Skip to main content
Log in

Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients Diagnosed With Ductal Carcinoma-In-Situ: Value in the Diagnosis of Residual Disease, Occult Invasion, and Multicentricity

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: Although magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been shown to be a sensitive imaging tool for invasive breast cancers, its utility in ductal carcinoma-in-situ (DCIS) of the breast remains controversial. We studied the performance of MRI in patients with known DCIS for assessment of residual disease, occult invasion, and multicentricity to determine the clinical role of MRI in this setting.

Methods: Fifty-one patients with biopsy-proven DCIS underwent contrast-enhanced MRI before surgical treatment. Pre-, early post-, and late postcontrast three-dimensional gradient echo images were obtained and MRI findings were correlated with histopathology. When possible, the performance of MRI and mammography was compared.

Results: The accuracy of MRI was 88% in predicting residual disease, 82% in predicting invasive disease, and 90% in predicting multicentricity. The performance of MRI was equivalent in the core biopsy group when compared with the surgical biopsy group. For occult invasion only, MRI and mammography were equivalent. However, overall, MRI was more sensitive and had a higher negative predictive value than mammography.

Conclusions:MRI of DCIS can serve as a useful adjunct to mammography by providing a more accurate assessment of the extent of residual or multicentric disease. The performance of MRI is not significantly affected by antecedent surgical excision. MRI may be particularly valuable if preoperatively negative.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Ernster VL, Barclay J. Increases in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast in relation to mammography: a dilemma. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997;22:151–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Greenlee RT, Murray T, Bolden S, Wingo PA. Cancer statistics, 2000. CA Cancer J Clin 2000;50:7–33.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Recht A, Rutgers EJ, Fentiman IS, Kurtz JM, Mansel RE, Sloane JP. The fourth EORTC DCIS Consensus meeting (Chateau Marquette, Heemskerk, The Netherlands, 23–24 January 1998)—conference report. Eur J Cancer 1998;34:1664–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Gallagher WJ, Koerner FC, Wood WC. Treatment of intraductal carcinoma with limited surgery: long-term follow-up. J Clin Oncol 1989;7:376–80.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Lagios MD, Margolin FR, Westdahl PR, Rose MR. Mammographically detected duct carcinoma in situ. Frequency of local recurrence following tylectomy and prognostic effect of nuclear grade on local recurrence. Cancer 1989;63:618–24.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Graham RA, Homer MJ, Sigler CJ, et al. The efficacy of specimen radiography in evaluating the surgical margins of impalpable breast carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994;162:33–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Schwartz GF, Finkel GC, Garcia JC, Patchefsky AS. Subclinical ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Treatment by local excision and surveillance alone. Cancer 1992;70:2468–74.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Beckmann MW, Niederacher D, Schnurch HG, Gusterson BA, Bender HG. Multistep carcinogenesis of breast cancer and tumour heterogeneity. J Mol Med 1997;75:429–39.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Faverly DR, Burgers L, Bult P, Holland R. Three dimensional imaging of mammary ductal carcinoma in situ: clinical implications. Semin Diagn Pathol 1994;11:193–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Fisher B, Costantino J, Redmond C, et al. Lumpectomy compared with lumpectomy and radiation therapy for the treatment of intraductal breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1993;328:1581–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Holland R, Hendriks JH, Vebeek AL, Mravunac M, Schuurmans Stekhoven JH. Extent, distribution, and mammographic/histological correlations of breast ductal carcinoma in situ. Lancet 1990;335:519–22.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Stomper PC, Connolly JL. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: correlation between mammographic calcification and tumor subtype. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992;159:483–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Sickles EA. Mammographic features of 300 consecutive nonpalpable breast cancers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1986;146:661–3.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Mumtaz H, Hall-Craggs MA, Davidson T, et al. Staging of symptomatic primary breast cancer with MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;169:417–24.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Esserman LJ, Hylton NM, Yassa NM, et al. Utility of magnetic resonance imaging in the management of breast cancer: evidence for improved preoperative staging. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:110–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Gilles R, Zafrani B, Guinebretiere JM, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ: MR imaging-histopathologic correlation. Radiology 1995;196:415–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Orel SG, Mendonca MH, Reynolds C, Schnall MD, Solin LJ, Sullivan DC. MR imaging of ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiology 1997;202:413–20.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Harms SE. Technical report of the international working group on breast MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;10:979.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. London: Chapman & Hall, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Bentzen SM. Prognostic factor studies in oncology: osteosarcoma as a clinical example. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2001;49:513–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Orel SG, Schnall MD, LiVolsi VA, Troupin RH. Suspicious breast lesions: MR imaging with radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 1994;190:485–93.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Boetes C, Strijk SP, Holland R, Barentsz JO, Van Der Sluis RF, Ruijs JH. False-negative MR imaging of malignant breast tumors. Eur Radiol 1997;7:1231–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Boetes C, Mus RD, Holland R, et al. Breast tumors: comparative accuracy of MR imaging relative to mammography and US for demonstrating extent. Radiology 1995;197:743–7.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Soderstrom CE, Harms SE, Copit DS, et al. Three-dimensional RODEO breast MR imaging of lesions containing ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiology 1996;201:427–32.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Peters ME, Fagerholm MI, Scanlan KA, Voegeli DR, Kelcz F. Mammographic evaluation of the postsurgical and irradiated breast. Radiographics 1988;8:873–99.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Hassell PR, Olivotto IA, Mueller HA, Kingston GW, Basco VE. Early breast cancer: detection of recurrence after conservative surgery and radiation therapy. Radiology 1990;176:731–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Soderstrom CE, Harms SE, Farrell RS Jr, Pruneda JM, Flamig DP. Detection with MR imaging of residual tumor in the breast soon after surgery. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;168:485–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Frei KA, Kinkel K, Bonel HM, Lu Y, Esserman LJ, Hylton NM. MR imaging of the breast in patients with positive margins after lumpectomy: influence of the time interval between lumpectomy and MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;175:1577–84.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Shelley Hwang MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hwang, E.S., Kinkel, K., Esserman, L.J. et al. Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients Diagnosed With Ductal Carcinoma-In-Situ: Value in the Diagnosis of Residual Disease, Occult Invasion, and Multicentricity. Ann Surg Oncol 10, 381–388 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1245/ASO.2003.03.085

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/ASO.2003.03.085

Key Words:

Navigation