Quantitative Assessment of Background Parenchymal Enhancement in Breast Magnetic Resonance Images Predicts the Risk of Breast Cancer

Overview

Journal Oncotarget

Specialty Oncology

Date 2016 Nov 30

PMID 27895314

Citations 15

Authors

Xiaoxin Hu

Luan Jiang

Qiang Li

Yajia Gu

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the association betweenthe quantitative assessment of background parenchymal enhancement rate (BPER) and breast cancer. From 14,033 consecutive patients who underwent breast MRI in our center, we randomly selected 101 normal controls. Then, we selected 101 women with benign breast lesions and 101 women with breast cancer who were matched for age and menstruation status. We evaluated BPER at early (2 minutes), medium (4 minutes) and late (6 minutes) enhanced time phases of breast MRI for quantitative assessment. Odds ratios (ORs) for risk of breast cancer were calculated using the receiver operating curve. The BPER increased in a time-dependent manner after enhancement in both premenopausal and postmenopausal women. Premenopausal women had higher BPER than postmenopausal women at early, medium and late enhanced phases. In the normal population, the OR for probability of breast cancer for premenopausal women with high BPER was 4.1 (95% CI: 1.7-9.7) and 4.6 (95% CI: 1.7-12.0) for postmenopausal women. The OR of breast cancer morbidity in premenopausal women with high BPER was 2.6 (95% CI: 1.1-6.4) and 2.8 (95% CI: 1.2-6.1) for postmenopausal women. The BPER was found to be a predictive factor of breast cancer morbidity. Different time phases should be used to assess BPER in premenopausal and postmenopausal women.

Citing Articles

Association of Breast Cancer Odds with Background Parenchymal Enhancement Quantified Using a Fully Automated Method at MRI: The IMAGINE Study.

Watt G, Thakran S, Sung J, Jochelson M, Lobbes M, Weinstein S Radiology. 2023; 308(3):e230367.

PMID: 37750771 PMC: 10546291. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.230367.

Beyond Breast Density: Risk Measures for Breast Cancer in Multiple Imaging Modalities.

Acciavatti R, Lee S, Reig B, Moy L, Conant E, Kontos D Radiology. 2023; 306(3):e222575.

PMID: 36749212 PMC: 9968778. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.222575.

Post-Processing Bias Field Inhomogeneity Correction for Assessing Background Parenchymal Enhancement on Breast MRI as a Quantitative Marker of Treatment Response.

Nguyen A, Onishi N, Carmona-Bozo J, Li W, Kornak J, Newitt D Tomography. 2022; 8(2):891-904.

PMID: 35448706 PMC: 9027600. DOI: 10.3390/tomography8020072.

High-background parenchymal enhancement in the contralateral breast is an imaging biomarker for favorable prognosis in patients with triple-negative breast cancer treated with chemotherapy.

Xu C, Yu J, Wu F, Li X, Hu D, Chen G Am J Transl Res. 2021; 13(5):4422-4436.

PMID: 34150024 PMC: 8205756.

Response Predictivity to Neoadjuvant Therapies in Breast Cancer: A Qualitative Analysis of Background Parenchymal Enhancement in DCE-MRI.

La Forgia D, Vestito A, Lasciarrea M, Comes M, Diotaiuti S, Giotta F J Pers Med. 2021; 11(4).

PMID: 33915842 PMC: 8065517. DOI: 10.3390/jpm11040256.

References

Colditz G, Bohlke K . Priorities for the primary prevention of breast cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014; 64(3):186-94. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21225. View

King V, Gu Y, Kaplan J, Brooks J, Pike M, Morris E . Impact of menopausal status on background parenchymal enhancement and fibroglandular tissue on breast MRI. Eur Radiol. 2012; 22(12):2641-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-012-2553-8. View

Shepherd J, Kerlikowske K, Ma L, Duewer F, Fan B, Wang J . Volume of mammographic density and risk of breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011; 20(7):1473-82. PMC: 3132306. DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-1150. View

Cummings S, Tice J, Bauer S, Browner W, Cuzick J, Ziv E . Prevention of breast cancer in postmenopausal women: approaches to estimating and reducing risk. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009; 101(6):384-98. PMC: 2720698. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djp018. View

Tice J, Cummings S, Smith-Bindman R, Ichikawa L, Barlow W, Kerlikowske K . Using clinical factors and mammographic breast density to estimate breast cancer risk: development and validation of a new predictive model. Ann Intern Med. 2008; 148(5):337-47. PMC: 2674327. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-148-5-200803040-00004. View

Rahib L, Smith B, Aizenberg R, Rosenzweig A, Fleshman J, Matrisian L . Projecting cancer incidence and deaths to 2030: the unexpected burden of thyroid, liver, and pancreas cancers in the United States. Cancer Res. 2014; 74(11):2913-21. DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-0155. View

King V, Goldfarb S, Brooks J, Sung J, Nulsen B, Jozefara J . Effect of aromatase inhibitors on background parenchymal enhancement and amount of fibroglandular tissue at breast MR imaging. Radiology. 2012; 264(3):670-8. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12112669. View

Gail M, Brinton L, Byar D, Corle D, Green S, Schairer C . Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989; 81(24):1879-86. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/81.24.1879. View

Wald N, Hackshaw A, Frost C . When can a risk factor be used as a worthwhile screening test?. BMJ. 1999; 319(7224):1562-5. PMC: 1117271. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.319.7224.1562. View

10.

King V, Brooks J, Bernstein J, Reiner A, Pike M, Morris E . Background parenchymal enhancement at breast MR imaging and breast cancer risk. Radiology. 2011; 260(1):50-60. PMC: 6939979. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.11102156. View

11.

Kajihara M, Goto M, Hirayama Y, Okunishi S, Kaoku S, Konishi E . Effect of the menstrual cycle on background parenchymal enhancement in breast MR imaging. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2013; 12(1):39-45. DOI: 10.2463/mrms.2012-0022. View

12.

Delille J, Slanetz P, Yeh E, Kopans D, Garrido L . Physiologic changes in breast magnetic resonance imaging during the menstrual cycle: perfusion imaging, signal enhancement, and influence of the T1 relaxation time of breast tissue. Breast J. 2005; 11(4):236-41. DOI: 10.1111/j.1075-122X.2005.21499.x. View

13.

Dontchos B, Rahbar H, Partridge S, Korde L, Lam D, Scheel J . Are Qualitative Assessments of Background Parenchymal Enhancement, Amount of Fibroglandular Tissue on MR Images, and Mammographic Density Associated with Breast Cancer Risk?. Radiology. 2015; 276(2):371-80. PMC: 4554209. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2015142304. View

14.

Barlow W, White E, Ballard-Barbash R, Vacek P, Titus-Ernstoff L, Carney P . Prospective breast cancer risk prediction model for women undergoing screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006; 98(17):1204-14. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djj331. View

15.

Chen J, Pee D, Ayyagari R, Graubard B, Schairer C, Byrne C . Projecting absolute invasive breast cancer risk in white women with a model that includes mammographic density. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006; 98(17):1215-26. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djj332. View

16.

Gail M . Value of adding single-nucleotide polymorphism genotypes to a breast cancer risk model. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009; 101(13):959-63. PMC: 2704229. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djp130. View

17.

Smith R, Cokkinides V, Brawley O . Cancer screening in the United States, 2012: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012; 62(2):129-42. DOI: 10.3322/caac.20143. View

18.

Tice J, Cummings S, Ziv E, Kerlikowske K . Mammographic breast density and the Gail model for breast cancer risk prediction in a screening population. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2005; 94(2):115-22. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-005-5152-4. View

19.

Kopans D . Basic physics and doubts about relationship between mammographically determined tissue density and breast cancer risk. Radiology. 2008; 246(2):348-53. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2461070309. View

20.

Boyd N, Guo H, Martin L, Sun L, Stone J, Fishell E . Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007; 356(3):227-36. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa062790. View