Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Impact of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy and Magnetic Resonance Imaging on Important Outcomes Among Patients With Ductal Carcinoma In Situ

The Impact of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy and Magnetic Resonance Imaging on Important Outcomes... Abstract The objective of this systematic review was to determine the impact of sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) on important outcomes for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. We identified no study that directly evaluated important outcomes for SLN biopsy. So, we determined the incidence of SLN metastases among patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. Using American Joint Committee on Cancer criteria, the incidence of pN1 and pN1(mic) SLN metastases were 0.9% and 1.5%, respectively. Because the incidence of SLN metastasis is very low, SLN biopsy is not likely to affect important outcomes. We identified one study that directly evaluated important outcomes after breast MRI. In this study, the use of MRI did not affect local recurrence rates after breast-conserving surgery and radiation. Although MRI may identify occult multicentric or contralateral breast cancer in some patients, it may also lead to unnecessary biopsies and overtreatment. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the impact of sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) on important outcomes for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Important oncological outcomes usually include cancer-specific survival rates, cancer recurrence rates, and health-related quality of life. We found few studies that directly evaluated important outcomes with SLN biopsy or MRI. Methods Studies were sought from a wide variety of sources, including MEDLINE via PubMed, Scirus, Cochrane databases, Web sites of the Sloane Project and of the International Breast Cancer Screening Network, and manual searches of reference lists from systematic reviews and consensus conferences. We included articles published from 1965 through January 31, 2009. We searched MESH headings, titles, and abstracts for the terms Ductal Carcinoma In Situ, DCIS, noninfiltrating intraductal carcinoma, carcinoma in situ, intraductal carcinoma, ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast, localized breast cancer, and stage 0 breast cancer. We excluded studies of invasive breast cancer only, non-breast ductal cancers (eg, pancreatic ductal cancer), animal or in vitro experiments, analysis of results from other publications, letters, comments, and case reports. This systematic review included 64 publications for MRI and 50 for SLN biopsy. This article includes an abbreviated reference list. SLN Biopsy In the past decade, SLN biopsy has replaced routine axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) for most patients with invasive breast cancer. ALND has not been recommended for patients with DCIS because the preinvasive cells do not metastasize. In 1991, Silverstein et al. (1) reported that less than 1% of patients with DCIS had lymph node metastases detected by ALND. Today, DCIS is usually diagnosed by image-guided core needle biopsy. About 15% of patients with an original diagnosis of DCIS on core needle biopsy will have a final diagnosis of invasive breast cancer after excision or mastectomy (2). The underestimation rates vary considerably among different studies; larger tumor size, presence of a mass, and high nuclear grade are associated with higher underestimation rates. If invasive breast cancer is identified in the excision or mastectomy specimen, axillary staging is recommended to determine prognosis and guide treatment decisions. As a result, some authors recommend SLN biopsy for all or selected patients with DCIS detected with core needle biopsy (3,4). We identified no study that directly evaluated important outcomes for SLN biopsy among patients with DCIS. Thus, if SLN biopsy indirectly affects important outcomes, a substantial proportion of patients with DCIS should have SLN metastases. We performed several analyses to determine the incidence of SLN metastases in different patient populations. Because some patients with an original core needle biopsy of DCIS will have invasive breast cancer identified in the excision or mastectomy specimen, we evaluated the incidence of SLN metastases separately for these two groups (5–32). The incidence of SLN metastases was greater for patients with an original diagnosis (9.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.6% to 12.7%) as compared with those with a final diagnosis (5.0%; 95% CI = 3.6% to 6.8%) of DCIS. Therefore, studies that include patients with an original diagnosis of DCIS report an increased incidence of SLN metastases. DCIS with microinvasion (DCISM) is defined by the American Joint Committee on Cancer as microinvasion 0.1 cm or less in greatest dimension. Some studies evaluating the role of SLN biopsy include DCISM, whereas others include only pure DCIS without microinvasion. Because DCISM may have a higher incidence of SLN metastases, we distinguished DCIS from DCISM in our analysis (5,7–13,15,17,19–25,27–31,33–35). The incidence of SLN metastases was higher for patients with DCISM (9.3%; 95% CI = 6.0% to 14.0%) as compared with those with DCIS (4.8%; 95% CI = 3.4% to 6.7%). The precise definition of SLN metastases is often not clear or uniform in the published studies. The most widely used definition is the American Joint Committee on Cancer classification, which defines lymph node metastases according to the method of detection (immunohistochemistry [IHC]) and metastasis size: pN0(i−), no regional lymph node metastases, negative IHC; pN0(i+), no lymph node metastases histologically, positive IHC (also known as isolated tumor cells); and pN1(mic), micrometastasis (>0.2 mm, none >2 mm). The clinical significance of pN0(i+) and pN1(mic) has not established for patients with invasive breast cancer or DCIS. We evaluated the incidence of SLN metastases among studies that used American Joint Committee on Cancer definitions (12,15,16,24,25,28,29,36). In our analyses, the incidence of pN1 SLN metastases was 0.9% (95% CI = 0.5% to 1.5%). The incidence of pN1(mic) SLN metastases was 1.5% (95% CI = 0.8% to 2.8%). The incidence of pN0(i+) SLN metastases was 4.2% (95% CI = 2.2% to 