Open Access

Multidisciplinary Symposium — Breast Cancer

Monday 9 October 2000, 16.00–17.00
Cancer Imaging20151:10010018

DOI: 10.1102/1470-7330/00/010018+07

Published: 5 May 2015

Contemporary problems in the surgical management of breast cancer: the surgical/radiological interface

  • Nicholas Beechey-Newman1
  • (1)
    Guy’s Hospital
     

    Problems with breast-conserving surgery for invasive disease

    The morbidity of axillary dissection

    The immediate complications of axillary node surgery are relatively insignificant. It is very uncommon for any patient to sustain serious injuries such as brachial plexus nerve or axillary vein injury, and although seroma formation is a very frequent occurrence it is well tolerated and is rarely prolonged. Delayed complications and long-term morbidity are by contrast commonplace and impact on the lives of many individuals. The principle symptoms that may be encountered after axillary surgery are arm swelling, susceptibility to upper limb infections, shoulder stiffness, pain and altered sensation or numbness. Quality of life studies show that lymphoedema is the most troublesome complaint[9].

    Lymphoedema

    Incidence: depends on degree of swelling that is used to define the condition.

    Serious swelling that interferes with limb function = 2–8%[1,9]

    Significant swelling that is well tolerated = 15–20%[14]

    Objective arm swelling without symptoms = 40%

    Transient early lymphoedema that resolved = 7.5%[1]

    Risk factors:
    • Degree of axillary surgery (sample, level I, II or III)[5]

    • Obesity predisposes[1,6]

    • Incidence increases with time[1]

    • More common in older patients and possibly after wound infection[7]

    Chronic pain

    Incidence = 2.5%[6]–25%[3,4]

    Numbness/paresthesia

    Early post-op incidence = 70–77%[3,4,6,8]

    Resolves in 20%, improves in 60–100%, remains in 20%[6,8]

    Shoulder stiffness

    Abduction reduced by >15 degrees in 9% at 1 year, other movements unaffected[3].

    Local recurrence

    Rate

    Local recurrence following mastectomy approx. = 1%/year (incl. Regional)

    Local recurrence following breast-conserving surgery approx. = 2%/year (incl. Regional)
    Table 1

    Loco-regional recurrence rates in the larger trials of breast-conserving surgery

    Authors

    n

    F/U years (median)

    % Local recurrence

    % Local recurrence/year

    M. D. Anderson

    525

    5

    10.3

    2.15

    Institut Curie

    518

    13

    18

    1.3

    Yale[15]

    278

    7.5

    17

    2.3

    Marseilles

    1593

    11

    12.9

    1.2

    Harvard

    733

    6

    13.3

    2.2

    Univ. Pennsylvania

    1030

    3

    9.3

    3.1

    Marsden

    211

    10

    22

    2.2

    NSABP[16]

    629

    6.5

    14.5

    2.2

    Westminster

    356

    5

    13.5

    2.7

    Effects of local recurrence on survival

    Most studies show no impact on survival in patients with isolated local recurrence[10,17,19]

    Local recurrence (intra-breast) is associated with a relative increase in the risk of metastatic disease (and therefore death) of 2.0–1.5 times[11,12,16]

    Increased risk of metastatic disease is principally confined to early recurrences (<5 years, and especially in recurrences <2 years after primary surgery)[10,12,13,19]

    Overall survival following local recurrence = 50% @ 5 years[12,15,19]

    Local recurrence is controllable by mastectomy in 70–95%[12,20]

    Overall survival following local recurrence in breast-conserving surgery is no worse than local recurrence following modified radical mastectomy[18]

    Risk factors for local recurrence

    Ninety per cent of local recurrences occur in the same quadrant of the breast suggesting that most represent residual disease.

    Approx. 10% of patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery can be shown to have adjacent residual areas of multifocal disease[24]

    General: local recurrence is more frequent in younger patients[21] and those with larger tumours

    Surgical: moderately or extensively involved surgical margins are associated with increased rate of local recurrence[22], close or focally involved margins are probably not[23]

    Pathological: local recurrence increased with extensive in-situ component, tumour grade[17] and lymphatic/vascular invasion. Nodal status is a possible risk factor.

