL, V162, P1072
[10]
Sonographic evaluation of infiltrating lobular carcinoma [J].
Butler, RS ;
Venta, LA ;
Wiley, EL ;
Ellis, RL ;
Dempsey, PJ ;
Rubin, E .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 1999, 172 (02) :325-330