7.7%). Thus, the incidence of pN1 metastases was very low for patients with pure DCIS. Breast MRI Although DCIS is commonly detected as a small area of microcalcifications on mammography, the disease frequently extends along the ducts and may involve a large portion of the breast with multiple foci. For some patients, mammography can grossly underestimate the extent of DCIS. The treatment of DCIS may be modified by MRI findings, which may lead to wider excisions, unilateral mastectomy, and/or treatment of the contralateral breast. For the purposes of this report, we assume that mammography has been performed and that the diagnosis of DCIS has already been established by either core needle biopsy or excision. So, we analyzed studies that reported the outcomes of breast MRI among patients with established DCIS. For our final analysis, we excluded studies that did not report separate outcomes for patients with DCIS. We identified one study that directly evaluated important outcomes for patients with DCIS after breast MRI (37). In a study that included 136 patients with DCIS treated with breast-conserving surgery plus radiation therapy, Solin et al. evaluated the local recurrence rates according to the use of breast MRI. Breast MRI was used in 36 patients. The local failure rate was 6% in both the MRI and no MRI groups. This study is limited by the retrospective study design and the exclusion of mastectomy patients who underwent MRI. We determined whether MRI indirectly affects important outcomes for patients with DCIS. We analyzed the ability of breast MRI to detect occult multicentric disease (either DCIS or invasive breast cancer). Because the presence of multicentric disease is generally considered a contraindication to breast-conserving surgery, MRI can influence treatment recommendations for some patients. Among patients with DCIS, the sensitivity of detecting multicentric disease was generally higher with MRI than with mammography (38–41). In a study that included 51 patients with DCIS, Hwang et al. (38) reported that the sensitivity of detecting multicentric disease was significantly higher for MRI as compared with mammography (MRI, 94%; mammography, 38%; P < .05). In another study that included 32 patients with DCIS, Menell et al. (39) also reported that the sensitivity of detecting multicentric disease was higher for MRI (MRI, 80%; mammography, 40%; statistical significance not stated). In another study of 86 patients with DCIS, Santamaría et al. (40) reported that the sensitivity of MRI was not significantly better than mammography (MRI, 42%; mammography, 26%; P = .453). Studies by Menell et al. (39) and Hollingsworth and Stough (41) reported that MRI detected occult multicentric disease in 6.3% and 6.3%, of DCIS patients, respectively. Breast MRI can potentially influence treatment decisions by providing more accurate information on the size and extent of the known DCIS. The results of studies comparing mammography with MRI have not been consistent. In a study of 167 patients with DCIS, Kuhl et al. (42) reported that MRI was not better than mammography in determining size. In another study of 24 patients with DCIS, Uematsu et al. (43) reported that MRI was more accurate than mammography in determining extent of DCIS. Several studies have evaluated the overestimation and underestimation rates of MRI in determining DCIS size (40,44–48). The pooled overall overestimation rate was 25.5% (95% CI = 14.2% to 41.4%); the underestimation rate was 23.0% (95% CI = 16.2% to 31.6%). Because current breast MRI technology evaluates both breasts, MRI can potentially identify occult contralateral breast cancer. The overall incidence of MRI-detected occult contralateral breast cancer (either DCIS or invasive breast cancer) was about 5% in four different studies (41,49–51). In the largest study that included 196 patients, Lehman et al. (51) reported that MRI detected occult contralateral breast cancer in five patients (2.6%). Importantly, in this study, MRI findings prompted biopsies of the contralateral breast in 18 patients; only five (28%) were positive. Conclusions The studies evaluating the role of SLN biopsy for DCIS have multiple limitations including retrospective study design, inclusion of highly selected patients, and unclear definition of SLN “metastasis.” Nevertheless, we can conclude that the incidence of pN1(mic) or pN1 SLN metastases is very low for patients with pure DCIS. Therefore, SLN biopsy is not likely to affect important outcomes for most patients with DCIS, especially if excision is planned. The findings of SLN biopsy (isolated “tumor” cells) may lead to overtreatment (ALND, cytotoxic chemotherapy), which may negatively affect patient quality of life. However, SLN should be considered for mastectomy patients because SLN biopsy is not feasible if invasive breast cancer is identified in the mastectomy specimen. Presently, studies reporting outcomes with MRI use specifically for patients with DCIS are limited. Although breast MRI may detect occult multicentric or contralateral breast disease, it may also lead to unnecessary breast biopsy and overtreatment (mastectomy) in some patients. As a result, scientific data are too limited to provide conclusive recommendations for the use of breast MRI for patients with DCIS. References 1. Silverstein MJ,  Gierson ED,  Colburn WJ, et al.  Axillary lymphadenectomy for intraductal carcinoma of the breast,  Surg Gynecol Obstet ,  1991, vol.  172  3(pg.  211- 214) Google Scholar PubMed  2. Huo L,  Sneige N,  Hunt KK, et al.  Predictors of invasion in patients with core-needle biopsy-diagnosed ductal carcinoma in situ and recommendations for a selective approach to sentinel lymph node biopsy in ductal carcinoma in situ,  Cancer ,  2006, vol.  107  8(pg.  1760- 1768) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  3. Cox CE,  Haddad F,  Bass S, et al.  Lymphatic mapping in the treatment of breast cancer,  Oncology ,  1998, vol.  12  9(pg.  1283- 1292) Google Scholar PubMed  4. Klauber-DeMore N,  Tan LK,  Liberman L, et al.  Sentinel lymph node biopsy: is it indicated in patients with high-risk ductal carcinoma-in-situ and ductal carcinoma-in-situ with microinvasion?,  Ann Surg Oncol ,  2000, vol.  7  9(pg.  636- 642) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  5. Maffuz A,  Barroso-Bravo S,  Nájera I, et al.  