You're using an outdated browser. Please upgrade to a modern browser for the best experience.
Submitted Successfully!
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic. For video creation, please contact our Academic Video Service.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1 Danielle Wenger -- 4006 2023-03-10 23:08:22 |
2 format correction Dean Liu Meta information modification 4006 2023-03-17 01:50:37 |

Video Upload Options

We provide professional Academic Video Service to translate complex research into visually appealing presentations. Would you like to try it?
No, upload directly Yes

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Pereslucha, A.M.; Wenger, D.M.; Morris, M.F.; Aydi, Z.B. Invasive Lobular Carcinoma: A Review of Imaging Modalities. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/42094 (accessed on 05 December 2025).
Pereslucha AM, Wenger DM, Morris MF, Aydi ZB. Invasive Lobular Carcinoma: A Review of Imaging Modalities. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/42094. Accessed December 05, 2025.
Pereslucha, Alicia M, Danielle M Wenger, Michael F Morris, Zeynep Bostanci Aydi. "Invasive Lobular Carcinoma: A Review of Imaging Modalities" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/42094 (accessed December 05, 2025).
Pereslucha, A.M., Wenger, D.M., Morris, M.F., & Aydi, Z.B. (2023, March 10). Invasive Lobular Carcinoma: A Review of Imaging Modalities. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/42094
Pereslucha, Alicia M, et al. "Invasive Lobular Carcinoma: A Review of Imaging Modalities." Encyclopedia. Web. 10 March, 2023.
Invasive Lobular Carcinoma: A Review of Imaging Modalities
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/healthcare11050746

Invasive lobular cancer (ILC) is the second most common type of breast cancer. It is characterized by a unique growth pattern making it difficult to detect on conventional breast imaging. ILC can be multicentric, multifocal, and bilateral, with a high likelihood of incomplete excision after breast-conserving surgery. This is a review of conventional imaging modalities for detecting and determining the extent of ILC. Review of the literature finds that MRI and CEM surpass conventional breast imaging in terms of sensitivity, specificity, ipsilateral and contralateral cancer detection, concordance, and estimation of tumor size for ILC. Both MRI and CEM have also each been shown to enhance surgical outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed ILC that had one of these imaging modalities added to their preoperative workup.

invasive lobular cancer breast imaging MRI concordance ultrasound CEM breast cancer

1. Introduction

Invasive lobular cancer (ILC) is the second most common type of breast cancer after invasive ductal cancer (IDC) with an estimated 28,785 new cases of ILC in the United States in 2022 [1]. Even though ILC comprises only about 10% of new invasive breast cancer diagnoses, its incidence is high and similar to that of ovarian cancer (estimated 19,880 new cases in 2022) and twice that of cervical cancer (estimated 14,100 new cases in 2022) [1][2]. ILC is associated with older age, more advanced stage at presentation, and larger size and nodal positivity in comparison to IDC [3]. The majority of ILCs are Luminal A intrinsic subtype as evidenced by high estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) expression and low HER2 amplification. Histologic subtypes of ILC include classical, pleomorphic, signet ring, solid, alveolar, tubulolobular, and histiocytoid carcinomas [4]. Pleomorphic variants harbor higher rates of HER2 amplification (35%) and triple negative cancers (13%) [5].
ILC is characterized by a unique growth pattern where the stromal invasion causes little disturbance of the normal architecture. Cancer cells grow in single files with minimal desmoplastic stromal response. ILC is characterized by loss of E-cadherin. E-cadherin is a calcium dependent transmembrane protein that maintains tissue integrity by maintaining cell-to-cell adhesion and preventing invasion [6]. It is coded by the CDH-1 gene located on 16q22.1 [7]. Loss of E-cadherin results in loss of alpha-, beta-, and gamma-catenins, while p120-catenin is upregulated and accumulates in the cytoplasm and plays an important role in invasion. Loss of E-cadherin and cytoplasmic accumulation of p120 are present in >90% of ILCs [8].
ILC has been historically difficult to detect on conventional breast imaging as it is often isodense or isoechoic to adjacent normal breast parenchyma and does not present as a palpable mass [9], also making it difficult to discern on clinical examination. Incomplete excision of ILC is common after breast conservation surgery, ranging from 12% to 60% [10][11][12], leading to re-excisions or even mastectomy. Positive margins can also be present after mastectomy with extensive ILC [13]. Moreover, ILC can be multicentric/multifocal and bilateral, making preoperative imaging workup critical to achieve complete resection [14].

2. Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis

Mammography (MMG) is the most commonly performed breast imaging modality and is the only screening test proven to reduce breast cancer mortality in randomized controlled trials [15]. Identification of ILC on mammography has proven to be a diagnostic challenge, and ILC carries a false negative rate higher than for other invasive cancers [16]. Because of the permeative growth pattern of ILC, up to 30% are mammographically occult and the pathologic size of ILC tumors can be underestimated in up to 70% of mammograms [17]. Mammographic sensitivity for ILC ranges from 34% to 92%, which trends lower than the mammographic sensitivity for IDC ranging from 63 to 98% [16][17][18][19][20]. The sensitivity of digital mammography (DM) is inversely related to breast density [21], which is exacerbated by the subtle findings of ILC. A recent literature review found that the sensitivity of DM across all densities is estimated to be around 34–83% for ILC but only around 8–11% for ILC in dense breasts [17].
The features of ILC on mammography can be subtle and variable. ILC most commonly presents as a spiculated mass (on DM) or architectural distortion (on mammography with tomosynthesis), followed by an asymmetric density or calcifications [22][23]. Less than 1% of ILC presents as well-circumscribed masses with regular borders [16][20]. Utilization of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) may improve the sensitivity and area under the curve for detection of ILC compared to digital mammography [24]. In a large multicenter trial, compared to DM alone, DBT identified more invasive breast cancers, and the detection rate for ILC increased from 0.27 to 0.55 per 1000 [25]. Similarly, Krammer et al. reported that DBT detected more ILCs in dense breasts than DM alone with increased sensitivity from 38.9% to 83.3% [26]. DBT significantly increased the conspicuity of ILC lesions (p = 0.002) compared to DM whereas the difference in conspicuity for IDC lesions was not significant (p = 0.2) [23].
While DBT can increase the conspicuity of ILC lesions, it fails to accurately assess tumor size of these lesions. Mann et al. noted that, in patients where ILC tumor was detected by mammography, more than half had an underestimation of tumor size by about 1 cm. In one review of imaging modalities for diagnostic evaluation for patients with suspected or proven ILC, it was referenced that large ILCs (measuring > 3 cm) were found to be particularly difficult to accurately measure on mammography [16]. Likewise, DM has been found to perform poorly for detecting multifocal, multicentric, and bilateral disease [16][17][26]. Overall, DBT can improve the detection of ILC when compared to DM alone, though imaging findings are subtle. It is not an adequate alternative to more sophisticated alternatives such as breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and contrast-enhanced mammography for assessment and pretreatment workup of ILC. Given its superior performance compared to DM alone, it may be an alternative for imaging-guided biopsies of lesions detected by MRI [17].

3. Ultrasonography

Whole-breast ultrasonography (US) is not widely used for breast cancer screening given the higher rate of false positives relative to mammography [27]. However, diagnostic breast US is the imaging modality of choice for further characterization of a palpable abnormality or suspicious mass, distortion, or asymmetry visualized on mammography [28].
US sensitivity for ILC tumor detection is lower than other imaging modalities with sensitivity rates ranging from 68% to 92% [29][30][31]. Unlike mammography, US sensitivity is not impacted by breast density [32].
US has also been found to underestimate ILC tumor size in 18–53% of cases [29][33][34]. US-measured ILC tumor size and volume has also been found to correlate with final pathology to a lesser degree than other imaging modalities [35][36][37]. Vijayaraghavan et al. reported that for ILC tumors there is a median underestimation of tumor size by 3.5 mm (average 27.2%) and a median underestimation of tumor volume by 0.29 cm3. The extent of ILC tumor size and volume underestimation by US was tumor-size-dependent, increasing with pathology-measured tumor size [37].
ILC does not have a specific appearance on US [38], most commonly presenting as a hypoechoic mass. Similar to mammography, ILC rarely presents as a well-circumscribed mass on US.
US plays a pivotal role in guiding biopsies of suspicious breast masses and detection of lymph nodes metastasis [39], although it still identifies less than 50% of lymph node metastasis [40]. US may play a role in predicting nodal burden in patients with ILC. Increased cortical thickness and loss of fatty hilum on US have been found to be associated with a higher nodal burden in patients with ILC (OR 58.40, 95% CI 5.09–669.71; p = 0.001) [30].
Overall, US remains an important imaging adjunct to mammography but likely provides no additional benefit for patients with newly diagnosed ILC given its underestimation of tumor extent and high discordance rate with final pathology.

4. Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Compared to other imaging modalities, breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has the highest cancer detection rate; however, it is typically reserved for screening women at high risk for breast cancer due to cost, accessibility constraints, and false positivity rate [41]. In average-risk women with dense breasts, emerging evidence demonstrates significantly improved cancer detection rates with screening breast MRI compared to DBT, though there is currently insufficient evidence for widespread use in clinical practice [42].
For patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer, current guidelines recommend a preoperative breast MRI for the following groups: to identify occult primary breast cancer in patients with axillary node metastases and a negative mammogram, to better define tumor extent indeterminant by clinical exam and mammogram, to assess for potential fascia or muscle involvement in patients with invasive breast cancers contiguous with the chest wall, and to screen the contralateral breast in patients with a high risk of breast cancer and patients who are interested in reconstructive surgery after initial resection [43][44][45]. Breast MRI is also traditionally used to determine eligibility and tumor response to neoadjuvant endocrine (NAE) and chemotherapy (NAC) treatments [46].
Recently, breast MRI has been recognized as a useful diagnostic tool in patients with ILC due to various factors. For one, MRI has a much higher sensitivity rate for ILC tumor detection when compared to the other breast imaging modalities (mammography and ultrasonography). The sensitivity rates for MRI range from 83% to 100%, with most studies reporting a sensitivity rate greater than 95% [29][30][35][36][47][48][49]. Furthermore, recent advancements in MRI spatial resolution (e.g., 3T vs. 1.5T) are leading to increased detection of tumors that were previously occult on mammography and ultrasonography [50]. Fewer studies have investigated the specificity rates for MRI but estimates range from 87% to 92.4% [35][49].
An additional benefit of MRI is that breast density does not limit cancer detection rates. In fact, a group of researchers found that supplemental screening with MRI rather than mammography alone in women with very dense breast tissue enhanced detection and reduced the number of interval cancers during the screening period [51].
The literature consistently reports MRI as the imaging modality with the strongest correlation of imaging to pathology tumor size estimate for ILC. Studies report the correlation coefficient for MRI–pathology tumor size as 0.58 to 0.97 with the average mean difference ranging from 1.6 mm to 7 mm [31][33][34][36][47][48][49][52][53][54].
Although MRI appears to be the superior imaging modality for patients with ILC, there is still debate about the accuracy of MRI to determine maximum ILC tumor span [47]. Estimates for tumor size overestimation range from 26% to 36.7% [9][35][48][55][56], while estimates for underestimation range from 13.3% to 59.1% [9][33][34]. Regardless of the degree of under- or overestimation, most studies have found that MRI is consistently more accurate in estimating maximum ILC tumor extent when compared to conventional imaging (mammography and ultrasonography) [52]. Gest et al. performed a logistic regression analysis to investigate whether there are certain factors that may predict discordance between tumor size estimation by MRI and final pathology [57]. Menopausal status (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10–0.71; p  =  0.01), hormone receptor (HR) status (HR negative, OR 1.64, 95% CI 0.27–9.89; HR positive, OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.21–1.88; p  =  0.09), and NAC (OR 10.33, 95% CI 3.58–29.8; p  <  0.001) were all independently associated with greater overestimation of tumor size by MRI, while histological size (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.02–1.08; p  <  0.0001) and the presence of an additional in situ component (OR 4.66, 95% CI 1.01–21.5; p  =  0.02) were associated with greater underestimation of tumor size by MRI [57]
One of the main benefits of including MRI as part of the diagnostic workup for patients newly diagnosed with ILC is the detection of additional ipsilateral and/or contralateral breast cancer. The data show that MRI detects an additional lesion in about one-third of patients with ILC and around 65–88% of these additional lesions are confirmed by pathology to be malignant [31][36][52][54][58][59][60][61]. One study found that 7% of patients with newly diagnosed ILC who underwent bilateral breast MRI benefited from early detection of contralateral breast cancer. A multivariate analysis by Wong et al. found that higher breast density (odds ratio 3.19; 95% CI 1.01 to 10.0) and lymph node positive disease (odds ratio 4.02; 95% CI 0.96 to 16.9) are significantly associated with additional suspicious findings on bilateral breast MRI in patients with ILC [29]. In patients with multifocal/multicentric breast cancer, MRI shows a high sensitivity for the detection of additional cancer foci with sensitivity estimates ranging from 88% to 91.17% [62][63]. Because ILC is more likely to be multifocal, multicentric, and bilateral than other types of breast cancer, patients with newly diagnosed ILC may greatly benefit from a bilateral breast MRI. In addition to earlier detection of additional ipsilateral and/or contralateral malignancies, MRI can also detect potential infiltration of the underlying pectoralis fascia or muscle layer that may not be visible on conventional imaging [31].
Due to the frequent detection of additional lesions, about 25–50% [9][29][35][36][49][52][54][58][64][65] of patients with ILC who undergo a bilateral breast MRI report a change in surgical management from breast-conserving surgery (BCS) towards total mastectomy. The most common changes in surgical management are more extensive unilateral surgery (wider excision or total mastectomy) or the addition of contralateral surgery. One study including patients with all types of breast cancer found that patients with ILC were the most likely to have their surgical management changed by preoperative breast MRI [66].
Another benefit of patients with ILC undergoing a preoperative MRI is the potential for improved prediction of nodal disease burden. MRI has been shown to be comparable to axillary US in the evaluation of axillary nodal status of these patients and an additional axillary US may only be required when there are suspicious nodal findings on MRI [67].
