Assessment of false-negative cases of breast MR imaging in women with a familial or genetic predisposition

In order to assess the characteristics of malignant breast lesions those were not detected during screening by MR imaging. In the Dutch MRI screening study (MRISC), a non-randomized prospective multicenter study, women with high familial risk or a genetic predisposition for breast cancer were screened once a year by mammography and MRI and every 6 months with a clinical breast examination (CBE). The false-negative MR examinations were subject of this study and were retrospectively reviewed by two experienced radiologists. From November 1999 until March 2006, 2,157 women were eligible for study analyses. Ninety-seven malignant breast tumors were detected, including 19 DCIS (20%). In 22 patients with a malignant lesion, the MRI was assessed as BI-RADS 1 or 2. One patient was excluded because the examinations were not available for review. Forty-three percent (9/21) of the false-negative MR cases concerned pure ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or DCIS with invasive foci, in eight of them no enhancement was seen at the review. In six patients the features of malignancy were missed or misinterpreted. Small lesion size (n = 3), extensive diffuse contrast enhancement of the breast parenchyma (n = 2), and a technically inadequate examination (n = 1) were other causes of the missed diagnosis. A major part of the false-negative MR diagnoses concerned non-enhancing DCIS, underlining the necessity of screening not only with MRI but also with mammography. Improvement of MRI scanning protocols may increase the detection rate of DCIS. The missed and misinterpreted cases are reflecting the learning curve of a multicenter study

Cancers in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers and in women at high risk for breast cancer: MR imaging and mammographic features

Our review of the images from prior MR imaging examinations shows that the cancers grow in size and that enhancement curves change from type 1 to type 2 or 3 and demonstrate greater signal enhancement over time.PurposeTo review imaging features of screening-detected cancers on images from diagnostic and prior examinations to identify specific abnormalities to aid earlier detection of or facilitate differentiation of cancers in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers and in women with a high risk for breast cancer.Materials and MethodsInformed consent and multicenter and local research ethics committee approval were obtained. Women (mean age, 40.1 years; range, 27–55 years) who had at least a 50% risk of being a BRCA1, BRCA2, or TP53 gene mutation carrier were recruited from August 1997 to March 2003 into the United Kingdom Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Breast Screening Study Group trial and were offered annual magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and two-view mammography (total number of screenings, 2065 and 1973; mean, 2.38 and 2.36, respectively). Images in all 39 cancer cases were reread in consensus to document the morphologic and enhancement imaging features on MR and mammographic images in screening and prior examinations. Cases were grouped into genetic subtypes.ResultsWith MR imaging, there was no difference in morphologic or enhancement characteristics between the genetic subgroups. Cancers on images from prior examinations were of smaller size, showed less enhancement, and were more likely to have a type 1 enhancement curve compared with those cancers in the subsequent diagnostic screening examinations. The tumor sizes detected by using MR imaging and mammography were not significantly different (P = .46). The cancers in BRCA1 carriers found by using MR imaging tended to be smaller than those detected by using mammography (median, 17 mm vs 30 mm; P = .37), whereas the opposite was true for cancers found in BRCA2 carriers (MR imaging median size = 12.5 mm vs mammographic median size = 6 mm; P = .067); the difference was not significant. Tumors with prior MR imaging abnormalities grew at an average of 5.1 mm/y.ConclusionWhen undertaking MR imaging surveillance in high-risk women, small enhancing lesions should be regarded with suspicion and biopsied or patients should be followed up at 6 months

Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: A prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS)

Background Women genetically predisposed to breast cancer often develop the disease at a young age when dense breast tissue reduces the sensitivity of X-ray mammography. Our aim was, therefore, to compare contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE MRI) with mammography for screening.Methods We did a prospective multicentre cohort study in 649 women aged 35–49 years with a strong family history of breast cancer or a high probability of a BRCA1, BRCA2, or TP53 mutation. We recruited participants from 22 centres in the UK, and offered the women annual screening with CE MRI and mammography for 2–7 years.Findings We diagnosed 35 cancers in the 649 women screened with both mammography and CE MRI (1881 screens): 19 by CE MRI only, six by mammography only, and eight by both, with two interval cases. Sensitivity was significantly higher for CE MRI (77%, 95% CI 60–90) than for mammography (40%, 24–58; p=0·01), and was 94% (81–99) when both methods were used. Specificity was 93% (92–95) for mammography, 81% (80–83) for CE MRI (p&lt;0·0001), and 77% (75–79) with both methods. The difference between CE MRI and mammography sensitivities was particularly pronounced in BRCA1 carriers (13 cancers; 92% vs 23%, p=0·004).Interpretation Our findings indicate that CE MRI is more sensitive than mammography for cancer detection. Specificity for both procedures was acceptable. Despite a high proportion of grade 3 cancers, tumours were small and few women were node positive. Annual screening, combining CE MRI and mammography, would detect most tumours in this risk group. <br/