Tumor size as predictor of microinvasion, invasion, and axillary metastasis in ductal carcinoma in situ,  J Exp Clin Cancer Res. ,  2006, vol.  25  2(pg.  223- 227) Google Scholar PubMed  6. Polom K,  Murawa D,  Wasiewicz J, et al.  The role of sentinel node biopsy in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast,  Eur J Surg Oncol ,  2009, vol.  35  1(pg.  43- 47) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  7. Yi M,  Krishnamurthy S,  Kuerer HM, et al.  Role of primary tumor characteristics in predicting positive sentinel lymph nodes in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ or microinvasive breast cancer,  Am J Surg ,  2008, vol.  196  1(pg.  81- 87) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  8. Liu CL,  Yang TL,  Chen BF.  Sentinel lymph node mapping with emulsion of activated carbon particles in patients with pre-mastectomy diagnosis of intraductal carcinoma of the breast,  J Chin Med Assoc. ,  2003, vol.  66  7(pg.  406- 410) Google Scholar PubMed  9. Mittendorf EA,  Arciero CA,  Gutchell V, et al.  Core biopsy diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ: an indication for sentinel lymph node biopsy,  Curr Surg ,  2005, vol.  62  2(pg.  253- 257) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  10. Camp R,  Feezor R,  Kasraeian A, et al.  Sentinel lymph node biopsy for ductal carcinoma in situ: an evolving approach at the University of Florida,  Breast J , vol.  11  6(pg.  394- 397) CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  11. Fraile M,  Gubern JM,  Rull M, et al.  Is it possible to refine the indication for sentinel node biopsy in high-risk ductal carcinoma in situ?,  Nucl Med Commun ,  2006, vol.  27  10(pg.  785- 789) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  12. Tan JC,  McCready DR,  Easson AM,  Leong WL.  Role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in ductal carcinoma-in-situ treated by mastectomy,  Ann Surg Oncol ,  2007, vol.  14  2(pg.  638- 645) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  13. Moran CJ,  Kell MR,  Flanagan FL, et al.  Role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in high-risk ductal carcinoma in situ patients,  Am J Surg ,  2007, vol.  194  2(pg.  172- 175) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  14. van la Parra RF,  Ernst MF,  Barneveld PC, et al.  The value of sentinel lymph node biopsy in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and DCIS with microinvasion of the breast,  Eur J Surg Oncol ,  2008, vol.  34  6(pg.  631- 635) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  15. Dominguez FJ,  Golshan M,  Black DM, et al.  Sentinel node biopsy is important in mastectomy for ductal carcinoma in situ,  Ann Surg Oncol ,  2008, vol.  15  1(pg.  268- 273) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  16. Sakr R,  Barranger E,  Antoine M, et al.  Ductal carcinoma in situ: value of sentinel lymph node biopsy,  J Surg Oncol ,  2006, vol.  94  5(pg.  426- 430) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  17. Meijnen P,  Oldenburg HS,  Loo CE, et al.  Risk of invasion and axillary lymph node metastasis in ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed by core-needle biopsy,  Br J Surg ,  2007, vol.  94  8(pg.  952- 956) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  18. Murphy CD,  Jones JL,  Javid SH, et al.  Do sentinel node micrometastases predict recurrence risk in ductal carcinoma in situ and ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion?,  Am J Surg ,  2008, vol.  196  4(pg.  566- 568) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  19. Wilkie C,  White L,  Dupont E, et al.  An update of sentinel lymph node mapping in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ,  Am J Surg ,  2005, vol.  190  4(pg.  563- 566) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  20. Kelly TA,  Kim JA,  Patrick R, et al.  Axillary lymph node metastases in patients with a final diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ,  Am J Surg ,  2003, vol.  186  4(pg.  368- 370) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  21. Farkas EA,  Stolier AJ,  Teng SC, et al.  An argument against routine sentinel node mapping for DCIS,  Am Surg ,  2004, vol.  70  1(pg.  13- 17) Google Scholar PubMed  22. Trisal V,  Qian D,  Wagman LD.  Axillary recurrence in DCIS: is axillary lymphadenectomy warranted?,  Am Surg ,  2004, vol.  70  10(pg.  876- 880) Google Scholar PubMed  23. Zavagno G,  Carcoforo P,  Marconato R, et al.  Role of axillary sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with pure ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast,  BMC Cancer ,  2005, vol.  5 pg.  28  Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  24. Katz A,  Gage I,  Evans S, et al.  Sentinel lymph node positivity of patients with ductal carcinoma in situ or microinvasive breast cancer,  Am J Surg ,  2006, vol.  191  6(pg.  761- 766) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  25. Leidenius M,  Salmenkivi K,  von Smitten K,  Heikkilä P.  Tumour-positive sentinel node findings in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ,  J Surg Oncol ,  2006, vol.  94  5(pg.  380- 384) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  26. Mabry H,  Giuliano AE,  Silverstein MJ.  What is the value of axillary dissection or sentinel node biopsy in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ?,  Am J Surg ,  2006, vol.  192  4(pg.  455- 457) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  27. Barros AC,  Barros MA,  Andrade FE, et al.  Combined radioguided nonpalpable lesion localization and sentinel lymph node biopsy for early breast carcinoma,  Ann Surg Oncol ,  2007, vol.  14  4(pg.  1472- 1477) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  28. Genta F,  Zanon E,  Camanni M, et al.  Cost/accuracy ratio analysis in breast cancer patients undergoing ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology, sentinel node biopsy, and frozen section of node,  World J Surg ,  2007, vol.  31  6(pg.  1155- 1163) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  29. Moore KH,  Sweeney KJ,  Wilson ME, et al.  Outcomes for women with ductal carcinoma-in-situ and a positive sentinel node: a multi-institutional audit,  Ann Surg Oncol ,  2007, vol.  14  10(pg.  2911- 2917) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  30. Tunon-de-Lara C,  Giard S,  Buttarelli M, et al.  