The prediction of nodal status is particularly important for patients with ILC after neoadjuvant therapy (NAC or NAE) as the upgrading or downgrading of axillary lymph nodes influences axillary surgery decisions. A study by Abel et al. found that a post-treatment/preoperative MRI is poor at predicting nodal status in patients with ILC after neoadjuvant therapy [68]. Sensitivity and positive predictive value were significantly higher in clinically node positive patients compared to clinically node negative patients (47.4% vs. 20%, p  =  0.0485 and 81.2% vs. 40%, p  =  0.0044) and specificity and negative predictive value were significantly higher in clinically node negative patients compared to clinically node positive patients (78.6% vs. 33.3%, p  =  0.0019 and 57.9% vs. 9.1%, p  =  0.0005) [68]. Additionally, for clinically node positive patients only, an abnormal post-treatment/preoperative MRI was associated with a significantly higher proportion of patients with high burden of nodal disease on pathology compared to patients with a normal post-treatment/preoperative MRI (61.1% versus 16.7%, p  =  0.034) [68]. These results imply that a preoperative MRI may be able to help predict high nodal burden and assist in axillary surgery planning in clinically node positive patients with ILC after neoadjuvant therapy. However, neoadjuvant therapy has been shown to not provide much benefit for patients with ILC tumors especially if clinically node negative [69]. Neoadjuvant therapy is associated with lower rates of downstaging and higher rates of margin positivity in cases changed from total mastectomy to BCS after neoadjuvant therapy [69]. Additionally, neoadjuvant therapy may not improve BCS rate and may lead to higher rates of total mastectomy after initial BCS [34][69]. However, for patients who are candidates for neoadjuvant therapy, studies show that MRI is useful in assessing tumor response after therapy [70]. As a result, for patients with ILC who undergo neoadjuvant therapy, MRI may play a role in assessing tumor response rate and staging after therapy to optimize surgical planning [70].
There continues to be debate in the literature about whether including MRI as part of the diagnostic workup for patients with ILC leads to unnecessary biopsies and mastectomies. In one study by Amin et al., MRI was found to have provided value by identifying additional malignancies and to have caused harm by leading to unnecessary additional biopsies almost equally in the study population of patients with ILC [71]. Rates of unnecessary biopsies due to preoperative MRI in patients with ILC range from 28% to 33.3% [14][71]. Additionally, many researchers have found that there are no unnecessary primary or final mastectomies as a result of patients with ILC undergoing a preoperative MRI [31][52][60][72][73]. Interestingly, a large cohort study by Lobbes et al. found that the likelihood of primary mastectomy as the chosen surgical treatment plan following preoperative breast MRI varied by breast cancer type. Patients with ILC who underwent a preoperative MRI had a lower likelihood of primary mastectomy compared to those who did not undergo an MRI (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.76–0.99), while patients with IDC who underwent a preoperative MRI had a higher likelihood of primary mastectomy (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.22–1.39) [74]. Some studies have also found a trend towards lower final mastectomy rates and secondary surgery rates in patients with ILC who undergo a preoperative MRI compared to patients who do not [72][75]. This trend is likely a result of the lower re-excision rates after initial BCS seen in patients with ILC who receive a preoperative MRI [48][54][60][75][76]. A study by Mann et al. found that 27% of patients with ILC in the non-MRI group compared to only 9% of patients with ILC in the MRI group required a re-excision surgery after initial BCS (OR 3.64, 95% CI 1.30–10.20; p = 0.010) [75]. However, many other studies have concluded that there is no difference in re-excision rates between MRI and non-MRI groups in patients with ILC [34][52][65][77][78]. In summary, the addition of preoperative MRI in the diagnostic workup of patients with newly diagnosed ILC is most likely associated with lower reoperation rates and minimal to no increase in the rate of initial or final mastectomies.
Although MRI has a higher sensitivity rate for ILC tumor detection, there has been concern about higher false positive rates compared to conventional imaging. In one study by Stivalet et al., researchers found that MRI sensitivity for ILC tumor detection was 100% at the expense of a 26% false positive rate [30]. The conclusions reached by this study, however, may be limited by its small sample size of only 15 patients with ILC and 31 total ILC masses. Several other studies have found that MRI does not in fact lead to a higher false positive rate in patients with ILC despite its high sensitivity rate [31][79][80]. Ultimately, it is recommended that all new lesions found on MRI should be evaluated by a US-guided or MRI-guided core biopsy to ensure pathologic proof of additional malignancy before a decision is made to change surgical management from BCS to ipsilateral, contralateral, or bilateral mastectomy [14][60]. This “second-look” biopsy by US or MRI can help to mitigate the high false positive rate with MRI and ensure a low rate of unnecessary operations [14][16][60].
In conclusion, some researchers support the addition of MRI to the diagnostic workup for all patients with ILC, especially when there is ambiguity of findings on clinical and conventional imaging (mammography and ultrasonography) [61][70]. However, the research shows that the benefits of adding MRI to the diagnostic workup for patients with ILC are limited to patients who are younger, have dense breasts, poor visualization by mammography, are post-neoadjuvant therapy, and/or are considering BCS [65]. Many societies have yet to determine whether MRI should or should not be included in the preoperative management of patients with ILC. The European Society of Breast Imaging and EUSOMA working group and NCCN recommend the use of preoperative MRI for patients with ILC [35][60]. For now, the addition of MRI to the diagnostic workup of patients with newly diagnosed ILC remains a case-by-case and institution-by-institution basis.