    Problems with breast-conserving surgery for DCIS

    DCIS is often extensive in one area of the breast and may be multi-centric. The mainstay of treatment is complete surgical excision. The successful elimination of DCIS represents a chance to avoid potentially fatal invasive disease, but just as with invasive disease the earlier fashion of simple mastectomy has given way to breast-conserving surgery in many patients. A recurrence rate of approximately 1% @ 10 years can be expected after mastectomy compared with 12–20% for breast-conserving surgery. The factors associated with recurrence are the surgical margin, the presence of multifocal or multicentric disease, lesion size and the degree of differentiation of the in-situ change. DCIS is usually not palpable and the pre-operative assessment of extent and multicentricity are problematic given current imaging techniques.

    Background

    Prevalence

    PM studies = 8.9%

    15–20% of detected breast malignancy

    Distribution in the breast

    Holland studied 82 mastectomy specimens in patients with DCIS and correlated the pathology with specimen radiology[25]

    DCIS associated with microcalcification in 94% of comedo necrosis and in 53% of micropapillary/cribiform

    Histological grade not related to size

    Microcalcification underestimates lesion size by >20mm
    • 12% of comedo necrosis DCIS

    • 44% of micropapillary/cribiform

    • 50% of mixed micropapillary/cribiform+comedo necrosis

    True multicentric disease is uncommon — 1/82 breasts (1.2%)

    Extensive disease is frequently found
    • 23% DCIS extends through >1 quadrant (90° sector)

    • 33% DCIS measured >40 mm in diameter

    • i.e. complete surgical clearance difficult in >50%

    A focus of DCIS was closely associated with the nipple in 52%
    • in comedo DCIS there was a nipple area focus in 64%

    • in micropapillary/cribiform DCIS nipple area disease in 34%

    • DCIS involved the nipple itself in half of these cases 70% of disease close to the nipple is mammographically occult

    In patients with clear excision margins (>1mm) 43% have residual DCIS[33].

    Relative recurrence rates

    Recurrence at 5 years following mastectomy= 1–2% @ 10 years[29,35]

    Recurrence at 5 years following breast-conserving surgery = 12–22%@5–10 years[26]

    Approximately 50% of all recurrences following any treatment modality are invasive and 50% represent further DCIS. Invasive recurrences occur later (2 vs. 5 years)[27]

    Cause-specific mortality of those treated by breast conservation = 0–2% @ 10 years[27]

    Recurrence rates after breast conservation are approximately halved by radiotherapy[34]

    NSABP-24 investigated the recurrence rates following surgery plus tamoxifen. The recurrence rate is reduced but the follow-up is too short to tell whether recurrence is being prevented or just delayed[32].

    Risk factors

    The following are recognized as being associated with recurrence following surgical excision of DCIS
    • Close margins — most studies define ‘close’ as 1 or 2 mm. Risk is particularly high when the margin is <2 mm but decreases progressively with widening margins. By a margin of 10 mm the risk is down to 4% @ 7.5 years[31,34]

    • Large lesion diameter. As with the measurement of margins this may be very difficult for the pathologist to assess accurately. Areas of DCIS >4–5 cm are associated with high recurrence rates[30]

    • High histological grade/poor cytological differentiation. Assessment is somewhat subjective. The intermediate grade is particularly inconsistent[35]

    • Histological evidence of necrosis. This is related to higher histological grade[34]

    • Atypical ductal hyperplasia or cancerization of lobules adjacent to lesion[28].

    Predicting recurrence

    The Van Nuys Prognostic Index (VNPI)[36]

    Has the advantage of being from a ‘single’ institution Combines the three most significant variables by multivariate analysis Log rank test to find cut off values that would divide the variable into three separate groups:

    Score

    1

    2

    3

    Lesion size Histopathology

    <16 mm Not high grade, no necrosis

    16–40 mm Not high grade, necrosis present

    >40 mm High grade, necrosis present

    Margin

    >10 mm

    1–9 mm

    <1mm

    Identifies three risk groups
    • VNPI = 3 or 4 — low risk of Local recurrence, 3% recurrence @ 8 years

    • VNPI = 5,6 or 7 — intermediate risk of LR, 23% recurrence @ 8 years

    • VNPI = 8 or 9 — high risk of LR, 80% recurrence @ 8 years.