Sentinel node procedure is warranted in ductal carcinoma in situ with high risk of occult invasive carcinoma and microinvasive carcinoma treated by mastectomy,  Breast J ,  2008, vol.  14  2(pg.  135- 140) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  31. Sakr R,  Bezu C,  Raoust I, et al.  The sentinel lymph node procedure for patients with preoperative diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ: risk factors for unsuspected invasive disease and for metastatic sentinel lymph nodes,  Int J Clin Pract ,  2008, vol.  62  11(pg.  1730- 1735) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  32. Rahusen FD,  Meijer S,  Taets van Amerongen AH, et al.  Sentinel node biopsy for nonpalpable breast tumors requires a preoperative diagnosis of invasive breast cancer,  Breast J ,  2003, vol.  9  5(pg.  380- 384) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  33. Wong SL,  Chao C,  Edwards MJ, et al.  Frequency of sentinel lymph node metastases in patients with favorable breast cancer histologic subtypes,  Am J Surg ,  2002, vol.  184  6(pg.  442- 448) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   34. Zavagno G,  Belardinelli V,  Marconato R, et al.  Sentinel lymph node metastasis from mammary ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion,  Breast ,  2007, vol.  16  2(pg.  146- 151) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  35. Gray RJ,  Mulheron B,  Pockaj BA, et al.  The optimal management of the axillae of patients with microinvasive breast cancer in the sentinel lymph node era,  Am J Surg ,  2007, vol.  194  6(pg.  845- 848) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  36. Intra M,  Rotmensz N,  Veronesi P, et al.  Sentinel node biopsy is not a standard procedure in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: the experience of the European institute of oncology on 854 patients in 10 years,  Ann Surg ,  2008, vol.  247  2(pg.  315- 319) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  37. Solin LJ,  Orel SG,  Hwang WT, et al.  Relationship of breast magnetic resonance imaging to outcome after breast-conservation treatment with radiation for women with early-stage invasive breast carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ,  J Clin Oncol ,  2008, vol.  26  3(pg.  386- 391) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  38. Hwang ES,  Kinkel K,  Esserman LJ, et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging in patients diagnosed with ductal carcinoma-in-situ: value in the diagnosis of residual disease, occult invasion, and multicentricity,  Ann Surg Oncol ,  2003, vol.  10  4(pg.  381- 388) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  39. Menell JH,  Morris EA,  Dershaw DD, et al.  Determination of the presence and extent of pure ductal carcinoma in situ by mammography and magnetic resonance imaging,  Breast J ,  2005, vol.  11  6(pg.  382- 390) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  40. Santamaría G,  Velasco M,  Farrús B, et al.  Preoperative MRI of pure intraductal breast carcinoma—a valuable adjunct to mammography in assessing cancer extent,  Breast ,  2008, vol.  17  2(pg.  186- 194) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  41. Hollingsworth AB,  Stough RG.  Preoperative breast MRI for locoregional staging,  J Okla State Med Assoc. ,  2006, vol.  99  10(pg.  505- 515) Google Scholar PubMed  42. Kuhl CK,  Schrading S,  Bieling HB, et al.  MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study,  Lancet ,  2007, vol.  370  9586(pg.  485- 492) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  43. Uematsu T,  Yuen S,  Kasami M,  Uchida Y.  Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging, multidetector row computed tomography, ultrasonography, and mammography for tumor extension of breast cancer,  Breast Cancer Res Treat ,  2008, vol.  112  3(pg.  461- 474) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  44. Shiraishi A,  Kurosaki Y,  Maehara T, et al.  Extension of ductal carcinoma in situ: histopathological association with MR imaging and mammography,  Magn Reson Med Sci. ,  2003, vol.  2  4(pg.  159- 163) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  45. Onesti JK,  Mangus BE,  Helmer SD,  Osland JS.  Breast cancer tumor size: correlation between magnetic resonance imaging and pathology measurements,  Am J Surg ,  2008, vol.  196  6(pg.  844- 848) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  46. Esserman LJ,  Kumar AS,  Herrera AF, et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging captures the biology of ductal carcinoma in situ,  J Clin Oncol ,  2006, vol.  24  28(pg.  4603- 4610) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  47. Schouten van der Velden AP,  Boetes C,  Bult P,  Wobbes T.  The value of magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis and size assessment of in situ and small invasive breast carcinoma,  Am J Surg ,  2006, vol.  192  2(pg.  172- 178) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  48. Kim do Y,  Moon WK,  Cho N, et al.  MRI of the breast for the detection and assessment of the size of ductal carcinoma in situ,  Korean J Radiol ,  2007, vol.  8  1(pg.  32- 39) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  49. Liberman L,  Morris EA,  Kim CM, et al.  MR imaging findings in the contralateral breast of women with recently diagnosed breast cancer,  Am J Roentgenol ,  2003, vol.  180  2(pg.  333- 341) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   50. Pediconi F,  Venditti F,  Padula S, et al.  CE-magnetic resonance mammography for the evaluation of the contralateral breast in patients with diagnosed breast cancer,  Radiol Med ,  2005, vol.  110  1–2(pg.  61- 68) Google Scholar PubMed  51. 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, vol.  356  13(pg.  1295- 1303) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  © The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png JNCI Monographs Oxford University Press

The Impact of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy and Magnetic Resonance Imaging on Important Outcomes Among Patients With Ductal Carcinoma In Situ

Download PDF
4 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/oxford-university-press/the-impact-of-sentinel-lymph-node-biopsy-and-magnetic-resonance-HvUTEi7HOI

References (52)

Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press.
ISSN
1052-6773
eISSN
1745-6614
DOI
10.1093/jncimonographs/lgq023
pmid
20956814
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract The objective of this systematic review was to determine the impact of sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) on important outcomes for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. We identified no study that directly evaluated important outcomes for SLN biopsy. So, we determined the incidence of SLN metastases among patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. Using American Joint Committee on Cancer criteria, the incidence of pN1 and pN1(mic) SLN metastases were 0.9% and 1.5%, respectively. Because the incidence of SLN metastasis is very low, SLN biopsy is not likely to affect important outcomes. We identified one study that directly evaluated important outcomes after breast MRI. In this study, the use of MRI did not affect local recurrence rates after breast-conserving surgery and radiation. Although MRI may identify occult multicentric or contralateral breast cancer in some patients, it may also lead to unnecessary biopsies and overtreatment. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the impact of sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) on important outcomes for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Important oncological outcomes usually include cancer-specific survival rates, cancer recurrence rates, and health-related quality of life. We found few studies that directly evaluated important outcomes with SLN biopsy or MRI. Methods Studies were sought from a wide variety of sources, including MEDLINE via PubMed, Scirus, Cochrane databases, Web sites of the Sloane Project and of the International Breast Cancer Screening Network, and manual searches of reference lists from systematic reviews and consensus conferences. We included articles published from 1965 through January 31, 2009. We searched MESH headings, titles, and abstracts for the terms Ductal Carcinoma In Situ, DCIS, noninfiltrating intraductal carcinoma, carcinoma in situ, intraductal carcinoma, ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast, localized breast cancer, and stage 0 breast cancer. We excluded studies of invasive breast cancer only, non-breast ductal cancers (eg, pancreatic ductal cancer), animal or in vitro experiments, analysis of results from other publications, letters, comments, and case reports. This systematic review included 64 publications for MRI and 50 for SLN biopsy. This article includes an abbreviated reference list. SLN Biopsy In the past decade, SLN biopsy has replaced routine axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) for most patients with invasive breast cancer. ALND has not been recommended for patients with DCIS because the preinvasive cells do not metastasize. In 1991, Silverstein et al. (1) reported that less than 1% of patients with DCIS had lymph node metastases detected by ALND. Today, DCIS is usually diagnosed by image-guided core needle biopsy. About 15% of patients with an original diagnosis of DCIS on core needle biopsy will have a final diagnosis of invasive breast cancer after excision or mastectomy (2). The underestimation rates vary considerably among different studies; larger tumor size, presence of a mass, and high nuclear grade are associated with higher underestimation rates. If invasive breast cancer is identified in the excision or mastectomy specimen, axillary staging is recommended to determine prognosis and guide treatment decisions. As a result, some authors recommend SLN biopsy for all or selected patients with DCIS detected with core needle biopsy (3,4). We identified no study that directly evaluated important outcomes for SLN biopsy among patients with DCIS. Thus, if SLN biopsy indirectly affects important outcomes, a substantial proportion of patients with DCIS should have SLN metastases. We performed several analyses to determine the incidence of SLN metastases in different patient populations. Because some patients with an original core needle biopsy of DCIS will have invasive breast cancer identified in the excision or mastectomy specimen, we evaluated the incidence of SLN metastases separately for these two groups (5–32). The incidence of SLN metastases was greater for patients with an original diagnosis (9.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.6% to 12.7%) as compared with those with a final diagnosis (5.0%; 95% CI = 3.6% to 6.8%) of DCIS. Therefore, studies that include patients with an original diagnosis of DCIS report an increased incidence of SLN metastases. DCIS with microinvasion (DCISM) is defined by the American Joint Committee on Cancer as microinvasion 0.1 cm or less in greatest dimension. Some studies evaluating the role of SLN biopsy include DCISM, whereas others include only pure DCIS without microinvasion. Because DCISM may have a higher incidence of SLN metastases, we distinguished DCIS from DCISM in our analysis (5,7–13,15,17,19–25,27–31,33–35). The incidence of SLN metastases was higher for patients with DCISM (9.3%; 95% CI = 6.0% to 14.0%) as compared with those with DCIS (4.8%; 95% CI = 3.4% to 6.7%). The precise definition of SLN metastases is often not clear or uniform in the published studies. The most widely used definition is the American Joint Committee on Cancer classification, which defines lymph node metastases according to the method of detection (immunohistochemistry [IHC]) and metastasis size: pN0(i−), no regional lymph node metastases, negative IHC; pN0(i+), no lymph node metastases histologically, positive IHC (also known as isolated tumor cells); and pN1(mic), micrometastasis (>0.2 mm, none >2 mm). The clinical significance of pN0(i+) and pN1(mic) has not established for patients with invasive breast cancer or DCIS. We evaluated the incidence of SLN metastases among studies that used American Joint Committee on Cancer definitions (12,15,16,24,25,28,29,36). In our analyses, the incidence of pN1 SLN metastases was 0.9% (95% CI = 0.5% to 1.5%). The incidence of pN1(mic) SLN metastases was 1.5% (95% CI = 0.8% to 2.8%). The incidence of pN0(i+) SLN metastases was 4.2% (95% CI = 2.2% to 7.7%). Thus, the incidence of pN1 metastases was very low for patients