Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 9/2019

Open Access 01-09-2019 | Magnetic Resonance Imaging | Magnetic Resonance

Amount of fibroglandular tissue FGT and background parenchymal enhancement BPE in relation to breast cancer risk and false positives in a breast MRI screening program

A retrospective cohort study

Authors: Suzan Vreemann, Mehmet U. Dalmis, Peter Bult, Nico Karssemeijer, Mireille J. M. Broeders, Albert Gubern-Mérida, Ritse M. Mann

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 9/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the predictive value of the amount of fibroglandular tissue (FGT) and background parenchymal enhancement (BPE), measured at baseline on breast MRI, for breast cancer development and risk of false-positive findings in women at increased risk for breast cancer.

Methods

Negative baseline MRI scans of 1533 women participating in a screening program for women at increased risk for breast cancer between January 1, 2003, and January 1, 2014, were selected. Automated tools based on deep learning were used to obtain quantitative measures of FGT and BPE. Logistic regression using forward selection was used to assess relationships between FGT, BPE, cancer detection, false-positive recall, and false-positive biopsy.

Results

Sixty cancers were detected in follow-up. FGT was only associated to short-term cancer risk; BPE was not associated with cancer risk. High FGT and BPE did lead to more false-positive recalls at baseline (OR 1.259, p = 0.050, and OR 1.475, p = 0.003) and to more frequent false-positive biopsies at baseline (OR 1.315, p = 0.049, and OR 1.807, p = 0.002), but were not predictive for false-positive findings in subsequent screening rounds.

Conclusions

FGT and BPE, measured on baseline MRI, are not predictive for overall breast cancer development in women at increased risk. High FGT and BPE lead to more false-positive findings at baseline.