    Sentinel node biopsy[38]

    Definition

    There is some argument as to how the sentinel node is defined[37]. Theoretically the sentinel node is the node or nodes in each of the sometimes multiple lymph node basins that receives the direct lymph drainage from the site of the lesion. Practically, the sentinel node is the node or nodes in each lymph node basin that receive a blue-stained lymphatic and/or accumulate sufficient tracer to be clearly discernable at surgery. In the case of radioisotope tracers local definitions involving the count ratio of the node and the nodal bed are often used. The ratio has been defined as anywhere between 2 and 10.

    Sentinel node biopsy aims to predict the status of the regional lymph node basin draining a carcinoma by analysis of the sentinel node(s) only. There is strong evidence that if the sentinel node is free from metastasis then the rest of the lymph nodes in that nodal basin will also be tumour-free. These sentinel node-negative patients can then safely omit nodal clearance and the morbidity that is associated with it.

    In breast cancer approximately two thirds of sentinel node-positive cases have metastases confined only to the sentinel node(s) with all non-sentinel nodes being tumour-free. At the present time patients with a sentinel node containing tumour all undergo further axillary treatment (clearance or radiotherapy).

    Methods

    Tracer

    Blue dye[39], 99-m technetium labelled colloid[40] (particles 50–500 nm diameter) or both[41]

    Site of injection

    This varies. The most common is around the tumour. Also popular is sub- or intra-dermal. Occasionally reported into the tumour

    Pre-operative lymphoscintigram
    This is not an essential part of sentinel node biopsy but it does have two advantages:
    1. (1)

      alerts the surgeon to drainage outside the axilla;

       
    2. (2)

      often shows the presence of multiple sentinel nodes.

       

    Results

    Accuracy

    Population accuracy = % of cases where the sentinel node biopsy correctly predicts the status of the nodal basin as a whole. (In series with 50–70% node-negative cases the population accuracy can never be worse than 50–70%)

    Underlying accuracy = % of node-positive cases that were accurately predicted.

    Author

    Method

    ID rate

    Population accuracy

    Underlying accuracy

    Early (1996–1998) results

       

    Giuliano[42]

    Dye

    93%

    99%

    98%

    Albertini[41]

    Dye & isotope

    92%

    100%

    100%

    Veronesi[43]

    Isotope

    98%

    97.5%

    95%

    Recent (1999–2000) results

       

    Guenther

    Dye

    71%

    97%

    90%

    Roumen

    Isotope

    69%

    98%

    96%

    Morgan

    Dye

    73%

    94%

    80%

    Institut Curie

    Dye

    87%

    97%

    92%

    Imoto

    Dye

    74%

    94%

    86%

    The figures for the underlying accuracy do not appear in the published results but can be extracted from them. The underlying accuracy represents the number of patients who would benefit most from adjuvant chemotherapy but may miss out on it due to incorrect staging.

    Benefits

    Reduced morbidity

    Can avoid axillary dissection and the associated arm morbidity in approx. 50–60% of patients with primary breast cancer.

    Facilitates the detection of micrometastases

    Allows intense histological examination to be concentrated on the sentinel node(s) rather than spread between a large number of non-sentinel nodes. Nodes can be subjected to serial sectioning, immunohistochemistry and reverse transcriptase PCR

    Extra axillary nodes

    Lymphoscintigraphy has demonstrated drainage to the internal mammary chain in approx. 10% of cases of primary breast cancer[45]

    Improved axillary sampling

    Sentinel node biopsy can be used in conjunction with axillary node sampling. This ensures that the sample is representative of the rest of the axilla.

    Problems

    False negatives

    There are probably a small number of unavoidable false-negative results. Even when the sentinel node is clearly identified false-negative results seem to arise in approximately 5% of cases. This may be due to an inherent flaw in the convenient sentinel node theory. Current results (see above) indicate a 5–20% false-negative rate in node-positive patients. A small number of node-positive patients may undergo less intensive treatments in error, with potentially fatal results

    Upstaging

    The more rigorous histological examination of the sentinel node is resulting in ‘up-staging’. This means that there is a larger percentage of node-positive patients in any series (e.g. 29% node positivity increased to 42% when the sentinel node was subjected to more sophisticated analysis)[44]. The increase is largely due to the increased detection of micrometastases. The prognostic implications of these small micrometastases is unclear and optimal management will take many years of clinical trials to evaluate

    2-stage procedure

    Attempts to analyse the sentinel node by frozen section during surgery have resulted in unacceptable inaccuracy[43]. Presently, the sentinel node biopsy has to be done first and if axillary surgery is required a second operation is necessary

    Radiation exposure

    The absorbed dose to the patient is 0.1 mSv

    Absorbed dose to surgeon = 2–5µSv per case (maximum dose= 1mSv/year)

    Absorbed dose to surgeon’s fingers = 100µSv per case, (maximum dose= 500mSv/year).

    Is imaging mandatory for staging?

  • Sarah McWilliams2
  • (2)
    Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust
     

    Mammography is the primary imaging modality in the detection of breast cancer. However, the limited sensitivity and specificity of mammography in the radiographically dense or treated breast and in assessing response to chemotherapy has led to the development of adjunctive imaging techniques including Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Positron Emission Tomography (PET) and Scintimammography (SMM). The role of each of these specialized investigations is yet to be defined, but it has been established that they should not replace the use of conventional mammography and ultrasound, but be reserved as complementary techniques for resolving specificdefined problems. One of their main benefits appears to be improved loco-regional staging. In the current era of breast-conserving surgery accurate staging is mandatory so that inappropriate conservative surgery is not performed. Adjuvant imaging will help define the local extent of disease pre-operatively and thereby reduce local recurrence rates.

    Loco-regional staging

    In the current era of conservative surgery for early breast cancer it is critical for accurate loco-regional staging to be carried out so that appropriate treatment can be selected. Breast cancer may have a multicentric, multifocal origin; in a radiographic-histologic evaluation of mastectomy specimens, Hollands et al. showed 41% of cases had remote cancer foci most of which were occult at mammography[1]. Tumour size, multifocality, retroareolar tumours and in situ component need to be accurately detected so that optimal local tumour control is made and mastectomy performed as a one-stage procedure if indicated. Flanagan et al. claim mammography to be almost exact in assessing tumour size[2], but ultrasound tends to be more accurate[3].

    MRI has recently been advocated as the most accurate method of assessing tumour size and extent and detecting extensive ductal carcinoma in situ due to its extreme sensitivity[410]. MRI of the breast using a surface coil and rapid dynamic contrast-enhanced gradient echo imaging shows almost all malignant lesions enhance rapidly, concomitant with early vascular enhancement[11] and relative to normal breast parenchyma, and also have characteristic morphological appearances. Clinically and mammographically occult multifocal tumours are readily detected by MRI[59,12] as shown in Table 1. Orel[13] and Morris[14] showed MRI is very sensitive in patients with malignant axillary lymphadenopathy and unknown primary tumour for the detection of clinically and mammographically occult breast cancer. The main limitation with MRI is the poor specificity; Gilles showed that early contrast enhancement in 37 of 79 patients with benign lesions giving a specificity of 53%[15]. Boetes found that assessing morphological appearance as well as the rate of enhancement increased specificity to 86%[16].
    Table 1

    Detection of multifocal tumours and assessment of tumour size by MRI: comparison with conventional imaging

    Author

    Conrad[5]

    Kerslake[8]

    Mumtaz[7]

    Orel[6]

    Boetes[9]

    No of patients in study

    40

    50

    90

    64

    60

    Multifocal tumour detected by MRI but not BM

    9

    14

    6+5

    22

    9

    MR/histology tumour size correlation

    Good

    Good

    Good

    Good

    Good

    BM = bilateral mammogram.

    MR mammography as an adjunct to mammography and ultrasound reveals breast cancer with a higher confidence and sensitivity[10], but with lower specificity. MR imaging-guided needle localization and biopsy systems have been developed to evaluate lesions identified by MR that are clinically and mammographically occult[6]. Cost, lengthy imaging time and poor availability may restrict access to MRI.

    Scintimammography (SMM) using technetium-99mm sestamibi has recently been evaluated as an adjunctive technique to mammography. 99mTc-MIBI accumulates in tumour cells and has been reported to be accurate in detecting breast cancer and can help differentiate benign from malignant lesions[1720]. SMM can be especially useful in the mammographically dense breast and, therefore, the young. Khalkhali et al. first reported the usefulness of Tc-99m sestamibi imaging in the detection of breast cancer[21]. Palmedo detected tumours as small as 9mm and detected 100% of palpable tumours and, including impalpable lesions, the overall specificity was 83% and sensitivity was 88%. Helbich compared MR to 99mTc-sestamibi in differentiating benign from malignant breast lesions[17] (see Table 2).
    Table 2

    Differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions: MR vs Tc-99m sestamammography[ 17 ]

     

    MR

    Planar mibi

    SPECT mibi

    Sensitivity

    96%

    62%

    83%

    Specificity

    82%

    88%

    80%

    Whilst both MR imaging and scintimammography are useful in the evaluation of breast cancer, MR was found to be more sensitive and just as specific. MR is a shorter examination time to scintimammography, but claustrophobia in the magnet can often lead to early termination of the procedure. In this instance scintimammography is a good alternative and can also give important information about the axilla. Scintimammography has limited spatial resolution and therefore the size of the tumour affects detection that may account for the low sensitivity. The main problem with scintimammography currently is limited availability as a special prone coil that improves imaging is required. The suggested use of scintimammography is as an adjunct to conventional imaging in failed triple assessment, breast prosthesis and with axillary metastasis and unknown primary[22].

    Indications for scintimammography:
    • Failed triple assessment

    • Previous surgery

    • Breast prosthesis

    • Negative biopsy of suspicious mass

    • Axillary nodes with occult primary

    Several studies have addressed the imaging of breast cancer with PET. PET produces images that reflect the physiological and biochemical processes of tissues. The most widely used PET pharmaceutical is fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) which evaluates the glucose metabolic rates of tissues. Malignancies have exceptionally high rates of glycolysis compared with benign tissues. FDG-PET is suitable for detecting breast cancer and evaluating response to treatment. FDG is taken up by all malignant tissues and therefore whole body scanning can be undertaken with assessment of lymph node involvement and distant metastases. Wahl reported visualization of all 10 primary breast cancers using FDG-PET[23] and Adler showed 96% sensitivity and 100% specificity for the detection of malignancy[24]. A limited number of benign lesions were studied, but these had a lower uptake than malignant lesions. Given the high cost of PET and limited availability, this technique is unlikely to serve as a screening modality for breast cancer. As an adjunct to conventional imaging it can be used in the indeterminate mammogram, prior to biopsy, with axillary metastasis of an unknown primary to search the breast[25] and to evaluate the axilla prior to axillary surgery.

    FDG-PET may be used in circumstances where mammography is technically difficult.

    This includes:
    • Dense breasts

    • Breast implants

    • Lumpy breasts/ multifocal disease

    • Post-operative breast

    • Equivocal biopsy

    Assessment of tumour response to chemo-endocrine therapy prior to surgery

    Adjuvant systemic therapy following surgery for primary breast cancer with Tamoxifen or chemotherapy can reduce the risk of relapse and mortality. Neoadjuvant chemo-endocrine therapy is also used as primary treatment prior to surgery. Assessment of response to treatment is an important role of imaging in the multidisciplinary approach to treatment of breast cancer.

    Changes seen on mammography associated with tumour response include a decrease in size and density of the lesion, calcifications becoming more tightly packed and complete resolution of the lesion[26]. The remaining mammographic lesion may not necessarily contain tumour cells. Ultrasound can be useful in monitoring tumour size and recording changes in Doppler signal. However, even in the presence of no detectable lesion on ultrasound the presence of a viable tumour cannot be eliminated[27].