with pure DCIS. Breast MRI Although DCIS is commonly detected as a small area of microcalcifications on mammography, the disease frequently extends along the ducts and may involve a large portion of the breast with multiple foci. For some patients, mammography can grossly underestimate the extent of DCIS. The treatment of DCIS may be modified by MRI findings, which may lead to wider excisions, unilateral mastectomy, and/or treatment of the contralateral breast. For the purposes of this report, we assume that mammography has been performed and that the diagnosis of DCIS has already been established by either core needle biopsy or excision. So, we analyzed studies that reported the outcomes of breast MRI among patients with established DCIS. For our final analysis, we excluded studies that did not report separate outcomes for patients with DCIS. We identified one study that directly evaluated important outcomes for patients with DCIS after breast MRI (37). In a study that included 136 patients with DCIS treated with breast-conserving surgery plus radiation therapy, Solin et al. evaluated the local recurrence rates according to the use of breast MRI. Breast MRI was used in 36 patients. The local failure rate was 6% in both the MRI and no MRI groups. This study is limited by the retrospective study design and the exclusion of mastectomy patients who underwent MRI. We determined whether MRI indirectly affects important outcomes for patients with DCIS. We analyzed the ability of breast MRI to detect occult multicentric disease (either DCIS or invasive breast cancer). Because the presence of multicentric disease is generally considered a contraindication to breast-conserving surgery, MRI can influence treatment recommendations for some patients. Among patients with DCIS, the sensitivity of detecting multicentric disease was generally higher with MRI than with mammography (38–41). In a study that included 51 patients with DCIS, Hwang et al. (38) reported that the sensitivity of detecting multicentric disease was significantly higher for MRI as compared with mammography (MRI, 94%; mammography, 38%; P < .05). In another study that included 32 patients with DCIS, Menell et al. (39) also reported that the sensitivity of detecting multicentric disease was higher for MRI (MRI, 80%; mammography, 40%; statistical significance not stated). In another study of 86 patients with DCIS, Santamaría et al. (40) reported that the sensitivity of MRI was not significantly better than mammography (MRI, 42%; mammography, 26%; P = .453). Studies by Menell et al. (39) and Hollingsworth and Stough (41) reported that MRI detected occult multicentric disease in 6.3% and 6.3%, of DCIS patients, respectively. Breast MRI can potentially influence treatment decisions by providing more accurate information on the size and extent of the known DCIS. The results of studies comparing mammography with MRI have not been consistent. In a study of 167 patients with DCIS, Kuhl et al. (42) reported that MRI was not better than mammography in determining size. In another study of 24 patients with DCIS, Uematsu et al. (43) reported that MRI was more accurate than mammography in determining extent of DCIS. Several studies have evaluated the overestimation and underestimation rates of MRI in determining DCIS size (40,44–48). The pooled overall overestimation rate was 25.5% (95% CI = 14.2% to 41.4%); the underestimation rate was 23.0% (95% CI = 16.2% to 31.6%). Because current breast MRI technology evaluates both breasts, MRI can potentially identify occult contralateral breast cancer. The overall incidence of MRI-detected occult contralateral breast cancer (either DCIS or invasive breast cancer) was about 5% in four different studies (41,49–51). In the largest study that included 196 patients, Lehman et al. (51) reported that MRI detected occult contralateral breast cancer in five patients (2.6%). Importantly, in this study, MRI findings prompted biopsies of the contralateral breast in 18 patients; only five (28%) were positive. Conclusions The studies evaluating the role of SLN biopsy for DCIS have multiple limitations including retrospective study design, inclusion of highly selected patients, and unclear definition of SLN “metastasis.” Nevertheless, we can conclude that the incidence of pN1(mic) or pN1 SLN metastases is very low for patients with pure DCIS. Therefore, SLN biopsy is not likely to affect important outcomes for most patients with DCIS, especially if excision is planned. The findings of SLN biopsy (isolated “tumor” cells) may lead to overtreatment (ALND, cytotoxic chemotherapy), which may negatively affect patient quality of life. However, SLN should be considered for mastectomy patients because SLN biopsy is not feasible if invasive breast cancer is identified in the mastectomy specimen. Presently, studies reporting outcomes with MRI use specifically for patients with DCIS are limited. Although breast MRI may detect occult multicentric or contralateral breast disease, it may also lead to unnecessary breast biopsy and overtreatment (mastectomy) in some patients. As a result, scientific data are too limited to provide conclusive recommendations for the use of breast MRI for patients with DCIS. References 1. Silverstein MJ,  Gierson ED,  Colburn WJ, et al.  Axillary lymphadenectomy for intraductal carcinoma of the breast,  Surg Gynecol Obstet ,  1991, vol.  172  3(pg.  211- 214) Google Scholar PubMed  2. Huo L,  Sneige N,  Hunt KK, et al.  Predictors of invasion in patients with core-needle biopsy-diagnosed ductal carcinoma in situ and recommendations for a selective approach to sentinel lymph node biopsy in ductal carcinoma in situ,  Cancer ,  2006, vol.  107  8(pg.  1760- 1768) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  3. Cox CE,  Haddad F,  Bass S, et al.  Lymphatic mapping in the treatment of breast cancer,  Oncology ,  1998, vol.  12  9(pg.  1283- 1292) Google Scholar PubMed  4. Klauber-DeMore N,  Tan LK,  Liberman L, et al.  Sentinel lymph node biopsy: is it indicated in patients with high-risk ductal carcinoma-in-situ and ductal carcinoma-in-situ with microinvasion?,  Ann Surg Oncol ,  2000, vol.  7  9(pg.  636- 642) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  5. Maffuz A,  Barroso-Bravo S,  Nájera I, et al.  