MRI versus Mammography plus Ultrasound in Women at Intermediate Breast Cancer Risk: Study Design and Protocol of the MRIB Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Trial.

In women at high/intermediate lifetime risk of breast cancer (BC-LTR), contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) added to mammography ± ultrasound (MX ± US) increases sensitivity but decreases specificity. Screening with MRI alone is an alternative and potentially more cost-effective strategy. Here, we describe the study protocol and the characteristics of enrolled patients for MRIB feasibility, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, which aims to compare MRI alone versus MX+US in women at intermediate breast cancer risk (aged 40-59, with a 15-30% BC-LTR and/or extremely dense breasts). Two screening rounds per woman were planned in ten centers experienced in MRI screening, the primary endpoint being the rate of cancers detected in the 2 arms after 5 years of follow-up. From July 2013 to November 2015, 1254 women (mean age 47 years) were enrolled: 624 were assigned to MX+US and 630 to MRI. Most of them were aged below 50 (72%) and premenopausal (45%), and 52% used oral contraceptives. Among postmenopausal women, 15% had used hormone replacement therapy. Breast and/or ovarian cancer in mothers and/or sisters were reported by 37% of enrolled women, 79% had extremely dense breasts, and 41% had a 15-30% BC-LTR. The distribution of the major determinants of breast cancer risk profiles (breast density and family history of breast and ovarian cancer) of enrolled women varied across centers.

Triple-Negative versus Non-Triple-Negative Breast Cancers in High-Risk Women: Phenotype Features and Survival from the HIBCRIT-1 MRI-Including Screening Study.

PURPOSE: To compare phenotype features and survival of triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC) versus non-TNBCs detected during a multimodal annual screening of high-risk women. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Analysis of data from asymptomatic high-risk women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer during the HIBCRIT-1 study with median 9.7-year follow-up. RESULTS: Of 501 enrolled women with BRCA1/2 mutation or strong family history (SFH), 44 were diagnosed with invasive breast cancers: 20 BRCA1 (45%), 9 BRCA2 (21%), 15 SFH (34%). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sensitivity (90%) outperformed that of mammography (43%, P < 0.001) and ultrasonography (61%, P = 0.004). The 44 cases (41 screen-detected; 3 BRCA1-associated interval TNBCs) comprised 14 TNBCs (32%) and 30 non-TNBCs (68%), without significant differences for age at diagnosis, menopausal status, prophylactic oophorectomy, or previous breast cancer. Of 14 TNBC patients, 11 (79%) were BRCA1; of the 20 BRCA1 patients, 11 (55%) had TNBC; and of 15 SFH patients, 14 (93%) had non-TNBCs (P = 0.007). Invasive ductal carcinomas (IDC) were 86% for TNBCs versus 43% for non-TNBCs (P = 0.010), G3 IDCs 71% versus 23% (P = 0.006), size 16 ± 5 mm versus 12 ± 6 mm (P = 0.007). TNBC patients had more frequent ipsilateral mastectomy (79% vs. 43% for non-TNBCs, P = 0.050), contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (43% vs. 10%, P = 0.019), and adjuvant chemotherapy (100% vs. 44%, P < 0.001). The 5-year overall survival was 86% ± 9% for TNBCs versus 93% ± 5% (P = 0.946) for non-TNBCs; 5-year disease-free survival was 77% ± 12% versus 76% ± 8% (P = 0.216). CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk women, by combining an MRI-including annual screening with adequate treatment, the usual reported gap in outcome between TNBCs and non-TNBCs could be reduced.

Comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced breast MRI and gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced breast MRI with mammography and ultrasound for the detection of breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI, mammography, and ultrasound for breast cancer detection across different malignant lesion types and across different densities of breast tissue. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In all, 153 women with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 3­5 findings on mammography and/or ultrasound underwent identical breast MRI exams at 1.5T with gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine. Images were evaluated by three independent blinded radiologists. Mammography, ultrasound, and combined mammography and/or ultrasound findings were available for 108, 109, and 131 women. Imaging findings were matched with histology data by a fourth, independent, blinded radiologist. Malignant lesion detection rates and diagnostic performance were compared. RESULTS: In all, 120, 120, and 140 confirmed malignant lesions were present in patients undergoing MRI+mammography, MRI+ultrasound, and MRI+mammography and/or ultrasound, respectively. Significantly greater cancer detection rates were noted by all three readers for comparisons of gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI with mammography (Δ15.8­17.5%; P < 0.0001), ultrasound (Δ18.3­20.0%; P < 0.0001), and mammography and/or ultrasound (Δ8.6­10.7%; P ≤ 0.0105) but not for comparisons of gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI with conventional techniques (P > 0.05). The false-positive detection rates were lower on gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI than on conventional imaging (4.0­5.5% vs. 11.1% at mammography; 6.3­8.4% vs. 15.5% at ultrasound). Significantly improved cancer detection on MRI was noted in heterogeneously dense breast (91.2­97.3% on gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI vs. 77.2­84.9% on gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI vs. 71.9-84.9% with conventional techniques) and for invasive cancers (93.2­96.2% for invasive ductal carcinoma [IDC] on gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI vs. 79.7­88.5% on gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI vs. 77.0­84.4% with conventional techniques). Overall diagnostic performance for the detection of cancer was superior on gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI than on conventional imaging or gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI. CONCLUSION: Gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI significantly improves cancer detection compared to gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI, mammography, and ultrasound in a selected group of patients undergoing breast MRI for preoperative staging or because of inconclusive findings at conventional imaging.

Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine for Breast MR imaging (DETECT Trial).

PURPOSE: To intraindividually compare 0.1 mmol/kg doses of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine for contrast material-enhanced breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging by using a prospective, multicenter double-blind, randomized protocol. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval and patient informed consent were obtained. One hundred sixty-two women (mean age, 52.8 years ± 12.3 [standard deviation]) enrolled at 17 sites in Europe and China between July 2007 and May 2009 underwent at least one breast MR imaging examination at 1.5 T by using three-dimensional spoiled gradient-echo sequences. Of these, 151 women received both contrast agents in randomized order in otherwise identical examinations separated by more than 2 but less than 7 days. Images, acquired at 2-minute or shorter intervals after contrast agent injection, were evaluated independently by three blinded radiologists unaffiliated with enrollment centers. Histopathologic confirmation was available for all malignant lesions (n = 144), while benign lesions were confirmed either by using histopathologic examination (n = 52) or by at least 12-month diagnostic follow-up (n = 20) with mammography and/or ultrasonography. Determinations of malignant lesion detection rates and diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value [PPV], and negative predictive value [NPV]) were performed and compared (McNemar and Wald tests). A full safety assessment was performed. RESULTS: Significant superiority for gadobenate dimeglumine was noted by readers 1, 2, and 3 for malignant lesion detection rate (91.7%, 93.1%, 94.4% vs 79.9%, 80.6%, 83.3%, respectively; P ≤ .0003). Readers 1, 2, and 3 reported significantly superior diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy) for breast cancer detection with gadobenate dimeglumine (91.1%, 94.5%, 95.2% vs 81.2%, 82.6%, 84.6%; 99.0%, 98.2%, 96.9% vs 97.8%, 96.9%, 93.8%; 98.2%, 97.8%, 96.7% vs 96.1%, 95.4%, 92.8%, respectively; P ≤ .0094) and significantly superior PPV (91.1%, 85.2%, 77.2% vs 80.7%, 75.5%, 60.9%, respectively; P ≤ .0002) and NPV (99.0%, 99.4%, 99.4% vs 97.8%, 98.0%, 98.1%, respectively; P ≤ .0003). No safety concerns were noted with either agent. CONCLUSION: Gadobenate dimeglumine is superior to gadopentetate dimeglumine for breast cancer diagnosis. © RSNA, 2010 Clinical trial registration no. NCT00486473 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/). SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.10100968/-/DC1.

Multicenter surveillance of women at high genetic breast cancer risk using mammography, ultrasonography, and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (the high breast cancer risk italian 1 study): final results.

OBJECTIVES: : To prospectively compare clinical breast examination, mammography, ultrasonography, and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a multicenter surveillance of high-risk women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: : We enrolled asymptomatic women aged ≥ 25: BRCA mutation carriers; first-degree relatives of BRCA mutation carriers, and women with strong family history of breast/ovarian cancer, including those with previous personal breast cancer. RESULTS: : A total of 18 centers enrolled 501 women and performed 1592 rounds (3.2 rounds/woman). Forty-nine screen-detected and 3 interval cancers were diagnosed: 44 invasive, 8 ductal carcinoma in situ; only 4 pT2 stage; 32 G3 grade. Of 39 patients explored for nodal status, 28 (72%) were negative. Incidence per year-woman resulted 3.3% overall, 2.1% <50, and 5.4% ≥ 50 years (P < 0.001), 4.3% in women with previous personal breast cancer and 2.5% in those without (P = 0.045). MRI was more sensitive (91%) than clinical breast examination (18%), mammography (50%), ultrasonography (52%), or mammography plus ultrasonography (63%) (P < 0.001). Specificity ranged 96% to 99%, positive predictive value 53% to 71%, positive likelihood ratio 24 to 52 (P not significant). MRI showed significantly better negative predictive value (99.6) and negative likelihood ratio (0.09) than those of the other modalities. At receiver operating characteristic analysis, the area under the curve of MRI (0.97) was significantly higher than that of mammography (0.83) or ultrasonography (0.82) and not significantly increased when MRI was combined with mammography and/or ultrasonography. Of 52 cancers, 16 (31%) were diagnosed only by MRI, 8 of 21 (38%) in women <50, and 8 of 31 (26%) in women ≥ 50 years of age. CONCLUSION: : MRI largely outperformed mammography, ultrasonography, and their combination for screening high-risk women below and over 50.

Multicenter comparative multimodality surveillance of women at genetic-familial high risk for breast cancer (HIBCRIT study): interim results.

PURPOSE: To prospectively compare clinical breast examination (CBE), mammography, ultrasonography (US), and contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for screening women at genetic-familial high risk for breast cancer and report interim results, with pathologic findings as standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board of each center approved the research; informed written consent was obtained. CBE, mammography, US, and MR imaging were performed for yearly screening of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers, first-degree relatives of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers, or women enrolled because of a strong family history of breast or ovarian cancer (three or more events in first- or second-degree relatives in either maternal or paternal line; these included breast cancer in women younger than 60 years, ovarian cancer at any age, and male breast cancer at any age). RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-eight women (mean age, 46 years +/- 12 [standard deviation]) were enrolled. Breast cancer was found in 11 of 278 women at first round and seven of 99 at second round (14 invasive, four intraductal; eight were

Clinical and therapeutic importance of sentinel node biopsy of the internal mammary chain in patients with breast cancer: a single-center study with long-term follow-up.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the incidence of sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) in the internal mammary chain, calculated the lymphoscintigraphy and surgical detection rates, and evaluated the clinical effect on staging and the therapeutic approach in patients with breast cancer. METHODS: The study involved 741 women diagnosed with breast cancer eligible for the SLN technique. Lymphoscintigraphy was performed on the day before the operation by peritumoral injection of (99m)Tc-labeled nanocolloid. During the operation, a gamma probe was used to detect the SLN, which was then removed. RESULTS: A total of 719 SLNs were found in the axillary chain and 72 in the internal mammary chain. Preoperative lymphoscintigraphy showed 107 hot spots in the internal mammary chain, but only 72 SLNs in 65 patients were identified by the gamma probe and then removed with no complications. Of these 65 patients, 10 had a positive internal mammary chain SLN on final pathologic examination, whereas 55 patients had >or=1 negative SLNs on final pathologic analysis. Thirty-five (53%) of 65 patients had also an axillary SLN, but only 5 patients (8%) had a positive SLN on pathologic analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of the SLNs in the internal mammary chain may provide more accurate staging in breast cancer patients. If an internal mammary sampling is not performed, patients may be understaged. This technique may allow better selection of those patients who will be submitted to adjuvant locoregional radiotherapy.