    MR has recently been reported in the evaluation of response to neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. Gilles assessed residual active disease using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR, and the presence or absence of early contrast enhancement appeared to be a reliable diagnostic criterion for the presence of residual tumour[28]. Abrahams, using rotating delivery of excitation off resonance (RODEO) with gadolinium enhancement, reported that changes in vascularity early in the course of chemotherapy help to predict response[29]. They accurately evaluated residual disease and suggest MR is superior to conventional imaging in the assessment of response to chemotherapy. Conversely Rieber et al. found that post-neo-adjuvant chemotherapy MR led to some false-negatives and an underestimation of residual tumour volume in some, although MR could provide evidence of response after the first two cycles with a high degree of probability[30].

    FDG-PET is valuable for monitoring the effects of pre-operative chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced breast cancer, with better sensitivity for tumour and specificity for nodal metastasis than ultrasound[31].

    Local recurrence

    Radiation therapy is increasingly being utilized following breast conservation. Post-treatment follow-up is difficult as surgical and radiation changes can mimic recurrence. Mammographic radiation changes are well known and the late phase usually stabilizes by 12 months after completion of radiotherapy. If diagnosed early, recurrences are treated with mastectomy and do not impair survival of these patients. Previously, biopsy was performed to determine whether changes were radiation-induced or a recurrence. Several studies have shown promising results with MRI[32]. FDG-PET and SSM may also have a role in diagnosing local recurrence. Hathaway reported the combined use of MR and FDG-PET[25] and their complementary role: PET identified all cases of metastatic tumour, whereas MR was useful in determining the relationship of the tumour to the axillary and supraclavicular neurovascular structures. Orel reports a high positive predictive value for MR predicting residual tumour after excisional biopsy, which would complement traditional methods of margin evaluation[33]. Patients underwent MR imaging 6–40 days after excision biopsy and results suggest that those with positive margins following surgery should undergo MR to assess for residual disease prior to re-excision.

    Conclusion

    Imaging plays an important role in loco-regional staging in the current era of breast-conserving surgery otherwise local recurrence rates may be unacceptably high. MR, PET and SSM are being increasingly utilized as adjuvant imaging in loco-regional breast disease and the choice may depend on local availability. PET and SSM are not widely available and, due to increasing access to MR, this may be the favoured technique. MR, PET and SSM should only be used in specific problem-solving areas discussed by the multidisciplinary team. Further studies comparing all three imaging modalities are required.

    References

    1. Werner RS et al. Radiology 1991; 180: 177–84.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
    2. Keramopoulos A et al. Oncology 1993; 50: 445–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
    3. Lin PP et al. J Clin Oncol 1993; 11: 1536–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    4. Ivens D et al. Br J Cancer 1992; 66: 136–8.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
    5. Larson D et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1986; 12: 1575–82.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
    6. Roses DF et al. Ann Surg 1999; 230: 194–201.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
    7. Pezner RD et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1986; 12: 2079–83.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
    8. Karydas I et al. Br Cancer Res Treatment 1986; 8: 55–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
    9. Velanovich V, Szymanski W. Am J Surg 1999; 177: 184–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
    10. Fisher B et al. Lancet 1991; 338: 327–31.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
    11. Whelan T et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1994; 30: 237–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
    12. Chaudary MA et al. Breast 1998; 7: 33–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
    13. Kurtz JM et al. Cancer 1989; 63: 1912–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
    14. Harris JR et al. J Clin Oncol 1984; 2: 37–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    15. Haffty BG et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1989; 17: 727–32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
    16. Fisher B et al. New Engl J Med 1989; 320: 822–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
    17. Clarke DH et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1985; 11: 137–45.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
    18. van Tienhoven G et al. Eur J Cancer 1999; 35: 32–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
    19. Haffty B et al. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14: 52–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    20. Osborne MP. Semin Surg Oncol 1991; 7: 291–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
    21. Kim SH et al. J Am Coll Surg 1998; 187: 1–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
    22. Wazer DE et al. Rad Oncol Invest 1999; 7: 111–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
    23. Peterson ME et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999; 43: 1029–35.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
    24. Rubin P et al. Eur J Surg Oncol 1996; 22: 23–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
    25. Holland R et al. Lancet 1990; 335: 519–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
    26. Boyages J et al. Cancer 1999; 85: 616–28.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
    27. Silverstein M et al. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16: 1367–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    28. Goldstein NS et al. Am J Clin Pathol 1998; 110: 357–67.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    29. Montgomery RC et al. Breast 1998; 4: 430–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
    30. Hetelekidis S et al. Cancer 1999; 85: 427–31.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
    31. Silverstein M et al. New Engl J Med 1999; 1455–61.Google Scholar
    32. Fisher B et al. Lancet 1999; 353: 1993–2000.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
    33. Silverstein M et al. Cancer 1994; 73: 2985–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
    34. Fisher ER et al. Cancer 1995; 76: 2385–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
    35. Silverstein M et al. Eur J Cancer 1995; 31A: 1425–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
    36. Silverstein M et al. Cancer 1996; 77: 2267–74.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
    37. Thompson JF, Uren RF. Eur J Surg Oncol 2000; 26: 103–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
    38. Beechey-Newman N. Cancer Treatment Rev 1998; 24: 185–203.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
    39. Giuliano AE et al. Ann Surg 1994; 220: 391–401.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
    40. Krag DN et al. Surg Oncol 1993; 2: 335–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
    41. Albertini JJ et al. J Am Med Assoc 1996; 276: 1818–22.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
    42. Giuliano AE et al. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15: 2345–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    43. Veronesi U et al. Lancet 1997; 349: 1864–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
    44. Giuliano AE et al. Ann Surg 1995; 222: 394–9.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
    45. Roumen RM et al. Eur J Surg Oncol 1999; 25: 347–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
    46. References