Tumor size as predictor of microinvasion, invasion, and axillary metastasis in ductal carcinoma in situ,  J Exp Clin Cancer Res. ,  2006, vol.  25  2(pg.  223- 227) Google Scholar PubMed  6. Polom K,  Murawa D,  Wasiewicz J, et al.  The role of sentinel node biopsy in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast,  Eur J Surg Oncol ,  2009, vol.  35  1(pg.  43- 47) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  7. Yi M,  Krishnamurthy S,  Kuerer HM, et al.  Role of primary tumor characteristics in predicting positive sentinel lymph nodes in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ or microinvasive breast cancer,  Am J Surg ,  2008, vol.  196  1(pg.  81- 87) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  8. Liu CL,  Yang TL,  Chen BF.  Sentinel lymph node mapping with emulsion of activated carbon particles in patients with pre-mastectomy diagnosis of intraductal carcinoma of the breast,  J Chin Med Assoc. ,  2003, vol.  66  7(pg.  406- 410) Google Scholar PubMed  9. Mittendorf EA,  Arciero CA,  Gutchell V, et al.  Core biopsy diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ: an indication for sentinel lymph node biopsy,  Curr Surg ,  2005, vol.  62  2(pg.  253- 257) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  10. Camp R,  Feezor R,  Kasraeian A, et al.  Sentinel lymph node biopsy for ductal carcinoma in situ: an evolving approach at the University of Florida,  Breast J , vol.  11  6(pg.  394- 397) CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  11. Fraile M,  Gubern JM,  Rull M, et al.  Is it possible to refine the indication for sentinel node biopsy in high-risk ductal carcinoma in situ?,  Nucl Med Commun ,  2006, vol.  27  10(pg.  785- 789) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  12. Tan JC,  McCready DR,  Easson AM,  Leong WL.  Role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in ductal carcinoma-in-situ treated by mastectomy,  Ann Surg Oncol ,  2007, vol.  14  2(pg.  638- 645) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  13. Moran CJ,  Kell MR,  Flanagan FL, et al.  Role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in high-risk ductal carcinoma in situ patients,  Am J Surg ,  2007, vol.  194  2(pg.  172- 175) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  14. van la Parra RF,  Ernst MF,  Barneveld PC, et al.  The value of sentinel lymph node biopsy in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and DCIS with microinvasion of the breast,  Eur J Surg Oncol ,  2008, vol.  34  6(pg.  631- 635) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  15. Dominguez FJ,  Golshan M,  Black DM, et al.  Sentinel node biopsy is important in mastectomy for ductal carcinoma in situ,  Ann Surg Oncol ,  2008, vol.  15  1(pg.  268- 273) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  16. Sakr R,  Barranger E,  Antoine M, et al.  Ductal carcinoma in situ: value of sentinel lymph node biopsy,  J Surg Oncol ,  2006, vol.  94  5(pg.  426- 430) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  17. Meijnen P,  Oldenburg HS,  Loo CE, et al.  Risk of invasion and axillary lymph node metastasis in ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed by core-needle biopsy,  Br J Surg ,  2007, vol.  94  8(pg.  952- 956) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  18. Murphy CD,  Jones JL,  Javid SH, et al.  Do sentinel node micrometastases predict recurrence risk in ductal carcinoma in situ and ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion?,  Am J Surg ,  2008, vol.  196  4(pg.  566- 568) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  19. Wilkie C,  White L,  Dupont E, et al.  An update of sentinel lymph node mapping in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ,  Am J Surg ,  2005, vol.  190  4(pg.  563- 566) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  20. Kelly TA,  Kim JA,  Patrick R, et al.  Axillary lymph node metastases in patients with a final diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ,  Am J Surg ,  2003, vol.  186  4(pg.  368- 370) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  21. Farkas EA,  Stolier AJ,  Teng SC, et al.  An argument against routine sentinel node mapping for DCIS,  Am Surg ,  2004, vol.  70  1(pg.  13- 17) Google Scholar PubMed  22. Trisal V,  Qian D,  Wagman LD.  Axillary recurrence in DCIS: is axillary lymphadenectomy warranted?,  Am Surg ,  2004, vol.  70  10(pg.  876- 880) Google Scholar PubMed  23. Zavagno G,  Carcoforo P,  Marconato R, et al.  Role of axillary sentinel lymph node biopsy in patients with pure ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast,  BMC Cancer ,  2005, vol.  5 pg.  28  Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  24. Katz A,  Gage I,  Evans S, et al.  Sentinel lymph node positivity of patients with ductal carcinoma in situ or microinvasive breast cancer,  Am J Surg ,  2006, vol.  191  6(pg.  761- 766) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  25. Leidenius M,  Salmenkivi K,  von Smitten K,  Heikkilä P.  Tumour-positive sentinel node findings in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ,  J Surg Oncol ,  2006, vol.  94  5(pg.  380- 384) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  26. Mabry H,  Giuliano AE,  Silverstein MJ.  What is the value of axillary dissection or sentinel node biopsy in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ?,  Am J Surg ,  2006, vol.  192  4(pg.  455- 457) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  27. Barros AC,  Barros MA,  Andrade FE, et al.  Combined radioguided nonpalpable lesion localization and sentinel lymph node biopsy for early breast carcinoma,  Ann Surg Oncol ,  2007, vol.  14  4(pg.  1472- 1477) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  28. Genta F,  Zanon E,  Camanni M, et al.  Cost/accuracy ratio analysis in breast cancer patients undergoing ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology, sentinel node biopsy, and frozen section of node,  World J Surg ,  2007, vol.  31  6(pg.  1155- 1163) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  29. Moore KH,  Sweeney KJ,  Wilson ME, et al.  