5. Contrast-Enhanced Mammography

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM), also referred to as contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM), was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2011. CEM combines conventional mammography with administration of intravenous iodinated contrast to provide both morphological and functional information about breast tissue and possible lesions. Commercially available CEM uses a dual-energy technique to generate two images in each projection: a low-energy mammogram similar to a standard mammographic image and a recombined image, highlighting areas of contrast enhancement while suppressing background glandular tissue [81]. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System lexicon for CEM was recently introduced through the American College of Radiology to standardize interpretation and reporting [82].
In general, CEM is reported to have comparable accuracy to breast MRI, with equal to slight lower sensitivity and similar to slightly higher specificity [83][84][85][86]. In a recent meta-analysis, CEM had an overall 95% sensitivity and 81% specificity for breast cancer detection [87]. Additionally, CEM maintains favorable test characteristics in women with dense breasts, demonstrating a pooled 95% sensitivity and pooled 78% specificity in this cohort [87]. With regard to ILC, small single-center studies report CEM sensitivity ranges of 97–100% [83][88][89].
ILC more commonly presents on CEM as a mass rather than non-mass enhancement [88]. Cancers identified on CEM correlate well with histologic size, significantly outperforming mammography [90]. When comparing tumor size on CEM vs. MRI relative pathologic sizing, some studies show CEM having a superior correlation (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.75 CEM vs. 0.65 MRI, p < 0.01) [91] whereas in other studies MRI is superior (0.84 MRI vs. 0.77 for CEM, p < 0.01) [92]. In a study of 31 patients with ILC undergoing CEM, masses and non-mass enhancement had similar intraclass correlation coefficients for histologic sizing, 0.851 and 0.819, respectively [89].
The sensitivity of CEM in identifying multifocal, multicentric disease in the preoperative setting has been reported around 97.36–100% [88][89]. CEM has been reported to identify contralateral cancer in 10% [93]. For preoperative assessment of disease extent, CEM has been found to change surgical management in up to 20% of patients, including more extensive surgery in 16% (n = 16%) and conversion to mastectomy in 4% (n = 4) [83]. Given the accuracy of CEM in identifying the extent of disease, the surgical re-excision rate has been reported as low as 6.7% [89]. CEM has been reported to lead to additional biopsies in 12–19% of patients undergoing preoperative evaluation [83][93], though of the additional biopsies, up to 67% proved to be additional foci of invasive carcinoma [83].
The rates of change in surgical procedure and contralateral cancer detection on preoperative CEM are similar to MRI [59][66][71]. Preliminary data suggest that CEM may be equivalent to MRI in patients with breast cancer and a history of breast augmentation [94]. However, CEM does not allow for axillary staging and cannot visualize chest wall or internal mammary lymph nodes [81][95].
For women with breast cancer receiving NAC, MRI has traditionally been the main imaging modality used for assessing tumor response to NAC [96]. Conventional mammography has been of limited use and is not recommended to examine tumor response to NAC. The American College of Radiology grades the various imaging modalities for post-NAC treatment as follows: grade 9 for MRI, grade 8 for US, and grade 7 for mammography [96]. However, with the advent of CEM, which can reveal atypical vascular proliferation in tumors and increase the sensitivity of conventional mammography, studies have now found CEM to be comparable to MRI in determining the efficacy of NAC in breast cancer patients [96][97][98][99]. Some researchers advocate for the use of CEM as an alternative to MRI due to its shorter examination time, greater availability, better patient tolerance, and fewer contraindications [96][99].
Additional advantages of CEM relative to MRI include lower cost [100] and increased patient preference [101]. Exam time and interpretation time are faster with CEM, and there are no contraindications to metallic implants, patient size, or claustrophobia [102]. Disadvantages of CEM include relatively higher risks of contrast reactions [103][104] and potential contrast nephropathy [105] as compared to MRI, although the overall risks remain low. CEM also uses ionizing radiation [106], and CEM-guided biopsy is not yet widely available [107].
Although not specifically focusing on ILC, there are new clinical trials on the horizon investigating the utility of CEM in breast cancer screening and preoperative assessment. An upcoming prospective observational cohort study, Comparison of Breast Cancer Screening with CESM to DBT in Women with Dense Breasts (CMIST), plans to determine if CEM is more accurate than combined DBT and whole-breast US for primary screening in women with dense breasts [108]. Preoperative Contrast Enhanced Mammography in Staging of Malignant Breast Lesions (PROCEM trial) is an ongoing prospective randomized trial to evaluate the added value of CEM in the preoperative staging of breast malignancies [109]. Patients with breast cancer whose primary treatment is surgery will be randomized to no further imaging or CEM. The feasibility study prior to recruitment of this trial found that the treatment plan was changed in 10/47 cases (21%) and that CEM demonstrated improved size estimation with final pathologic size compared to mammogram and ultrasound [110].

6. Conclusions

Clinical examination along with conventional imaging by MMG, DBT, and/or US remains critical to the initial investigation of a new breast concern. However, these imaging modalities underperform in sensitivity, tumor size estimation, and detection of multifocal/multicentric disease for determining the extent of disease in cases of ILC. As a result, subsequent imaging is recommended for the preoperative evaluation of new ILC. Ultimately, the decision to pursue further diagnostic imaging with MRI or CEM should be a shared decision-making process between the patient and provider. Patients should understand the risks and benefits to additional imaging and how the imaging results may impact surgical management, risk of re-excision, and risk of recurrence. Of particular importance is that patients with newly diagnosed ILC interested in BCS are advised to undergo a preoperative MRI or CEM due to the additional information it can offer for surgical planning and management to improve rate of excision with negative margins and reduce reoperation rates.

References

  1. American Cancer Society. Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2022–2024; American Cancer Society, Inc.: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2022.
  2. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2022; American Cancer Society, Inc.: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2022.
  3. Li, C.I.; Uribe, D.J.; Daling, J.R. Clinical characteristics of different histologic types of breast cancer. Br. J. Cancer 2005, 93, 1046–1052.
  4. Rubinsak, L.A.; Kleinman, A.; Quillin, J.; Gordon, S.W.; Sullivan, S.A.; Sutton, A.L.; Sheppard, V.B.; Temkin, S.M. Awareness and acceptability of population-based screening for pathogenic BRCA variants: Do race and ethnicity matter? Gynecol. Oncol. 2019, 154, 383–387.
  5. Monhollen, L.; Morrison, C.; Ademuyiwa, F.O.; Chandrasekhar, R.; Khoury, T. Pleomorphic lobular carcinoma: A distinctive clinical and molecular breast cancer type. Histopathology 2012, 61, 365–377.
  6. Pramod, N.; Nigam, A.; Basree, M.; Mawalkar, R.; Mehra, S.; Shinde, N.; Tozbikian, G.; Williams, N.; Majumder, S. Comprehensive Review of Molecular Mechanisms and Clinical Features of Invasive Lobular Cancer. Oncologist 2021, 26, e943–e953.
  7. Berx, G.; Staes, K.; van Hengel, J.; Molemans, F.; Bussemakers, M.J.; van Bokhoven, A.; van Roy, F. Cloning and characterization of the human invasion suppressor gene E-cadherin (CDH1). Genomics 1995, 26, 281–289.
  8. Thomas, M.; Kelly, E.D.; Abraham, J.; Kruse, M. Invasive lobular breast cancer: A review of pathogenesis, diagnosis, management, and future directions of early stage disease. Semin. Oncol. 2019, 46, 121–132.
  9. Muttalib, M.; Ibrahem, R.; Khashan, A.S.; Hajaj, M. Prospective MRI assessment for invasive lobular breast cancer. Correlation with tumour size at histopathology and influence on surgical management. Clin. Radiol. 2014, 69, 23–28.
  10. Fortunato, L.; Mascaro, A.; Poccia, I.; Andrich, R.; Amini, M.; Costarelli, L.; Cortese, G.; Farina, M.; Vitelli, C. Lobular breast cancer: Same survival and local control compared with ductal cancer, but should both be treated the same way? analysis of an institutional database over a 10-year period. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2012, 19, 1107–1114.
  11. Sagara, Y.; Barry, W.T.; Mallory, M.A.; Vaz-Luis, I.; Aydogan, F.; Brock, J.E.; Winer, E.P.; Golshan, M.; Metzger-Filho, O. Surgical Options and Locoregional Recurrence in Patients Diagnosed with Invasive Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2015, 22, 4280–4286.
  12. Piper, M.L.; Wong, J.; Fahrner-Scott, K.; Ewing, C.; Alvarado, M.; Esserman, L.J.; Mukhtar, R.A. Success rates of re-excision after positive margins for invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. NPJ Breast Cancer 2019, 5, 29.
  13. Hewitt, K.C.; Miller, P.; Piper, M.; Prionas, N.; Son, J.D.; Alvarado, M.; Esserman, L.J.; Wong, J.M.; Ewing, C.; Mukhtar, R.A. Positive margins after mastectomy in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: Incidence and management strategies. Am. J. Surg. 2022, 223, 699–704.
  14. Quan, M.L.; Sclafani, L.; Heerdt, A.S.; Fey, J.V.; Morris, E.A.; Borgen, P.I. Magnetic resonance imaging detects unsuspected disease in patients with invasive lobular cancer. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2003, 10, 1048–1053.
  15. Duffy, S.W.; Vulkan, D.; Cuckle, H.; Parmar, D.; Sheikh, S.; Smith, R.A.; Evans, A.; Blyuss, O.; Johns, L.; Ellis, I.O.; et al. Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality (UK Age trial): Final results of a randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020, 21, 1165–1172.
  16. Michael, M.; Garzoli, E.; Reiner, C.S. Mammography, sonography and MRI for detection and characterization of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. Breast Dis. 2008, 30, 21–30.
  17. Weaver, O.; Yang, W. Imaging of Breast Cancers With Predilection for Nonmass Pattern of Growth: Invasive Lobular Carcinoma and DCIS-Does Imaging Capture It All? AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2020, 215, 1504–1511.
  18. Mandelson, M.T.; Oestreicher, N.; Porter, P.L.; White, D.; Finder, C.A.; Taplin, S.H.; White, E. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: Comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2000, 92, 1081–1087.
  19. Berg, W.A.; Gutierrez, L.; NessAiver, M.S.; Carter, W.B.; Bhargavan, M.; Lewis, R.S.; Ioffe, O.B. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology 2004, 233, 830–849.
  20. Johnson, K.; Sarma, D.; Hwang, E.S. Lobular breast cancer series: Imaging. Breast Cancer Res. BCR 2015, 17, 94.
