Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2016 UpToDate®

MRI of the breast and emerging technologies

Priscilla J Slanetz, MD, MPH, FACR
Section Editors
Anees B Chagpar, MD, MSc, MA, MPH, MBA, FACS, FRCS(C)
Joann G Elmore, MD, MPH
Deputy Editor
Sadhna R Vora, MD


Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast is an important tool for the detection of breast cancer (image 1 and image 2) and assessment of silicone implant integrity (image 3). The use of MRI with contrast agents for the detection of breast cancer was first reported in 1986 [1]. The high sensitivity of MRI for breast cancer has led to the increasing use of MRI for breast cancer detection, assessment, and treatment monitoring, although appropriate indications, scanning technique, and interpretation remain variable among facilities.

This topic will review breast MRI technique, interpretation, and indications as well as emerging tools for breast cancer detection. Issues regarding screening for breast cancer, the role of mammography and ultrasound in women with suspected disease, surveillance for patients with known breast cancer, and the physics of MRI are discussed separately. (See "Breast imaging for cancer screening: Mammography and ultrasonography" and "Screening for breast cancer: Strategies and recommendations" and "Clinical features, diagnosis, and staging of newly diagnosed breast cancer" and "Principles of magnetic resonance imaging" and "Approach to the patient following treatment for breast cancer", section on 'Breast MRI'.)


Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) creates images of the breast by measuring changes in the movement of protons in fat and water with the application of changing magnetic fields. By utilizing the differences in tissue relaxation characteristics, an image is acquired by processing the signal changes that occur following application of pulses of energy. The physics of MRI is discussed in detail elsewhere. (See "Principles of magnetic resonance imaging", section on 'MR physics'.)

Breast MRI for the detection of breast cancer requires administration of the contrast agent gadolinium. The use of MRI for breast cancer detection is based on the concept of tumor angiogenesis or neovascularity. Tumor associated blood vessels have increased permeability, which leads to prompt take up and release of gadolinium within the first one to two minutes after administration, leading to a pattern of rapid enhancement and washout on MRI (figure 1). This dynamic rapid enhancement pattern helps to distinguish breast cancers from benign lesions. Breast MRI techniques continue to evolve, but some general recommendations can be made based on minimum standards used by the American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6667 Trial [2] and the European Society of Breast Imaging [3].

Bilateral breast examination ─ Both breasts should be evaluated in an MRI study, for comparison purposes, even when concern about possible pathology involves only one breast.


Subscribers log in here

To continue reading this article, you must log in with your personal, hospital, or group practice subscription. For more information or to purchase a personal subscription, click below on the option that best describes you:
Literature review current through: Sep 2016. | This topic last updated: Jul 2, 2014.
The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use ©2016 UpToDate, Inc.
  1. Heywang SH, Hahn D, Schmidt H, et al. MR imaging of the breast using gadolinium-DTPA. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1986; 10:199.
  2. Lehman CD, Gatsonis C, Kuhl CK, et al. MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007; 356:1295.
  3. DeMartini WB, Ichikawa L, Yankaskas BC, et al. Breast MRI in community practice: equipment and imaging techniques at facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. J Am Coll Radiol 2010; 7:878.
  4. Harms SE, Flamig DP, Hesley KL, et al. MR imaging of the breast with rotating delivery of excitation off resonance: clinical experience with pathologic correlation. Radiology 1993; 187:493.
  5. Pierce WB, Harms SE, Flamig DP, et al. Three-dimensional gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging of the breast: pulse sequence with fat suppression and magnetization transfer contrast. Work in progress. Radiology 1991; 181:757.
  6. Rubens D, Totterman S, Chacko AK, et al. Gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced chemical-shift MR imaging of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1991; 157:267.
  7. Boetes C, Barentsz JO, Mus RD, et al. MR characterization of suspicious breast lesions with a gadolinium-enhanced TurboFLASH subtraction technique. Radiology 1994; 193:777.
  8. Hulka CA, Smith BL, Sgroi DC, et al. Benign and malignant breast lesions: differentiation with echo-planar MR imaging. Radiology 1995; 197:33.
  9. Bluemke DA, Gatsonis CA, Chen MH, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast prior to biopsy. JAMA 2004; 292:2735.
  10. Degani H, Gusis V, Weinstein D, et al. Mapping pathophysiological features of breast tumors by MRI at high spatial resolution. Nat Med 1997; 3:780.
  11. Kinkel K, Helbich TH, Esserman LJ, et al. Dynamic high-spatial-resolution MR imaging of suspicious breast lesions: diagnostic criteria and interobserver variability. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 175:35.
  12. Khatri VP, Stuppino JJ, Espinosa MH, Pollack MS. Improved accuracy in differentiating malignant from benign mammographic abnormalities: a simple, improved magnetic resonance imaging method. Cancer 2001; 92:471.
  13. Seely JM, Nguyen ET, Jaffey J. Breast MRI in the evaluation of locally recurrent or new breast cancer in the postoperative patient: correlation of morphology and enhancement features with the BI-RADS category. Acta Radiol 2007; 48:838.
  14. DeMartini W, Lehman C. A review of current evidence-based clinical applications for breast magnetic resonance imaging. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2008; 19:143.
  15. Baltzer PA, Benndorf M, Dietzel M, et al. False-positive findings at contrast-enhanced breast MRI: a BI-RADS descriptor study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194:1658.
  16. Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S, et al. Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 1999; 211:101.
  17. Pediconi F, Padula S, Dominelli V, et al. Role of breast MR imaging for predicting malignancy of histologically borderline lesions diagnosed at core needle biopsy: prospective evaluation. Radiology 2010; 257:653.
  18. Linda A, Zuiani C, Furlan A, et al. Nonsurgical management of high-risk lesions diagnosed at core needle biopsy: can malignancy be ruled out safely with breast MRI? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012; 198:272.
  19. Londero V, Zuiani C, Linda A, Girometti R, Bazzocchi M, Sardanelli. High-risk breast lesions at inage-guided needle biopsy: Usefulness of MRI for treatment decision. AJR 2012;199:240.
  20. Müller-Schimpfle M, Ohmenhaüser K, Stoll P, et al. Menstrual cycle and age: influence on parenchymal contrast medium enhancement in MR imaging of the breast. Radiology 1997; 203:145.
  21. Delille JP, Slanetz PJ, Yeh ED, et al. 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; 11:236.
  22. Kuhl CK, Bieling HB, Gieseke J, et al. Healthy premenopausal breast parenchyma in dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast: normal contrast medium enhancement and cyclical-phase dependency. Radiology 1997; 203:137.
  23. Delille JP, Slanetz PJ, Yeh ED, et al. Hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women: breast tissue perfusion determined with MR imaging--initial observations. Radiology 2005; 235:36.
  24. Espinosa LA, Daniel BL, Vidarsson L, et al. The lactating breast: contrast-enhanced MR imaging of normal tissue and cancer. Radiology 2005; 237:429.
  25. Talele AC, Slanetz PJ, Edmister WB, et al. The lactating breast: MRI findings and literature review. Breast J 2003; 9:237.
  26. Kuhl C. The current status of breast MR imaging. Part I. Choice of technique, image interpretation, diagnostic accuracy, and transfer to clinical practice. Radiology 2007; 244:356.
  27. Whitehouse GH, Moore NR. MR imaging of the breast after surgery for breast cancer. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 1994; 2:591.
  28. Dixon JM, Renshaw L, Bellamy C, et al. The effects of neoadjuvant anastrozole (Arimidex) on tumor volume in postmenopausal women with breast cancer: a randomized, double-blind, single-center study. Clin Cancer Res 2000; 6:2229.
  29. Taylor C, Georgian-Smith D. Regression of breast cancer in four patients treated with tamoxifen: mammographic features. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994; 162:613.
  30. Schrading S, Schild H, Kühr M, Kuhl C. Effects of tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors on breast tissue enhancement in dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging: a longitudinal intraindividual cohort study. Radiology 2014; 271:45.
  31. American College of Radiology. American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System BI-RADS, 5th ed, D'Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB, Morris EA, et al. (Eds), American Colege of Radiology, Reston, VA 2013.
  32. D'Orsi CJ, Newell MS. BI-RADS decoded: detailed guidance on potentially confusing issues. Radiol Clin North Am 2007; 45:751.
  33. Bassett LW, Dhaliwal SG, Eradat J, et al. National trends and practices in breast MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008; 191:332.
  34. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN Clinical practice guidelines in oncology. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp (Accessed on February 27, 2016).
  35. Teifke A, Lehr HA, Vomweg TW, et al. Outcome analysis and rational management of enhancing lesions incidentally detected on contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 181:655.
  36. Millet I, Curros-Doyon F, Molinari N, et al. Invasive breast carcinoma: influence of prognosis and patient-related factors on kinetic MR imaging characteristics. Radiology 2014; 270:57.
  37. MRI safety. Institute for Magnetic Resonance Safety, Education, and Research Web site. http://222.MRIsafety.com (Accessed on February 06, 2008).
  38. MR safety. 2006. http//www.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenuCategories/quality_safety/MRSafety.aspx (Accessed on February 06, 2008).
  39. Gorczyca DP, Gorczyca SM, Gorczyca KL. The diagnosis of silicone breast implant rupture. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 120:49S.
  40. Berg WA, Caskey CI, Hamper UM, et al. Diagnosing breast implant rupture with MR imaging, US, and mammography. Radiographics 1993; 13:1323.
  41. Everson LI, Parantainen H, Detlie T, et al. Diagnosis of breast implant rupture: imaging findings and relative efficacies of imaging techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994; 163:57.
  42. Reynolds HE, Buckwalter KA, Jackson VP, et al. Comparison of mammography, sonography, and magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of silicone-gel breast implant rupture. Ann Plast Surg 1994; 33:247.
  43. Brown SL, Silverman BG, Berg WA. Rupture of silicone-gel breast implants: causes, sequelae, and diagnosis. Lancet 1997; 350:1531.
  44. Robinson OG Jr, Bradley EL, Wilson DS. Analysis of explanted silicone implants: a report of 300 patients. Ann Plast Surg 1995; 34:1.
  45. McCarthy CM, Pusic AL, Kerrigan CL. Silicone breast implants and magnetic resonance imaging screening for rupture: do U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommendations reflect an evidence-based practice approach to patient care? Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 121:1127.
  46. Cher DJ, Conwell JA, Mandel JS. MRI for detecting silicone breast implant rupture: meta-analysis and implications. Ann Plast Surg 2001; 47:367.
  47. Huch RA, Künzi W, Debatin JF, et al. MR imaging of the augmented breast. Eur Radiol 1998; 8:371.
  48. Scaranelo AM, de Fátima Ribeiro Maia M. Sonographic and mammographic findings of breast liquid silicone injection. J Clin Ultrasound 2006; 34:273.
  49. Stomper PC, Waddell BE, Edge SB, Klippenstein DL. Breast MRI in the Evaluation of Patients with Occult Primary Breast Carcinoma. Breast J 1999; 5:230.
  50. Orel SG, Weinstein SP, Schnall MD, et al. Breast MR imaging in patients with axillary node metastases and unknown primary malignancy. Radiology 1999; 212:543.
  51. Buchanan CL, Morris EA, Dorn PL, et al. Utility of breast magnetic resonance imaging in patients with occult primary breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2005; 12:1045.
  52. Olson JA Jr, Morris EA, Van Zee KJ, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging facilitates breast conservation for occult breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2000; 7:411.
  53. Chen C, Orel SG, Harris E, et al. Outcome after treatment of patients with mammographically occult, magnetic resonance imaging-detected breast cancer presenting with axillary lymphadenopathy. Clin Breast Cancer 2004; 5:72.
  54. Obdeijn IM, Brouwers-Kuyper EM, Tilanus-Linthorst MM, et al. MR imaging-guided sonography followed by fine-needle aspiration cytology in occult carcinoma of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 174:1079.
  55. Schorn C, Fischer U, Luftner-Nagel S, et al. MRI of the breast in patients with metastatic disease of unknown primary. Eur Radiol 1999; 9:470.
  56. Henry-Tillman RS, Harms SE, Westbrook KC, et al. Role of breast magnetic resonance imaging in determining breast as a source of unknown metastatic lymphadenopathy. Am J Surg 1999; 178:496.
  57. Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Obdeijn AI, Bontenbal M, Oudkerk M. MRI in patients with axillary metastases of occult breast carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1997; 44:179.
  58. Brenner RJ, Rothman BJ. Detection of primary breast cancer in women with known adenocarcinoma metastatic to the axilla: use of MRI after negative clinical and mammographic examination. J Magn Reson Imaging 1997; 7:1153.
  59. Morris EA, Schwartz LH, Dershaw DD, et al. MR imaging of the breast in patients with occult primary breast carcinoma. Radiology 1997; 205:437.
  60. Fourquet, A, Meunier, et al. Occult primary cancer with axillary metastases. In: Diseases of the Breast, 3rd edition, Harris, JR, Lippman, ME, Morrow, M, Osborne, CK (Eds), Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia 2004. p.1047.
  61. Kaiser WA, Zeitler E. MR imaging of the breast: fast imaging sequences with and without Gd-DTPA. Preliminary observations. Radiology 1989; 170:681.
  62. Revel D, Brasch RC, Paajanen H, et al. Gd-DTPA contrast enhancement and tissue differentiation in MR imaging of experimental breast carcinoma. Radiology 1986; 158:319.
  63. Heywang SH, Wolf A, Pruss E, et al. MR imaging of the breast with Gd-DTPA: use and limitations. Radiology 1989; 171:95.
  64. Stack JP, Redmond OM, Codd MB, et al. Breast disease: tissue characterization with Gd-DTPA enhancement profiles. Radiology 1990; 174:491.
  65. Orel SG, Schnall MD, LiVolsi VA, Troupin RH. Suspicious breast lesions: MR imaging with radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 1994; 190:485.
  66. Liberman L, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, et al. MR imaging of the ipsilateral breast in women with percutaneously proven breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 180:901.
  67. Schelfout K, Van Goethem M, Kersschot E, et al. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging of breast lesions and effect on treatment. Eur J Surg Oncol 2004; 30:501.
  68. Fischer U, Kopka L, Grabbe E. Breast carcinoma: effect of preoperative contrast-enhanced MR imaging on the therapeutic approach. Radiology 1999; 213:881.
  69. Mumtaz H, Hall-Craggs MA, Davidson T, et al. Staging of symptomatic primary breast cancer with MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997; 169:417.
  70. Schnall MD, Blume J, Bluemke DA, et al. MRI detection of distinct incidental cancer in women with primary breast cancer studied in IBMC 6883. J Surg Oncol 2005; 92:32.
  71. Houssami N, Turner R, Macaskill P, et al. An individual person data meta-analysis of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and breast cancer recurrence. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32:392.
  72. Wang SY, Kuntz KM, Tuttle TM, et al. The association of preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging and multiple breast surgeries among older women with early stage breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2013; 138:137.
  73. Hawley ST, Jagsi R, Morrow M, et al. Social and Clinical Determinants of Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy. JAMA Surg 2014; 149:582.
  74. Chandwani S, George PA, Azu M, et al. Role of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in the surgical management of early-stage breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2014; 21:3473.
  75. Xia C, Schroeder MC, Weigel RJ, et al. Rate of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is influenced by preoperative MRI recommendations. Ann Surg Oncol 2014; 21:4133.
  76. Rahbar H, Hanna LG, Gatsonis C, et al. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6667 trial: effect of breast MR imaging assessments and patient characteristics. Radiology 2014; 273:53.
  77. Guilfoyle C, Christoudias M, Collett AE, et al. Effect of preoperative MRI on mastectomy and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates at a community hospital by a single surgeon. Breast J 2014; 20:79.
  78. Martincich L, Montemurro F, De Rosa G, et al. Monitoring response to primary chemotherapy in breast cancer using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2004; 83:67.
  79. Pickles MD, Lowry M, Manton DJ, et al. Role of dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in monitoring early response of locally advanced breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2005; 91:1.
  80. Yeh E, Slanetz P, Kopans DB, et al. Prospective comparison of mammography, sonography, and MRI in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for palpable breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005; 184:868.
  81. Cheung YC, Chen SC, Su MY, et al. Monitoring the size and response of locally advanced breast cancers to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (weekly paclitaxel and epirubicin) with serial enhanced MRI. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2003; 78:51.
  82. Martincich L, Montemurro F, Cirillo S, et al. Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the prediction of tumor response in patients with locally advanced breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemo-therapy. Radiol Med 2003; 106:51.
  83. Choi BB, Kim SH. Effective factors to raise diagnostic performance of breast MRI for diagnosing pathologic complete response in breast cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Acta Radiol 2015; 56:790.
  84. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00043017 (Accessed on December 23, 2010).
  85. Viehweg P, Heinig A, Lampe D, et al. Retrospective analysis for evaluation of the value of contrast-enhanced MRI in patients treated with breast conservative therapy. MAGMA 1998; 7:141.
  86. Drew PJ, Kerin MJ, Turnbull LW, et al. Routine screening for local recurrence following breast-conserving therapy for cancer with dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the breast. Ann Surg Oncol 1998; 5:265.
  87. Rieber A, Merkle E, Zeitler H, et al. Value of MR mammography in the detection and exclusion of recurrent breast carcinoma. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1997; 21:780.
  88. Van Goethem M, Verslegers I, Biltjes I, et al. Role of MRI of the breast in the evaluation of the symptomatic patient. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2009; 21:74.
  89. Weinstein S, Rosen M. Breast MR imaging: current indications and advanced imaging techniques. Radiol Clin North Am 2010; 48:1013.
  90. Cilotti A, Iacconi C, Marini C, et al. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging in patients with BI-RADS 3-5 microcalcifications. Radiol Med 2007; 112:272.
  91. Nakahara H, Namba K, Watanabe R, et al. A comparison of MR imaging, galactography and ultrasonography in patients with nipple discharge. Breast Cancer 2003; 10:320.
  92. Mortellaro VE, Marshall J, Harms SE, et al. Breast MR for the evaluation of occult nipple discharge. Am Surg 2008; 74:739.
  93. Ballesio L, Maggi C, Savelli S, et al. Role of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with unilateral nipple discharge: preliminary study. Radiol Med 2008; 113:249.
  94. Tokuda Y, Kuriyama K, Nakamoto A, et al. Evaluation of suspicious nipple discharge by magnetic resonance mammography based on breast imaging reporting and data system magnetic resonance imaging descriptors. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2009; 33:58.
  95. Morrogh M, Morris EA, Liberman L, et al. The predictive value of ductography and magnetic resonance imaging in the management of nipple discharge. Ann Surg Oncol 2007; 14:3369.
  96. Sardanelli F, Podo F, D'Agnolo G, et al. Multicenter comparative multimodality surveillance of women at genetic-familial high risk for breast cancer (HIBCRIT study): interim results. Radiology 2007; 242:698.
  97. Lehman CD, Isaacs C, Schnall MD, et al. Cancer yield of mammography, MR, and US in high-risk women: prospective multi-institution breast cancer screening study. Radiology 2007; 244:381.
  98. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, et al. Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23:8469.
  99. Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA, et al. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA 2004; 292:1317.
  100. Morris EA, Liberman L, Ballon DJ, et al. MRI of occult breast carcinoma in a high-risk population. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 181:619.
  101. Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, et al. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med 2004; 351:427.
  102. Rijnsburger AJ, Obdeijn IM, Kaas R, et al. BRCA1-associated breast cancers present differently from BRCA2-associated and familial cases: long-term follow-up of the Dutch MRISC Screening Study. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28:5265.
  103. Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin 2007; 57:75.
  104. Lewin JM, Isaacs PK, Vance V, Larke FJ. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility. Radiology 2003; 229:261.
  105. Fallenberg EM, Dromain C, Diekmann F, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus MRI: Initial results in the detection of breast cancer and assessment of tumour size. Eur Radiol 2014; 24:256.
  106. Jochelson MS, Dershaw DD, Sung JS, et al. Bilateral contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography: feasibility and comparison with conventional digital mammography and MR imaging in women with known breast carcinoma. Radiology 2013; 266:743.
  107. Cheung YC, Lin YC, Wan YL, et al. Diagnostic performance of dual-energy contrast-enhanced subtracted mammography in dense breasts compared to mammography alone: interobserver blind-reading analysis. Eur Radiol 2014; 24:2394.
  108. Hecht EM, Lee RF, Taouli B, Sodickson DK. Perspectives on body MR imaging at ultrahigh field. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2007; 15:449.
  109. Kuhl CK. Breast MR imaging at 3T. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2007; 15:315.
  110. Elsamaloty H, Elzawawi MS, Mohammad S, Herial N. Increasing accuracy of detection of breast cancer with 3-T MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 192:1142.
  111. Pinker K, Grabner G, Bogner W, et al. A combined high temporal and high spatial resolution 3 Tesla MR imaging protocol for the assessment of breast lesions: initial results. Invest Radiol 2009; 44:553.
  112. Sardanelli F, Fausto A, Di Leo G, et al. In vivo proton MR spectroscopy of the breast using the total choline peak integral as a marker of malignancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 192:1608.
  113. Bartella L, Thakur SB, Morris EA, et al. Enhancing nonmass lesions in the breast: evaluation with proton (1H) MR spectroscopy. Radiology 2007; 245:80.
  114. Geraghty PR, van den Bosch MA, Spielman DM, et al. MRI and (1)H MRS of the breast: presence of a choline peak as malignancy marker is related to K21 value of the tumor in patients with invasive ductal carcinoma. Breast J 2008; 14:574.
  115. Mountford C, Ramadan S, Stanwell P, Malycha P. Proton MRS of the breast in the clinical setting. NMR Biomed 2009; 22:54.
  116. Tozaki M, Sakamoto M, Oyama Y, et al. Monitoring of early response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer with (1)H MR spectroscopy: comparison to sequential 2-[18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008; 28:420.
  117. Belli P, Costantini M, Bufi E, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging in breast lesion evaluation. Radiol Med 2010; 115:51.
  118. Guo Y, Cai YQ, Cai ZL, et al. Differentiation of clinically benign and malignant breast lesions using diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2002; 16:172.
  119. Sinha S, Lucas-Quesada FA, Sinha U, et al. In vivo diffusion-weighted MRI of the breast: potential for lesion characterization. J Magn Reson Imaging 2002; 15:693.
  120. Palle L, Reddy B. Role of diffusion MRI in characterizing benign and malignant breast lesions. Indian J Radiol Imaging 2009; 19:287.
  121. Tozaki M, Fukuma E. 1H MR spectroscopy and diffusion-weighted imaging of the breast: are they useful tools for characterizing breast lesions before biopsy? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 193:840.
  122. Kim SH, Cha ES, Kim HS, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of breast cancer: correlation of the apparent diffusion coefficient value with prognostic factors. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009; 30:615.
  123. Pickles MD, Gibbs P, Lowry M, Turnbull LW. Diffusion changes precede size reduction in neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer. Magn Reson Imaging 2006; 24:843.
  124. Sharma U, Danishad KK, Seenu V, Jagannathan NR. Longitudinal study of the assessment by MRI and diffusion-weighted imaging of tumor response in patients with locally advanced breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. NMR Biomed 2009; 22:104.
  125. Spick C, Pinker-Domenig K, Rudas M, et al. MRI-only lesions: application of diffusion-weighted imaging obviates unnecessary MR-guided breast biopsies. Eur Radiol 2014; 24:1204.
  126. Khalkhali I, Villanueva-Meyer J, Edell SL, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 99mTc-sestamibi breast imaging: multicenter trial results. J Nucl Med 2000; 41:1973.
  127. O'Connor M, Rhodes D, Hruska C. Molecular breast imaging. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2009; 9:1073.
  128. Brem RF, Rapelyea JA, Zisman G, et al. Occult breast cancer: scintimammography with high-resolution breast-specific gamma camera in women at high risk for breast cancer. Radiology 2005; 237:274.
  129. Brem RF, Floerke AC, Rapelyea JA, et al. Breast-specific gamma imaging as an adjunct imaging modality for the diagnosis of breast cancer. Radiology 2008; 247:651.
  130. Brem RF, Petrovitch I, Rapelyea JA, et al. Breast-specific gamma imaging with 99mTc-Sestamibi and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of breast cancer--a comparative study. Breast J 2007; 13:465.
  131. Brem RF, Fishman M, Rapelyea JA. Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ with mammography, breast specific gamma imaging, and magnetic resonance imaging: a comparative study. Acad Radiol 2007; 14:945.
  132. Brem RF, Ioffe M, Rapelyea JA, et al. Invasive lobular carcinoma: detection with mammography, sonography, MRI, and breast-specific gamma imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 192:379.
  133. Zhou M, Johnson N, Gruner S, et al. Clinical utility of breast-specific gamma imaging for evaluating disease extent in the newly diagnosed breast cancer patient. Am J Surg 2009; 197:159.
  134. Weir L, Worsley D, Bernstein V. The value of FDG positron emission tomography in the management of patients with breast cancer. Breast J 2005; 11:204.
  135. Rousseau C, Devillers A, Sagan C, et al. Monitoring of early response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in stage II and III breast cancer by [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24:5366.
  136. Cachin F, Prince HM, Hogg A, et al. Powerful prognostic stratification by [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with high-dose chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24:3026.
  137. Avril N, Adler LP. F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography imaging for primary breast cancer and loco-regional staging. Radiol Clin North Am 2007; 45:645.
  138. Schöder H, Gönen M. Screening for cancer with PET and PET/CT: potential and limitations. J Nucl Med 2007; 48 Suppl 1:4S.
  139. Raylman RR, Majewski S, Smith MF, et al. The positron emission mammography/tomography breast imaging and biopsy system (PEM/PET): design, construction and phantom-based measurements. Phys Med Biol 2008; 53:637.
  140. Weinberg IN. Applications for positron emission mammography. Phys Med 2006; 21 Suppl 1:132.
  141. Tafra L. Positron Emission Tomography (PET) and Mammography (PEM) for breast cancer: importance to surgeons. Ann Surg Oncol 2007; 14:3.
  142. Berg WA, Weinberg IN, Narayanan D, et al. High-resolution fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with compression ("positron emission mammography") is highly accurate in depicting primary breast cancer. Breast J 2006; 12:309.
  143. Kumar R, Chauhan A, Zhuang H, et al. Standardized uptake values of normal breast tissue with 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D: -glucose positron emission tomography: variations with age, breast density, and menopausal status. Mol Imaging Biol 2006; 8:355.
  144. Levine EA, Freimanis RI, Perrier ND, et al. Positron emission mammography: initial clinical results. Ann Surg Oncol 2003; 10:86.
  145. Tafra L, Cheng Z, Uddo J, et al. Pilot clinical trial of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission mammography in the surgical management of breast cancer. Am J Surg 2005; 190:628.
Topic Outline