Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Surgical impact of preoperative breast MRI in women below 40 years of age

  • Clinical Trial
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Our aim was to evaluate the surgical impact of preoperative MRI in young patients. We reviewed a single-institution database of 283 consecutive patients below 40 years of age and who were treated for breast cancer. Thirty-seven (13 %) patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy were excluded. The remaining 246 patients included 124 (50 %) who preoperatively underwent conventional imaging (CI), i.e., mammography/ultrasonography (CI-group), and 122 (50 %) who underwent CI and dynamic MRI (CI + MRI-group). Pathology of surgical specimens served as a reference standard. Mann–Whitney, χ 2, and McNemar statistics were used. There were no significant differences between groups in terms of age, tumor pathologic subtype, stage, receptor, or nodal status. The mastectomy rate was 111/246 (45 %) overall but was significantly different between groups (46/124, 37 %, for the CI group and 65/122, 53 %, for the CI + MRI group; p = 0.011). Of 122 CI + MRI patients, 46 (38 %) would have undergone mastectomy due to CI alone, while MRI determined 19 additional mastectomies, increasing the mastectomy rate from 38 % to 53 % (p < 0.001). The number of patients with multifocal, multicentric, synchronous, or bilateral cancers was significantly different between groups (10/124, 8 %, for the CI group and 33/122, 27 %, for the CI + MRI group; p < 0.001). In the CI + MRI group, multifocal, multicentric, or synchronous bilateral cancers were detected with mammography in 5/33 (15 %) patients, with ultrasonography in 15/33 (45 %) patients, and with MRI in 32/33 (97 %) patients (p < 0.005). Two mastectomies were due to false positives at both conventional tests in the CI group (2/124, 1.6 %) and two mastectomies were due to MRI false positives in the CI + MRI group (2/122, 1.6 %). In conclusion, breast cancer in young patients was treated with mastectomy in 37–38 % of cases on the basis of CI only and in these patients MRI was more sensitive than CI for multifocal, multicentric, or synchronous bilateral cancers, resulting in an additional mastectomy rate of 15 %. A low probability of inappropriate imaging-based decision-making for mastectomy exists for both CI alone and for CI + MRI, making presurgical needle biopsy mandatory for findings that suggest a need for mastectomy.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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. Ferlay J, Parkin DM, Steliarova-Foucher E (2010) Estimates of cancer incidence and mortality in Europe in 2008. Eur J Cancer 46:765–781

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. American Cancer Society (2012) Breast cancer facts and figures 2011–2012. Atlanta: American Cancer Society, Inc. http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/document/acspc-030975.pdf. Accessed 25 May 2013

  3. Althuis MD, Brogan DD, Coates RJ et al (2003) Breast cancers among very young premenopausal women (United States). Cancer Causes Control 14:151–160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sidoni A, Cavaliere A, Bellezza G, Scheibel M, Bucciarelli E (2003) Breast cancer in young women: clinicopathological features and biological specificity. Breast 12:247–250

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Gnerlich JL, Deshpande AD, Jeffe DB et al (2009) Elevated breast cancer mortality in women younger than age 40 years compared with older women is attributed to poorer survival in early-stage disease. J Am Coll Surg 208:341–347

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pinsky RW, Helvie MA (2010) Mammographic breast density: effect on imaging and breast cancer risk. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 8:1157–1164

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Corsetti V, Houssami N, Ferrari A et al (2008) Breast screening with ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: evidence on incremental cancer detection and false positives, and associated cost. Eur J Cancer 44:539–544

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Corsetti V, Houssami N, Ghirardi M et al (2011) Evidence of the effect of adjunct ultrasound screening in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: interval breast cancers at 1 year follow-up. Eur J Cancer 47:1021–1026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D, ACRIN 6666 Investigators et al (2012) Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA 307:1394–1404

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Sadigh G, Carlos RC, Neal CH, Dwamena BA (2012) Ultrasonographic differentiation of malignant from benign breast lesions: a meta-analytic comparison of elasticity and BIRADS scoring. Breast Cancer Res Treat 133:23–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Yang WT (2011) Staging of breast cancer with ultrasound. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 32:331–341

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. O’Flynn EA, Wilson AR, Michell MJ (2010) Image-guided breast biopsy: state-of-the-art. Clin Radiol 65:259–270

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lim HI, Choi JH, Yang JH et al (2010) Does pre-operative breast magnetic resonance imaging in addition to mammography and breast ultrasonography change the operative management of breast carcinoma? Breast Cancer Res Treat 119:163–167

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kim JY, Cho N, Koo HR et al (2013) Unilateral breast cancer: screening of contralateral breast by using preoperative MR imaging reduces incidence of metachronous mancer. Radiology 267:57–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sardanelli F, Giuseppetti GM, Panizza P, Italian Trial for Breast MR in Multifocal/Multicentric Cancer et al (2004) Sensitivity of MRI versus mammography for detecting foci of multifocal, multicentric breast cancer in fatty and dense breasts using the whole-breast pathologic examination as a gold standard. AJR Am J Roentgenol 183:1149–1157

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Houssami N, Ciatto S, Macaskill P et al (2008) Accuracy and surgical impact of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging: systematic review and meta-analysis in detection of multifocal and multicentric cancer. J Clin Oncol 26:3248–3258

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Brennan ME, Houssami N, Lord S et al (2009) Magnetic resonance imaging screening of the contralateral breast in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of incremental cancer detection and impact on surgical management. J Clin Oncol 27:5640–5649

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Plana MN, Carreira C, Muriel A et al (2012) Magnetic resonance imaging in the preoperative assessment of patients with primary breast cancer: systematic review of diagnostic accuracy and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 22:26–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sardanelli F (2010) Overview of the role of pre-operative breast MRI in the absence of evidence on patient outcomes. Breast 19:3–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Solin LJ (2010) Counterview: pre-operative breast MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) is not recommended for all patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer. Breast 19:7–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sardanelli F (2010) Additional findings at preoperative MRI: a simple golden rule for a complex problem? Breast Cancer Res Treat 124:717–721

