Top

Published in:

01-03-2004 | Breast

Is the “blooming sign” a promising additional tool to determine malignancy in MR mammography?

Authors: D. R. Fischer, P. Baltzer, A. Malich, S. Wurdinger, M. G. Freesmeyer, C. Marx, W. A. Kaiser

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 3/2004

Abstract.

The aim of this study was to evaluate potential diagnostic relevance of blooming effect for verification of suspicious breast lesions in MR mammography (MRM). The MRM examinations of 1035 patients, all following the same imaging protocol (from 1994 to 2001) were retrospectively evaluated by two experienced radiologists in consensus. A total of 817 lesions showed a focal enhancement; of these, 793 were histologically verified after surgical intervention so that 514 malignant and 279 benign lesions could be evaluated. Using a 1.5-T Gyroscan ACS II-imager (Philips, Hamburg, Germany) and a double breast coil with the patient lying in a prone position, 0.1 mmol/kgbw Magnevist (Schering, Berlin, Germany) were injected into the cubital vein to obtain dynamic axial and coronal T1-weighted fast-field-echo images every minute up to 7 min after bolus injection. Blooming sign describes a progradient unsharpness of lesion borders initially sharply shaped and fast enhancing 7 min after bolus injection; 324 of 514 (63.0%) malignant lesions and 41 of 279 (14.7%) benign lesions revealed a blooming sign (sensitivity 63.0%, specificity 85.3%, accuracy 70.9%, positive predictive value 88.8%, negative predictive value 56.0%). Forty-one of 279 benign lesions showed a blooming sign; of these, there were 4 of 86 (4.7%) fibroadenomas, 2 of 21 (9.5%) phylloides tumours, 11 of 38 (28.9%) papillomas, 3 of 9 (33.3%) radial scars, 2 of 19 (10.5%) mastitis, 1 of 4 (25%) galactophoritis, 1 of 3 (33.3%) ADH and 19 of 99 (17.2%) mastopathic proliferations, respectively. Blooming sign is a phenomenon which should be taken into account when diagnosing MR mammographies because it might increase the ability to discriminate uncertain breast lesions; however, this effect can only be used as an additional item to other well-known effects such as plateau, washout and cancer corner.

Nystrom L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Frisell J, Nordenskjold B, Rutqvist LE (2002) Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 359:909–919CrossRefPubMed

Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen HH, Yen MF, Duffy SW, Smith RA (2001) Beyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality. Cancer 91:1724–1731PubMed

Gordon PB (2002) Ultrasound for breast cancer screening and staging. Radiol Clin North Am 40:431–441PubMed

Evans A (2002) Hormone replacement therapy and mammographic screening. Clin Radiol 57:563–564PubMed

Saarenmaa I, Salminen T, Geiger U, Heikkinen P, Hyvarinen S, Isola J, Kataja V, Kokko ML, Kokko R, Kumpulainen E, Karkkainen A, Pakkanen J, Peltonen P, Piironen A, Salo A, Talviala ML, Haka M (2002) The effect of age and density of the breast on the sensitivity of breast cancer diagnostics by mammography and ultrasonography. Breast Cancer Res Treat 67:117–123CrossRef

Thurfjell EL, Holmberg LH, Persson IR (1997) Screening mammography: sensitivity and specificity in relation to hormone replacement therapy. Radiology 203:339–341PubMed

Ursin G, Parisky YR, Pike MC, Spicer DV (2001) Mammographic density changes during the menstrual cycle. Cancer Epidemiol Biomakers Prev 10:141–142

Zonderland HM, Coerkamp EG, Hermans J, van de Vijver MJ, van Voorthuisen AE (1999) Diagnosis of breast cancer: contribution of US as an adjunct to mammography. Radiology 213:413–422PubMed

Kaiser WA, Zeitler E (1989) MR-imaging of the breast: fast imaging sequences with and without Gd-DTPA. Radiology 170:681–686PubMed

10.

Heywang-Köbrunner SH, Viehweg P, Heinig A, Kuchler C (1997) Contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast: accuracy, value, controversies, solutions. Eur Radiol 24:94–108CrossRef

11.

Orel SG, Schnall MD (2001) MR imaging of the breast for the detection, diagnosis, and staging of breast cancer. Radiology 220:13–30PubMed

12.

Fischer U, Heyden D von, Vosshenrich R, Viehweg I, Grabbe E (1993) Signal characteristics of malignant and benign lesions in dynamic 2D-MRT of the breast. Rofo Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr 158:287–292PubMed

13.

Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S, Leutner C, Wardelmann E, Gieseke J, Schild HH (1999) Dynamic breast MR imaging: Are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 211:101–110PubMed

14.

Sherif H, Mahfouz AE, Oellinger H, Hadijuana J, Blohmer JU, Taupitz M, Felix R, Hamm B (1997) Peripheral washout sign on contrast-enhanced MR images of the breast. Radiology 205:209–213PubMed

15.

Neubauer H, Kuehne-Heid R, Schneider A, Kaiser WA (2001) High-grade and non-high grade DCIS: sensitivity and morphological pattern of enhancement in MR-mammography. Radiology 221:231

16.