  21. Weigel, S.; Heindel, W.; Heidrich, J.; Hense, H.-W.; Heidinger, O. Digital mammography screening: Sensitivity of the programme dependent on breast density. Eur. Radiol. 2017, 27, 2744–2751.
  22. Lopez, J.K.; Bassett, L.W. Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: Spectrum of mammographic, US, and MR imaging findings. Radiographics 2009, 29, 165–176.
  23. Chamming’s, F.; Kao, E.; Aldis, A.; Ferré, R.; Omeroglu, A.; Reinhold, C.; Mesurolle, B. Imaging features and conspicuity of invasive lobular carcinomas on digital breast tomosynthesis. Br. J. Radiol. 2017, 90, 20170128.
  24. Mariscotti, G.; Durando, M.; Houssami, N.; Zuiani, C.; Martincich, L.; Londero, V.; Caramia, E.; Clauser, P.; Campanino, P.P.; Regini, E.; et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis as an adjunct to digital mammography for detecting and characterising invasive lobular cancers: A multi-reader study. Clin. Radiol. 2016, 71, 889–895.
  25. Friedewald, S.M.; Rafferty, E.A.; Rose, S.L.; Durand, M.A.; Plecha, D.M.; Greenberg, J.S.; Hayes, M.K.; Copit, D.S.; Carlson, K.L.; Cink, T.M.; et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 2014, 311, 2499–2507.
  26. Krammer, J.; Stepniewski, K.; Kaiser, C.G.; Brade, J.; Riffel, P.; Schoenberg, S.O.; Wasser, K. Value of Additional Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Preoperative Staging of Breast Cancer in Dense Breasts. Anticancer Res. 2017, 37, 5255–5261.
  27. Berg, W.A.; Bandos, A.I.; Mendelson, E.B.; Lehrer, D.; Jong, R.A.; Pisano, E.D. Ultrasound as the Primary Screening Test for Breast Cancer: Analysis From ACRIN 6666. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2016, 108, djv367.
  28. Stavros, A.T.; Thickman, D.; Rapp, C.L.; Dennis, M.A.; Parker, S.H.; Sisney, G.A. Solid breast nodules: Use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology 1995, 196, 123–134.
  29. Wong, S.M.; Prakash, I.; Trabulsi, N.; Parsyan, A.; Moldoveanu, D.; Zhang, D.; Mesurolle, B.; Omeroglu, A.; Aldis, A.; Meterissian, S. Evaluating the Impact of Breast Density on Preoperative MRI in Invasive Lobular Carcinoma. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2018, 226, 925–932.
  30. Stivalet, A.; Luciani, A.; Pigneur, F.; Dao, T.H.; Beaussart, P.; Merabet, Z.; Perlbarg, J.; Meyblum, E.; Baranes, L.; Calitchi, E.; et al. Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: MRI pathological correlation following bilateral total mastectomy. Acta Radiol. 2012, 53, 367–375.
  31. Munot, K.; Dall, B.; Achuthan, R.; Parkin, G.; Lane, S.; Horgan, K. Role of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and single-stage surgical resection of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. Br. J. Surg. 2002, 89, 1296–1301.
  32. Tagliafico, A.S.; Calabrese, M.; Mariscotti, G.; Durando, M.; Tosto, S.; Monetti, F.; Airaldi, S.; Bignotti, B.; Nori, J.; Bagni, A.; et al. Adjunct Screening With Tomosynthesis or Ultrasound in Women With Mammography-Negative Dense Breasts: Interim Report of a Prospective Comparative Trial. J. Clin. Oncol. Off. J. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 2016, 34, 1882–1888.
  33. Boetes, C.; Veltman, J.; van Die, L.; Bult, P.; Wobbes, T.; Barentsz, J.O. The role of MRI in invasive lobular carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2004, 86, 31–37.
  34. Ozcan, L.C.; Donovan, C.A.; Srour, M.; Chung, A.; Mirocha, J.; Frankel, S.D.; Hakim, P.; Giuliano, A.E.; Amersi, F. Invasive Lobular Carcinoma-Correlation Between Imaging and Final Pathology: Is MRI Better? Am. Surg. 2022, 31, 31348221101600.
  35. Selvi, V.; Nori, J.; Meattini, I.; Francolini, G.; Morelli, N.; De Benedetto, D.; Bicchierai, G.; Di Naro, F.; Gill, M.K.; Orzalesi, L.; et al. Role of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Preoperative Staging and Work-Up of Patients Affected by Invasive Lobular Carcinoma or Invasive Ductolobular Carcinoma. BioMed Res. Int. 2018, 2018, 1569060.
  36. Mann, R.M.; Hoogeveen, Y.L.; Blickman, J.G.; Boetes, C. MRI compared to conventional diagnostic work-up in the detection and evaluation of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: A review of existing literature. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2008, 107, 1–14.
  37. Vijayaraghavan, G.R.; Vedantham, S.; Santos-Nunez, G.; Hultman, R. Unifocal Invasive Lobular Carcinoma: Tumor Size Concordance Between Preoperative Ultrasound Imaging and Postoperative Pathology. Clin. Breast Cancer 2018, 18, e1367–e1372.