Key Points

• Amount of fibroglandular tissue is only predictive for short-term breast cancer risk in women at increased risk.
• Background parenchymal enhancement measured on baseline MRI is not predictive for breast cancer development in women at increased risk.
• High amount of fibroglandular tissue and background parenchymal enhancement lead to more false-positive findings at baseline MRI.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W et al (2007) American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin 57:75–89CrossRefPubMed
3.
Domchek SM, Eisen A, Calzone K, Stopfer J, Blackwood A, Weber BL (2003) Application of breast cancer risk prediction models in clinical practice. J Clin Oncol 21:593–601CrossRefPubMed
4.
Cintolo-Gonzalez JA, Braun D, Blackford AL et al (2017) Breast cancer risk models: a comprehensive overview of existing models, validation, and clinical applications. Breast Cancer Res Treat 164:263–284CrossRefPubMed
5.
Holm J, Humphreys K, Li J et al (2015) Risk factors and tumor characteristics of interval cancers by mammographic density. J Clin Oncol 33:1030–1037CrossRefPubMed
6.
Mitchell G, Antoniou AC, Warren R et al (2006) Mammographic density and breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Cancer Res 66:1866–1872CrossRefPubMed
7.
Bertrand KA, Scott CG, Tamimi RM et al (2015) Dense and nondense mammographic area and risk of breast cancer by age and tumor characteristics. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 24:798–809CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Bertrand KA, Tamimi RM, Scott CG et al (2013) Mammographic density and risk of breast cancer by age and tumor characteristics. Breast Cancer Res 15:R104CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Ding J, Warren R, Girling A, Thompson D, Easton D (2010) Mammographic density, estrogen receptor status and other breast cancer tumor characteristics. Breast J 16:279–289CrossRefPubMed
10.
Eng A, Gallant Z, Shepherd J et al (2014) Digital mammographic density and breast cancer risk: a case-control study of six alternative density assessment methods. Breast Cancer Res 16:439CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Dontchos BN, Rahbar H, Partridge SC et al (2015) Are qualitative assessments of background parenchymal enhancement, amount of fibroglandular tissue on MR images, and mammographic density associated with breast cancer risk? Radiology 276:371–380CrossRefPubMed
12.
King V, Brooks JD, Bernstein JL, Reiner AS, Pike MC, Morris EA (2011) Background parenchymal enhancement at breast MR imaging and breast cancer risk. Radiology 260:50–60CrossRefPubMed
13.
Telegrafo M, Rella L, Stabile Ianora AA, Angelelli G, Moschetta M (2016) Breast MRI background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) correlates with the risk of breast cancer. Magn Reson Imaging 34:173–176CrossRefPubMed
14.
Bennani-Baiti B, Baltzer PA (2016) Reply to “Breast MRI background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) correlates with the risk of breast cancer”. Magn Reson Imaging 34:1337–1338CrossRefPubMed
15.
16.
Kuhl C (2007) The current status of breast MR imaging. Part I. Choice of technique, image interpretation, diagnostic accuracy, and transfer to clinical practice. Radiology 244:356–378CrossRefPubMed
17.
Morris EA (2007) Diagnostic breast MR imaging: current status and future directions. Radiol Clin North Am 45:863–880 vii CrossRefPubMed
18.
Grimm LJ, Anderson AL, Baker JA et al (2015) Interobserver variability between breast imagers using the fifth edition of the BI-RADS MRI lexicon. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204:1120–1124CrossRefPubMed
19.
20.
21.
Gubern-Mérida A, Martí R, Melendez J et al (2015) Automated localization of breast cancer in DCE-MRI. Med Image Anal 20:265–274CrossRefPubMed
22.
Edwards SD, Lipson JA, Ikeda DM, Lee JM (2013) Updates and revisions to the BI-RADS magnetic resonance imaging lexicon. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 21:483–493CrossRefPubMed
23.
Molleran V, Mahoney MC (2010) The BI-RADS breast magnetic resonance imaging lexicon. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 18:171–185 viiCrossRefPubMed
24.
Dalmis MU, Gubern-Mérida A, Borelli C, Vreemann S, Mann RM, Karssemeijer N (2016) A fully automated system for quantification of background parenchymal enhancement in breast DCE. Proc. SPIE 9785, Medical Imaging 2016: Computer-Aided Diagnosis, 97850L. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1117/​12.​2211640
25.
Steyerberg E (2009) Clinical prediction models. Springer-Verlag, New York, p 500
26.
Wanders JO, Holland K, Veldhuis WB et al (2017) Volumetric breast density affects performance of digital screening mammography. Breast Cancer Res Treat 162:95–103CrossRefPubMed
27.
Passaperuma K, Warner E, Hill KA, Gunasekara A, Yaffe MJ (2010) Is mammographic breast density a breast cancer risk factor in women with BRCA mutations? J Clin Oncol 28:3779–3783CrossRefPubMed
28.
Gubern-Mérida A, Kallenberg M, Mann RM, Martí R, Karssemeijer N (2015) Breast segmentation and density estimation in breast MRI: a fully automatic framework. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform 19:349–357CrossRefPubMed
29.
30.
Kuhl CK, Bieling HB, Gieseke J et al (1997) Healthy premenopausal breast parenchyma in dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast: normal contrast medium enhancement and cyclical-phase dependency. Radiology 203:137–144CrossRefPubMed
31.
Delille JP, Slanetz PJ, Yeh ED, Kopans DB, Halpern EF, Garrido L (2005) Hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women: breast tissue perfusion determined with MR imaging--initial observations. Radiology 235:36–41CrossRefPubMed
32.
King V, Goldfarb SB, Brooks JD et al (2012) Effect of aromatase inhibitors on background parenchymal enhancement and amount of fibroglandular tissue at breast MR imaging. Radiology 264:670–678CrossRefPubMed
33.
Widschwendter M, Rosenthal AN, Philpott S et al (2013) The sex hormone system in carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations: a case-control study. Lancet Oncol 14:1226–1232CrossRefPubMed
34.
Wu S, Weinstein SP, DeLeo MJ 3rd et al (2015) Quantitative assessment of background parenchymal enhancement in breast MRI predicts response to risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy: preliminary evaluation in a cohort of BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Res 17:67CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Hambly NM, Liberman L, Dershaw DD, Brennan S, Morris EA (2011) Background parenchymal enhancement on baseline screening breast MRI: impact on biopsy rate and short-interval follow-up. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:218–224CrossRefPubMed
36.
Giess CS, Raza S, Birdwell RL (2013) Patterns of nonmasslike enhancement at screening breast MR imaging of high-risk premenopausal women. Radiographics 33:1343–1360CrossRefPubMed
37.
DeMartini WB, Liu F, Peacock S, Eby PR, Gutierrez RL, Lehman CD (2012) Background parenchymal enhancement on breast MRI: impact on diagnostic performance. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198:W373–W380CrossRefPubMed
38.
Brennan SB, Sung JS, Dershaw DD, Liberman L, Morris EA (2011) Cancellation of MR imaging-guided breast biopsy due to lesion nonvisualization: frequency and follow-up. Radiology 261:92–99CrossRefPubMed
39.
van der Velden BHM, Elias SG, Bismeijer T et al (2017) Complementary value of contralateral parenchymal enhancement on DCE-MRI to prognostic models and molecular assays in high-risk ER+/HER2− breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 23:6505–6515
40.
Vreemann S, Gubern-Mérida A, Schlooz-Vries MS et al (2018) Influence of risk category and screening round on the performance of an MR imaging and mammography screening program in carriers of the BRCA mutation and other women at increased risk. Radiology 286(2):443–451CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Amount of fibroglandular tissue FGT and background parenchymal enhancement BPE in relation to breast cancer risk and false positives in a breast MRI screening program
A retrospective cohort study
Authors
Suzan Vreemann
Mehmet U. Dalmis
Peter Bult
Nico Karssemeijer
Mireille J. M. Broeders
Albert Gubern-Mérida
Ritse M. Mann
Publication date
01-09-2019
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 9/2019
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06020-2

Other articles of this Issue 9/2019

European Radiology 9/2019 Go to the issue

Magnetic Resonance

Added value of apparent diffusion coefficient in distinguishing between serous and mucin-producing pancreatic cystic neoplasms

Hepatobiliary-Pancreas

Comparison between dynamic gadoxetate-enhanced MRI and 99mTc-mebrofenin hepatobiliary scintigraphy with SPECT for quantitative assessment of liver function

Imaging Informatics and Artificial Intelligence

Differentiating kidney stones from phleboliths in unenhanced low-dose computed tomography using radiomics and machine learning

Interventional

Comparison of TIPS alone and combined with partial splenic embolization (PSE) for the management of variceal bleeding

Editorial Comment

Evaluation of prostate MRI: can machine learning provide support where radiologists need it?

Urogenital

Adnexal mass staging CT with a disease-specific structured report compared to simple structured report