This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Neubauer, H Articles by Kaiser, W A Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Neubauer, H Articles by Kaiser, W A

High grade and non-high grade ductal carcinoma in situ on dynamic MR mammography: characteristic findings for signal increase and morphological pattern of enhancement

Institutes of ¹ Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, and ⁴ Gynecology Friedrich-Schiller-University, Bachstrasse 18, D-07740 Jena, Germany, ² Shao Yi Fu Hospital, Medical College of Zhejiang University, Qingchun East Road 3, Hangzhou 310016, P. R. China and ³ Institute of Pathology, Friedrich-Schiller-University, Ziegelmuehlenweg 1, D-07747 Jena, Germany

Correspondence: Henning Neubauer, c/o Li Mengxia, Department of Paediatrics, Shao Yi Fu Hospital, Qing Chun Dong Lu 3, Hangzhou 310016, P.R. China

The objective of this review is to describe characteristic MR mammographic findings for signal increase and morphological patterns of enhancement in pure ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and to differentiate between high grade and non-high grade lesions. The dynamic MR examination (1.5 T unit, contrast enhanced T₁ weighted two dimensional fast field echo, 96 ms repetition time, 5.0 ms echo time, 80° flip angle) of 39 consecutive patients with pure DCIS was evaluated retrospectively. Categories were defined for signal increase (C1=normal, C2=slow, continuous, C3=strong initial and slow further increase, C4=strong initial increase followed by a plateau phenomenon, and C5=strong initial increase followed by a washout phenomenon) and morphological patterns (M0=no pattern observed, M1=linear or linear-branched, M2=segmental dotted or granular, M3=segmental homogeneous, and M4=focal spot-like). Time–intensity curves showing a C4 and C5 signal increase were considered suspicious for malignancy. All cases were correlated with histology. 62% of all tumours had a plateau or washout (C4, C5), 77% showed a strong initial signal increase (C3–C5). On evaluation of time–intensity curves alone MR mammography (MRM) findings were suspicious for malignancy in 62% of all DCIS cases. A segmental enhancement was found in 82% of all enhancing tumors and the M2 pattern in 73%. In a combined analysis of signal increase and morphology, 70% of non-high grade and 92% of high grade DCISs were correctly described as suspicious. The difference between non-high grade and high grade DCIS was not significant (p=0.148), while significant differences were found between G1 and G3 DCISs and between G1 and G2 DCISs (p<0.05). All G2 and G3 DCISs showed noticeable signal enhancement. The mean histological tumour size of non-high grade DCISs was smaller than that for high grade DCIS (p<0.05). The hallmark of DCIS on dynamic MRM was unilateral segmental enhancement, most commonly with a granular dotted morphology (M2). Hormone effects need to be considered as the main differential diagnosis. Signal enhancement kinetics similar to invasive carcinoma were seen in the majority of cases. A combined analysis of morphological pattern and signal enhancement considerably improved rate of detection. G2 and G3 DCISs were correctly diagnosed with a significantly higher rate of detection (92%) than G1 DCIS (53%) (p<0.05). Different average size of G1, G2 and G3 DCIS on pathology cannot be excluded as a reason for differences found. Normal MRM seems to exclude high grade DCIS.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. A. Jansen, G. M. Newstead, H. Abe, A. Shimauchi, R. A. Schmidt, and G. S. Karczmar Pure Ductal Carcinoma in Situ: Kinetic and Morphologic MR Characteristics Compared with Mammographic Appearance and Nuclear Grade Radiology, December 1, 2007; 245(3): 684 - 691. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Kuhl The Current Status of Breast MR Imaging * Part I. Choice of Technique, Image Interpretation, Diagnostic Accuracy, and Transfer to Clinical Practice Radiology, August 1, 2007; 244(2): 356 - 378. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Tozaki and K. Fukuda High-spatial-resolution MRI of non-masslike breast lesions: interpretation model based on BI-RADS MRI descriptors. Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2006; 187(2): 330 - 337. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. K. Plevritis, A. W. Kurian, B. M. Sigal, B. L. Daniel, D. M. Ikeda, F. E. Stockdale, and A. M. Garber Cost-effectiveness of screening BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with breast magnetic resonance imaging. JAMA, May 24, 2006; 295(20): 2374 - 2384. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Yeh, P. Slanetz, D. B. Kopans, E. Rafferty, D. Georgian-Smith, L. Moy, E. Halpern, R. Moore, I. Kuter, and A. Taghian Prospective Comparison of Mammography, Sonography, and MRI in Patients Undergoing Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Palpable Breast Cancer Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2005; 184(3): 868 - 877. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Kitagawa, H. Sakuma, N. Ishida, T. Hirano, A. Ishihara, and K. Takeda Contrast-Enhanced High-Resolution MRI of Invasive Breast Cancer: Correlation with Histopathologic Subtypes Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2004; 183(6): 1805 - 1809. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]