Preoperative MRI of the breasts has been proven to be the most sensitive imaging modality in the detection of multifocal or multicentric tumor manifestations as well as simultaneous contralateral breast cancer. The aim of the presented retrospective study was to evaluate the benefit of preoperative MRI for patients with breast cancer. Preoperative MRI performed in 121 patients (group A) were compared to 225 patients without preoperative MRI (group B). Patients of group A underwent contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast using a 2D FLASH sequence technique (TR/TE/FA 336 ms/5 ms/90°; 32 slices of 4-mm thickness, time of acquisition 1:27 min, contrast agent dosage 0.1 mmol Gd-DTPA/kg bw). All patients had histologically verified breast cancer and follow-up for more than 20 months (mean time group A: 40.3 months, group B: 41 months). Both groups received the same types of systemic treatment after breast conserving surgery. The in-breast tumor recurrence rate in group A was 1/86 (1.2%) compared to 9/133 (6.8%) in group B. Contralateral carcinoma were detected within follow-up in 2/121 (1.7%) in group A vs. 9/225 (4%) in group B. All results were statistically significant (P<0.001). Based on these results, preoperative MRI of the breasts is recommended in patients with histopathologically verified breast cancer for local staging.

The objective of this study was to compare screen-film mammography (SFM) to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) regarding image quality as well as detectability and characterization of lesions using equivalent images of the same patient acquired with both systems. Two mammography units were used, one with a screen-film system (Senographe DMR) and the other with a digital detector (Senographe 2000D, both GEMS). Screen-film and digital mammograms were performed on 55 patients with cytologically or histologically proven tumors on the same day. Together with these, 75 digital mammograms of patients without tumor and the corresponding previous screen-film mammograms not older than 1.5 years were reviewed by three observers in a random order. Contrast, exposure, and the presence of artifacts were evaluated. Different details, such as the skin, the retromamillary region, and the parenchymal structures, were judged according to a three-point ranking scale. Finally, the detectability of microcalcifications and lesions were compared and correlated to histology. Image contrast was judged to be good in 76%, satisfactory in 20%, and unsatisfactory in 4% of screen-film mammograms. Digital mammograms were judged to be good in 99% and unsatisfactory in 1% of cases. Improper exposure of screen-film system occurred in 18% (10% overexposed and 8% underexposed). Digital mammograms were improperly exposed in 4% of all cases but were of acceptable quality after post-processing. Artifacts, most of them of no significance, were found in 78% of screen-film and in none of the digital mammograms. Different anatomical regions, such as the skin, the retromamillary region, and dense parenchymal areas, were better visualized in digital than in screen-film mammography. All malignant tumors were seen by the three radiologists; however, digital mammograms allowed a better characterization of these lesions to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS;) [corrected] categories (FFDM better than SFM in 23 of 165 vs 9 of 165 judged cases in SFM). In conclusion, digital mammography offers a consistent, high image quality in combination with a better contrast and without artifacts. Lesion detection in digital images was equal to that in screen-film images; however, categorization of the lesions to the BI-RADS classification was slightly better.

The goal of this prospective study was to compare a fullfield digital mammography system (FFDM) to a conventional screenfilm mammography system (SFM) for the detection and characterization of microcalcifications. Fifty-five patients with 57 isolated microcalcification clusters were examined using a FFDM system (Senographe 2000D, GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee, Wis.) and a SFM system (Senographe DMR, GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee, Wis.). A conventional screen-film mammogram and a digital contact mammogram were obtained of each cluster. The image quality and the number of calcification particles were evaluated, and a characterization (BI-RADS 1-5) of microcalcifications was given by four experienced readers. Histopathology revealed 16 benign lesions (sclerosing adenosis, dysplasia, hamartoma, radial scar) in 15 patients and 21 malignant tumors (in situ car-cinoma, invasive carcinoma) in 20 patients. Twenty patients had benign changes verified by long-term follow-up. Image quality of FFDM was assessed as superior to SFM in more than 50% of the cases. The FFDM showed more calcifications in 41% of all cases. Sensitivity and specificity for FFDM vs SFM were 95.2 vs 91.9% and 41.4 vs 39.3%, respectively. Moreover, FFDM demonstrated a higher diagnostic accuracy (deviation: 0.86 BI-RADS steps) compared with FSM (deviation 0.93 BI-RADS steps). The FFDM system with a 100-µm pixel size provides better image quality than SFM in patients with mammographic microcalcifications. The FFDM has a higher sensitivity and a higher reliability in characterizing microcalcifications.

In a retrospective study of 400 dynamic MR examinations of the breast the signal/time ratio of 62 histopathologically correlated lesions (19 benign, 42 malignant) was evaluated. Points of evaluation were initial signal enhancement (1st and 2nd minute), post-initial signal appearance (2nd to 5th minute) and signal distribution (homogeneous, marginal). Based on these criteria, a point system was defined to help in the assessment of lesions in dynamic breast-MR imaging. The overall sensitivity of this method was 95.3%, the specificity to 89.5% and the accuracy to 93.5%. Pitfalls resulted in two cases of non-invasive carcinoma and in two patients with fibroadenoma.

In a long-term follow-up study, prolactin levels were measured in 149 patients with advanced metastatic breast cancer. Control groups included 221 patients with primary operable breast cancer and 150 women with benign breast disease. Hyperprolactinemia (greater than 1,000 mIU/I; HYPRL) occurs in 44% of patients with metastatic breast cancer in the course of the disease (p less than 0.001 compared to patients with non-metastatic disease). HYPRL is associated with progressive breast cancer in 88% of cases. In patients experiencing several episodes of disease remission and relapse, incidence of HYPRL increases with each relapse. Prolactin blood levels return to normal if hyperprolactinemic patients experience remission after chemotherapy. Patients expressing HYPRL have a shorter survival time after mastectomy when compared to patients who never developed HYPRL (154/89 months, p = 0.01). It is concluded that HYPRL is of prognostic significance and a reliable indicator of progressive disease in advanced metastatic breast cancer.