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bleicher RJ, Ciocca RM, Egleston BL et al (2009) Association of routine pretreatment magnetic resonance imaging with time to surgery, mastectomy rate, and margin status. J Am Coll Surg 209:180–187

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Houssami N, Turner R, Morrow M (2013) Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer: meta-analysis of surgical outcomes. Ann Surg 257:249–255

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sardanelli F, Boetes C, Borisch B et al (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer 46:1296–1316

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Turnbull L, Brown S, Harvey I et al (2010) Comparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 375:563–571

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Peters NH, van Esser S, van den Bosch MA et al (2011) Preoperative MRI and surgical management in patients with nonpalpable breast cancer: the MONET—randomised controlled trial. Eur J Cancer 47:879–886

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Obdeijn IM, Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Spronk S et al (2013) Preoperative breast MRI can reduce the rate of tumor-positive resection margins and reoperations in patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:304–310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. American College of Radiology (2003) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS), 4th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston

    Google Scholar 

  29. Sardanelli F, Giuseppetti GM, Canavese G et al (2008) Indications for breast magnetic resonance imaging. Consensus document “Attualità in Senologia”, Florence 2007. Radiol Med 113:1085–1095

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Association of Breast Surgery at BASO et al (2009) Surgical guidelines for the management of breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2009.01.008

    Google Scholar 

  31. Crispo A, Barba M, D’Aiuto G, De Laurentiis M et al (2013) Molecular profiles of screen detected vs. symptomatic breast cancer and their impact on survival: results from a clinical series. BMC Cancer. doi:10.1186/1471-2407-13-15

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. American Joint Committee on Cancer, AJCC (2002) Cancer staging manual, 6th edn, Chap 25, Breast Cancer—p 223–240. http://www.cancerstaging.org/products/csmanual6ed-4.pdf

  33. Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M, Valentini M, Houssami N (2012) EUSOMA criteria for performing pre-operative MRI staging in candidates for breast conserving surgery: hype or helpful? Breast 21:406–408

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Sardanelli F (2013) Considerations on the application of EUSOMA criteria for preoperative MRI. Breast 22:368–369

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Pediconi F, Catalano C, Padula S et al (2007) Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance mammography: does it affect surgical decision-making in patients with breast cancer? Breast Cancer Res Treat 106:65–74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Lehman CD, Gatsonis C, Kuhl CK, ACRIN Trial 6667 Investigators Group et al (2007) MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. N Engl J Med 356:1295–1303

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Elshof LE, Rutgers EJ, Deurloo EE et al (2010) A practical approach to manage additional lesions at preoperative breast MRI in patients eligible for breast conserving therapy: results. Breast Cancer Res Treat 124:707–715

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. van der Sangen MJ, Poortmans PM, Scheepers SW et al (2013) Prognosis following local recurrence after breast conserving treatment in young women with early breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2013.05.004

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. An YY, Kim SH, Kang BJ (2012) Characteristic features and usefulness of MRI in breast cancer in patients under 40 years old: correlations with conventional imaging and prognostic factors. Breast Cancer. doi:10.1007/s12282-012-0383-9

    Google Scholar 

  40. Biglia N, Bounous VE, Martincich L et al (2011) Role of MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) versus conventional imaging for breast cancer presurgical staging in young women or with dense breast. Eur J Surg Oncol 37:199–204

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Dr. Miles Kirchin for his language review of the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

Francesco Sardanelli has received research grants from and is a member of the speakers’ bureau of Bracco Imaging Group, Milan, Italy. All remaining authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Struttura Complessa di Radiodiagnostica 1, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Terapia Radiante e Metabolica, Istituto Nazionale per lo studio e la cura dei Tumori, IRCCS Fondazione Giovanni Pascale, Naples, Italy

    Antonella Petrillo, Annamaria Porto, Roberta Fusco, Salvatore Filice & Paolo Vallone

  2. Struttura Complessa di Radiodiagnostica 2, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Terapia Radiante e Metabolica, Istituto Nazionale per lo studio e la cura dei Tumori, IRCCS Fondazione Giovanni Pascale, Naples, Italy

    Maria Rosaria Rubulotta

  3. Struttura Complessa di Anatomia Patologica e Citopatologia, Istituto Nazionale per lo studio e la cura dei Tumori, IRCCS Fondazione Giovanni Pascale, Naples, Italy

    Franco Fulciniti & Maurizio Di Bonito

  4. Struttura Complessa di Chirurgia Oncologica Senologica, Istituto Nazionale per lo studio e la cura dei Tumori, IRCCS Fondazione Giovanni Pascale, Naples, Italy

    Massimiliano D’Aiuto & Immacolata Capasso

  5. Unità di Radiologia, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Via Morandi, 30, San Donato Milanese, 20097, Milan, Italy

    Rubina Manuela Trimboli & Francesco Sardanelli

  6. Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche per la Salute, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy

    Francesco Sardanelli

Authors
  1. Antonella Petrillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Annamaria Porto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Roberta Fusco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Salvatore Filice
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Paolo Vallone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Maria Rosaria Rubulotta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Franco Fulciniti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Maurizio Di Bonito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Massimiliano D’Aiuto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Immacolata Capasso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Rubina Manuela Trimboli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Francesco Sardanelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesco Sardanelli.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Petrillo, A., Porto, A., Fusco, R. et al. Surgical impact of preoperative breast MRI in women below 40 years of age. Breast Cancer Res Treat 140, 527–533 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-013-2651-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-013-2651-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation