Role of Dynamic Contrast Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Mammogram in Evaluation of Breast Lesions with Pathological Correlation

Evaluation of Breast Lesions

  • K Harsha Veena Post Graduate, Department Of Radiodiagnosis, Osmania Medical College Hyderabad, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
  • Ramakrishna Rao Baru Professor, Department of Radio-Diagnosis, Narayana Medical College & Hospital, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India


Background: To perform mammography and dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in patients with clinically suspicious breast lumps and correlating the findings with pathology in patients of positive imaging. Subjects and Methods: total of 40 patients evaluated through MRI BI-RADS lexicon (General Electric Medical Systems) at 1.5T in combination with dynamic kinetic analysis of time and signal curves for lesion characterization. Results: The mean age was 44 years, maximum of patients (n=22) belongs to age group of 41-60 years (52.5%). Five lesions showed dark internal septations, as benign. 11 lesions (33.5%) showed heterogenous enhancement, as malignant. Early rim enhancement is observed in 3 lesions (9%). Out of which two of them were proven to be malignant and one lesion was an infective abscess. Invasive Duct Cell Carcinoma was the common histology in the malignant lesions, observed in 13 out of 18 (72.2%). Fibroadenoma was the common benign breast lesion, observed in 8 out of 19 (42.1%). In 4 post operative patients, 2 (50%) were post operative fibrosis, 1 (25%) was recurrence and 1 (25%) was post operative collection. In 18 malignant lesions, 11 patients (61.1%) had skin retraction, 10 patients (55.5%) had skin thickening, 9 patients (50%) had axillary lymphadenopathy, 2 patients (11.1%) had nipple retraction, and one patient (5.6%) had pectoralis involvement. In our study, MR imaging alone has Sensitivity of 88.8%, specificity of 86.3%, PPV of 84.2%, and NPV of 90.4% with Accuracy 87.5%. Conclusion : The dynamic contrast enhanced MRI is important tool to evaluate the postoperative breast in differentiating between benign postoperative changes. By combining kinetic analysis with morphological analysis it add benefit to categorise the breast lesions into benign and malignant with increased confidence levels. CE-MRI with both morphology and kinetic curve assessment has a Sensitivity of 94.5%, Specificity of 100% with Accuracy of 97.5%.


Download data is not yet available.


1. Schnall MD. Breast MR imaging. Radiol Clin North Am. 2003;41(1):43–50. Available from: s0033-8389(03)00068-4.
2. Sylvia H. Heywang - kobrunner and petranehweg et al; Text book of. Magnetic Resonance Imaging;1(2):307–320.
3. Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL, Dennis MA, Parker SH, Sisney GA. Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology. 1995;196(1):123–134. Available from: 1148/radiology.196.1.7784555.
4. Agoston AT, Daniel BL, Herfkens RJ. Intensity modulated parametric mapping for simultaneous display of rapid dynamic and high spatial resolution breast MR Imaging data. Radio-graphics. 2001;21(1):217–226. Available from:
5. Rahbar H, Partridge SC. Multiparametric Breast MRI of Breast Cancer. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2016;24(1):223–
238. Available from: 08.012.
6. Khatri VP, Stuppino JJ, Espinosa MH, Pollack MS. Improved accuracy in differentiating malignant from benign mammo- graphic abnormalities. Cancer. 2001;92(3):471–478. Avail- able from: 92:3<471::aid-cncr1345>;2-6.
7. Siegman KC, Schimfle MM, Shick F, Remy TC. MR imaging detected breast lesions: histopathological correlation of lesion characteristic and signal intensity data. Am J Roentgenol. 2002;178:1403–1412.
8. Kuhl CK. Concepts for differential diagnosis in breast MR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2006;14(3):305–
328. Available from: 002.
9. Turnbull L, Brown S, Harvey I, Olivier C, Drew P, Napp V, et al. Comparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;375(9714):563–571. Available from: 10.1016/s0140-6736(09)62070-5.
10. Nunes LW, Schnall MD, Orel SG, Hochman MG, Langlotz CP, Reynolds CA, et al. Breast MR imaging: interpretation model. Radiology. 1997;202(3):833–841. Available from:
11. Orel SG, Weinstein SP, Schnall MD, Reynolds CA, Schuchter LM, Fraker DL, et al. Breast MR imaging in patients with axillary node metastases and unknown primary malignancy. Radiology. 1992;212(2):543–549. Available from: https://doi. org/10.1148/radiology.212.2.r99au40543.
12. Morris EA, Schwartz LH, Drotman MB, Kim SJ, Tan LK, Liberman L, et al. Evaluation of Pectoralis Major Muscle in Patients with Posterior Breast Tumors on Breast MR Images: Early Experience. Radiology. 2000;214(1):67–72. Available from:
13. Gilles R, Guinebretière JM, Toussaint C, Spielman M, Rietjens M, Petit JY, et al. Locally advanced breast cancer: contrast- enhanced subtraction MR imaging of response to preoperative chemotherapy. Radiology. 1994;191(3):633–638. Available from:
How to Cite
K Harsha Veena, & Ramakrishna Rao Baru. (2020). Role of Dynamic Contrast Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Mammogram in Evaluation of Breast Lesions with Pathological Correlation. Asian Journal of Medical Radiological Research, 8(2), 112-117.
Original Articles