Lemberg I, Wurdinger S, Kuehne-Heid R, Kaiser WA (2000) Diagnostic criteria of breast cancer in MR-mammography. Eur Radiol 10:F50–F51

17.

Choi BG, Kim HH, Kim EN, Kim BS, Han JY, Yoo SS, Park SH (2002) New subtraction algorithms for evaluation of lesions on dynamic contrast-enhanced MR mammography. Eur Radiol 12:3018–3022PubMed

18.

Wedegartner U, Bick U, Wortler K, Rummeny E, Bongartz G (2001) Differentiation between benign and malignant findings on MR-mammography: usefulness of morphological criteria. Eur Radiol 11:1645–1650CrossRefPubMed

19.

Baum F, Fischer U, Vosshenrich R, Grabbe E (2002) Classification of hypervascularized lesions in CE MR imaging of the breast. Eur Radiol 12:1087–1092PubMed

20.

Mahfouz AE, Sherif H, Saad A, Taupitz M, Filimonow S, Kivelitz D, Hamm B (2001) Gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography of the breast: Is the breast cancer associated with ipsilateral higher vascularity? Eur Radiol 11:965–969CrossRefPubMed

21.

Harms SE, Flamig DP, Hesley KL, Evans WP, Cheek JH, Peters GN, Knox SM, Savino DA, Netto GJ, Wells RB et al. (1993) Fat-suppressed three-dimensional MR imaging of the breast. Radiographics 13:247–267PubMed

22.

Harms SE, Flamig DP, Hesley KL, Meiches MD, Jensen RA, Evans WP, Savino DA, Wells RV (1993) MR imaging of the breast with rotating delivery of excitation off resonance: clinical experience with pathologic correlation. Radiology 187:493–501PubMed

23.

Buadu LD, Murakami J, Murayama S, Hashiguchi N, Sakai S, Toyoshima S, Masuda K, Kuroki S, Ohno S (1997) Patterns of peripheral enhancement in breast masses: correlation of findings on contrast medium enhanced MRI with histologic features and tumorangiogenesis. J Comput Assist Tomogr 21:421–430CrossRefPubMed

24.

Matsubayashi R, Matsuo Y, Edakuni G, Satoh T, Tokunaga O, Kudo S (2000) Breast masses with peripheral rim enhancement on dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images: correlation of MR findings with histologic features and expression of growth factors. Radiology 217:841–848PubMed

25.

Weidner N, Semple JP, Welch WR, Folkman J (1991) Tumor angiogensis and metastasis: correlation in invasive breast carcinoma. N Engl J Med 324:1–8PubMed

26.

Boucher Y, Jain RJ (1992) Microvascular pressure is the principal driving force for interstitial hypertension in solid tumors: implications for vascular collapse. Cancer Res 52:5110–5114PubMed

27.

Bässler R (1997) Mamma. In: Remmele W (ed) Pathologie, vol 4. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 135–365

28.

Jacobs TW, Schnitt SJ, Tan X, Brown LF (2002) Radial scars of the breast and breast carcinomas have similar alterations in expression of factors involved in vascular stroma formation. Hum Pathol 33:29–38CrossRefPubMed

29.

Ohuchi N, Abe R, Kasai M (1984) Possible cancerous change of intraductal papillomas of the breast: a 3D reconstruction study of 25 cases. Cancer 54:605–611PubMed

30.

Ohuchi N (1984) Morphological and immunohistochemical studies of intraductal proliferations of the breast, especially on the carcinogenesis of papilloma and structural atypism of carcinoma. Nippon Geka Gakkai Zasshi 85:1393–1404PubMed

31.

Mussurakis S, Gibbs P, Horsman A (1998) Peripheral enhancement and spatial contrast uptake heterogeneity of primary breast tumours: quantitative assessment with dynamic MRI. J Comput Assist Tomogr 22:35–46PubMed

32.

Wurdinger S, Kamprath S, Eschrich D, Schneider A, Kaiser WA (2001) False-negative findings of malignant breast lesions on preoperative magnetic resonance mammography. Breast 10:131–139CrossRef

Title: Is the “blooming sign” a promising additional tool to determine malignancy in MR mammography?
Authors: D. R. Fischer
P. Baltzer
A. Malich
S. Wurdinger
M. G. Freesmeyer
C. Marx
W. A. Kaiser
Publication date: 01-03-2004
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: European Radiology / Issue 3/2004
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-003-2055-9

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Is the “blooming sign” a promising additional tool to determine malignancy in MR mammography?

Abstract.

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract.

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2004

Curious pulmonary and hepatic lesions (2004:3a)

Comments on "Non-traumatic abdominal emergencies: imaging and intervention in acute biliary conditions"

Oral contrast agents for small bowel MRI: comparison of different additives to optimize bowel distension

CT and MR imaging findings of xanthogranulomatous cholecystitis: correlation with pathologic findings

Interstitial involvement in children: "shaggy heart"

Fatigue stress fractures of the sacrum: diagnosis with MR imaging