      1. Holland R, Veling S, Mravunac M et al. Histologic multi-focality of TIS, T1-T2 breast carcinomas. Cancer 1985; 56: 979–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
      2. Flanagan L, McDermott M, Barton P et al. Invasive breast cancer; mammographic measurement. Radiology 1996; 199: 819–23.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
      3. Pain J, Ebbs S, Ahern R et al. Assessment of breast cancer size: a comparison of methods. Eur J Surg Oncol 1992; 18: 44–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
      4. Greenstein Orel S, Mendonca M, Reynolds C. MR imaging of ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiology 1997; 202: 413–20.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
      5. Conrad C, Corfitsen M, Gyldholm N et al. Pre-operative MR-mammography in breast cancer patients. Eur J Surg Oncol 1999; 25: 142–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
      6. Greenstein Orel S, Schnall M, Powell C et al. Staging of suspected breast cancer: effect of MR imaging and MR-guided biopsy. Radiology 1995; 196: 115–22.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
      7. Mumtaz H, Hall-Craggs M, Davidson T et al. Staging of symptomatic primary breast cancer with MR imaging. Am J Radiol 1997; 169: 417–24.Google Scholar
      8. Kerslake R, Carleton P, Fox J et al. Dynamic gradient-echo and fat-suppressed spin-echo contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast. Clin Radiol 1996; 51: 78–9.Google Scholar
      9. Boetes C, Mus D, Holland R et al. Breast tumours: comparative accuracy of MR imaging relative to mammography and US for Demonstrating extent. Radiology 1995; 197: 743–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
      10. Muller-Schimpfle M, Stoll P, Stern W et al. Do mammography, sonography, and MR mammography have a diagnostic benefit compared with mammography and sonography? Am J Radiol 1997; 168: 1323–9.Google Scholar
      11. Heywang S, Wolf A, Pruss E et al. MR imaging of the breast with Gd-DTPA: use and limitations. Radiology 1989; 171: 95–103.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
      12. Harms S, Flamig D, Evans W et al. MR imaging of the breast; current status and future potential. Am J Radiol 1994; 163: 1039–47.Google Scholar
      13. Orel S, Weinstein S, Schnall M et al. Breast MR imaging in patients with axillary node metastases and unknown primary malignancy. Radiology 212: 543–9.Google Scholar
      14. Morris E, Schwartz L, Dershaw D et al. MR imaging of the breast in patients with occult primary breast carcinoma. Radiology 1997; 205: 437–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
      15. Gilles R, Guinebretiere J, Lucidarne O et al. Nonpalpable breast tumours; diagnosis with contrast-enhanced subtraction dynamic MR Imaging. Radiology 1994; 191: 625–31.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
      16. Boetes C, Barentsz J, Mus R et al. MR Characterization of suspicious breast lesions with a Gadolinium-enhanced TurboFLASH Subtraction Technique. Radiology 1994; 193: 777–81.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
      17. Helbich T, Becherer A, Trattnig S et al. Differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions; MR imaging versus Tc-99m sestamibi scintimammography. Radiology 1997; 202: 421–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
      18. Palmedo H, Schomburg A, Grunwald F et al. Technetium-99m-MIBI scintimammography for suspicious breast lesions. J Nucl Med 1996; 37: 626–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
      19. Melloul M, Paz A, Ohana G et al. Double-phase 99m-Tc-sestamibi scintimammography and trans-scan in diagnosing breast cancer. J Nucl Med 1999; 40: 376–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
      20. Prats E, Aisa F, Abos D et al. Mammography and 99m-Tc-MIBI scintimammography in suspected breast cancer. J Nucl Med 1999; 40: 296–301.PubMedGoogle Scholar
      21. Khalkhali I, Mena I, Jouanne E et al. Prone scintimammography in patients with suspicion of breast cancer. J Am Coll Surg 1994; 178: 491–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
      22. Taillefer R, Robidoux A, Turpin S et al. Metastatic axillary lymph node technetium-99m-MIBI imaging in primary breast cancer. J Nucl Med 1998; 39: 459–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
      23. Wahl R, Cody R, Hutchins G et al. Primary and metastatic breast carcinoma; initial clinical evaluation with PET with the radiolabelled glucose analogue 2-[F-18]-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose to the evaluation of breast disease. Radiology 1991; 216: 27–34.Google Scholar
      24. Adler L, Crowe J, Al-Kaisi N et al. Evaluation of breast masses and axillary lymph nodes with [F-18]-2-Deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose PET. Radiology 1993; 187: 743–50.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
      25. Hathaway P, Mankoff D, Maravilla K et al. Valueofcombined FDG PET and MR imaging in the evaluation of suspected recurrent local-regional breast cancer: preliminary experience. Radiology 1999; 210: 807–14.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
      26. Vinnicombe S, Macvical D, Guy R et al. Primary breast cancer: Mammographic changes after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy with pathological correlation. Radiology 1996; 198: 333–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
      27. Gawne-Cain M, Smith E, Darby M et al. The use of ultrasound for monitoring breast tumour response to pro-adjuvant therapy. Clin Radiol 1995; 50: 681–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
      28. Gilles R, Guinebretiere J, Toussaint C et al. Locally advanced breast cancer: contrast-enhanced subtraction MR imaging for response to pre-operative chemotherapy. Radiology 1994; 191: 663–8.Google Scholar
      29. Abraham D, Jones R, Jones S et al. Evaluation of neoadjuvant chemotherapeutic response of locally advanced breast cancer by magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer 1996; 78: 91–100.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
      30. Rieber A, Zeitler H, Rosenthal H et al. MRI of breast cancer: influence of chemotherapy on sensitivity. Br J Radiol 1997; 70: 452–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
      31. Bassa P, Kim E, Inuoe T et al. Evaluation of preoperative chemotherapy using PET with fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose in breast cancer. J Nucl Med 1996; 37: 931–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
      32. Dao T, Rahmouni A, Campana F et al. Tumour recurrence versus fibrosis in the irradiated breast: differentiation with dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 1993; 187: 751–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
      33. Orel S, Reynolds C, Schnall M et al. Breast carcinoma: MR imaging before re-excisional biopsy. Radiology 1997; 205: 429–36.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

    Copyright

    © International Cancer Imaging Society 2000