Outcomes for women with ductal carcinoma-in-situ and a positive sentinel node: a multi-institutional audit,  Ann Surg Oncol ,  2007, vol.  14  10(pg.  2911- 2917) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  30. Tunon-de-Lara C,  Giard S,  Buttarelli M, et al.  Sentinel node procedure is warranted in ductal carcinoma in situ with high risk of occult invasive carcinoma and microinvasive carcinoma treated by mastectomy,  Breast J ,  2008, vol.  14  2(pg.  135- 140) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  31. Sakr R,  Bezu C,  Raoust I, et al.  The sentinel lymph node procedure for patients with preoperative diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ: risk factors for unsuspected invasive disease and for metastatic sentinel lymph nodes,  Int J Clin Pract ,  2008, vol.  62  11(pg.  1730- 1735) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  32. Rahusen FD,  Meijer S,  Taets van Amerongen AH, et al.  Sentinel node biopsy for nonpalpable breast tumors requires a preoperative diagnosis of invasive breast cancer,  Breast J ,  2003, vol.  9  5(pg.  380- 384) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  33. Wong SL,  Chao C,  Edwards MJ, et al.  Frequency of sentinel lymph node metastases in patients with favorable breast cancer histologic subtypes,  Am J Surg ,  2002, vol.  184  6(pg.  442- 448) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   34. Zavagno G,  Belardinelli V,  Marconato R, et al.  Sentinel lymph node metastasis from mammary ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion,  Breast ,  2007, vol.  16  2(pg.  146- 151) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  35. Gray RJ,  Mulheron B,  Pockaj BA, et al.  The optimal management of the axillae of patients with microinvasive breast cancer in the sentinel lymph node era,  Am J Surg ,  2007, vol.  194  6(pg.  845- 848) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  36. Intra M,  Rotmensz N,  Veronesi P, et al.  Sentinel node biopsy is not a standard procedure in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: the experience of the European institute of oncology on 854 patients in 10 years,  Ann Surg ,  2008, vol.  247  2(pg.  315- 319) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  37. Solin LJ,  Orel SG,  Hwang WT, et al.  Relationship of breast magnetic resonance imaging to outcome after breast-conservation treatment with radiation for women with early-stage invasive breast carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ,  J Clin Oncol ,  2008, vol.  26  3(pg.  386- 391) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  38. Hwang ES,  Kinkel K,  Esserman LJ, et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging in patients diagnosed with ductal carcinoma-in-situ: value in the diagnosis of residual disease, occult invasion, and multicentricity,  Ann Surg Oncol ,  2003, vol.  10  4(pg.  381- 388) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  39. Menell JH,  Morris EA,  Dershaw DD, et al.  Determination of the presence and extent of pure ductal carcinoma in situ by mammography and magnetic resonance imaging,  Breast J ,  2005, vol.  11  6(pg.  382- 390) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  40. Santamaría G,  Velasco M,  Farrús B, et al.  Preoperative MRI of pure intraductal breast carcinoma—a valuable adjunct to mammography in assessing cancer extent,  Breast ,  2008, vol.  17  2(pg.  186- 194) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  41. Hollingsworth AB,  Stough RG.  Preoperative breast MRI for locoregional staging,  J Okla State Med Assoc. ,  2006, vol.  99  10(pg.  505- 515) Google Scholar PubMed  42. Kuhl CK,  Schrading S,  Bieling HB, et al.  MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study,  Lancet ,  2007, vol.  370  9586(pg.  485- 492) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  43. Uematsu T,  Yuen S,  Kasami M,  Uchida Y.  Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging, multidetector row computed tomography, ultrasonography, and mammography for tumor extension of breast cancer,  Breast Cancer Res Treat ,  2008, vol.  112  3(pg.  461- 474) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  44. Shiraishi A,  Kurosaki Y,  Maehara T, et al.  Extension of ductal carcinoma in situ: histopathological association with MR imaging and mammography,  Magn Reson Med Sci. ,  2003, vol.  2  4(pg.  159- 163) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  45. Onesti JK,  Mangus BE,  Helmer SD,  Osland JS.  Breast cancer tumor size: correlation between magnetic resonance imaging and pathology measurements,  Am J Surg ,  2008, vol.  196  6(pg.  844- 848) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  46. Esserman LJ,  Kumar AS,  Herrera AF, et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging captures the biology of ductal carcinoma in situ,  J Clin Oncol ,  2006, vol.  24  28(pg.  4603- 4610) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  47. Schouten van der Velden AP,  Boetes C,  Bult P,  Wobbes T.  The value of magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis and size assessment of in situ and small invasive breast carcinoma,  Am J Surg ,  2006, vol.  192  2(pg.  172- 178) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  48. Kim do Y,  Moon WK,  Cho N, et al.  MRI of the breast for the detection and assessment of the size of ductal carcinoma in situ,  Korean J Radiol ,  2007, vol.  8  1(pg.  32- 39) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  49. Liberman L,  Morris EA,  Kim CM, et al.  MR imaging findings in the contralateral breast of women with recently diagnosed breast cancer,  Am J Roentgenol ,  2003, vol.  180  2(pg.  333- 341) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS   50. Pediconi F,  Venditti F,  Padula S, et al.  CE-magnetic resonance mammography for the evaluation of the contralateral breast in patients with diagnosed breast cancer,  Radiol Med ,  2005, vol.  110  1–2(pg.  61- 68) Google Scholar PubMed  51. 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, vol.  356  13(pg.  1295- 1303) Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  © The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press.

Journal

JNCI Monographs – Oxford University Press

Published: Oct 1, 2010

There are no references for this article.