  38. Ferré, R.; Omeroglu, A.; Mesurolle, B. Sonographic Appearance of Lesions Diagnosed as Lobular Neoplasia at Sonographically Guided Biopsies. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2017, 208, 669–675.
  39. Kim, K.; Shim, S.-R.; Kim, S.-J. Diagnostic Values of 8 Different Imaging Modalities for Preoperative Detection of Axillary Lymph Node Metastasis of Breast Cancer: A Bayesian Network Meta-analysis. Am. J. Clin. Oncol. 2021, 44, 331–339.
  40. Schipper, R.J.; van Roozendaal, L.M.; de Vries, B.; Pijnappel, R.M.; Beets-Tan, R.G.H.; Lobbes, M.B.I.; Smidt, M.L. Axillary ultrasound for preoperative nodal staging in breast cancer patients: Is it of added value? Breast Edinb. Scotl. 2013, 22, 1108–1113.
  41. Houser, M.; Barreto, D.; Mehta, A.; Brem, R.F. Current and Future Directions of Breast MRI. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 5668.
  42. Comstock, C.E.; Gatsonis, C.; Newstead, G.M.; Snyder, B.S.; Gareen, I.F.; Bergin, J.T.; Rahbar, H.; Sung, J.S.; Jacobs, C.; Harvey, J.A.; et al. Comparison of Abbreviated Breast MRI vs. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Detection among Women with Dense Breasts Undergoing Screening. JAMA 2020, 323, 746–756.
  43. de Bresser, J.; de Vos, B.; van der Ent, F.; Hulsewé, K. Breast MRI in clinically and mammographically occult breast cancer presenting with an axillary metastasis: A systematic review. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. J. Eur. Soc. Surg. Oncol. Br. Assoc. Surg. Oncol. 2010, 36, 114–119.
  44. Morris, E.A.; Schwartz, L.H.; Drotman, M.B.; Kim, S.J.; Tan, L.K.; Liberman, L.; Abramson, A.F.; Van Zee, K.J.; Dershaw, D.D. Evaluation of pectoralis major muscle in patients with posterior breast tumors on breast MR images: Early experience. Radiology 2000, 214, 67–72.
  45. Monticciolo, D.L.; Newell, M.S.; Moy, L.; Niell, B.; Monsees, B.; Sickles, E.A. Breast Cancer Screening in Women at Higher-Than-Average Risk: Recommendations From the ACR. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. JACR 2018, 15, 408–414.
  46. Choi, W.J.; Kim, H.H.; Cha, J.H.; Shin, H.J.; Chae, E.Y. Comparison of Pathologic Response Evaluation Systems After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancers: Correlation with Computer-Aided Diagnosis of MRI Features. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2019, 213, 944–952.
  47. Hovis, K.K.; Lee, J.M.; Hippe, D.S.; Linden, H.; Flanagan, M.R.; Kilgore, M.R.; Yee, J.; Partridge, S.C.; Rahbar, H. Accuracy of Preoperative Breast MRI Versus Conventional Imaging in Measuring Pathologic Extent of Invasive Lobular Carcinoma. J. Breast Imaging 2021, 3, 288–298.
  48. McGhan, L.J.; Wasif, N.; Gray, R.J.; Giurescu, M.E.; Pizzitola, V.J.; Lorans, R.; Ocal, I.T.; Stucky, C.-C.; Pockaj, B.A. Use of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging for invasive lobular cancer: Good, better, but maybe not the best. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2010, 17 (Suppl. 3), 255–262.
  49. Caramella, T.; Chapellier, C.; Ettore, F.; Raoust, I.; Chamorey, E.; Balu-Maestro, C. Value of MRI in the surgical planning of invasive lobular breast carcinoma: A prospective and a retrospective study of 57 cases: Comparison with physical examination, conventional imaging, and histology. Clin. Imaging 2007, 31, 155–161.
  50. Elsamaloty, H.; Elzawawi, M.S.; Mohammad, S.; Herial, N. Increasing accuracy of detection of breast cancer with 3-T MRI. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2009, 192, 1142–1148.
  51. Bakker, M.F.; de Lange, S.V.; Pijnappel, R.M.; Mann, R.M.; Peeters, P.H.M.; Monninkhof, E.M.; Emaus, M.J.; Loo, C.E.; Bisschops, R.H.C.; Lobbes, M.B.I.; et al. Supplemental MRI Screening for Women with Extremely Dense Breast Tissue. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019, 381, 2091–2102.
  52. Bansal, G.J.; Santosh, D.; Davies, E.L. Selective magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in invasive lobular breast cancer based on mammographic density: Does it lead to an appropriate change in surgical treatment? Br. J. Radiol. 2016, 89, 20150679.
  53. Mann, R.M.; Veltman, J.; Barentsz, J.O.; Wobbes, T.; Blickman, J.G.; Boetes, C. The value of MRI compared to mammography in the assessment of tumour extent in invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. J. Eur. Soc. Surg. Oncol. Br. Assoc. Surg. Oncol. 2008, 34, 135–142.
  54. Mann, R.M. The effectiveness of MR imaging in the assessment of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. Magn. Reason. Imaging Clin. N. Am. 2010, 18, 259–276, ix.
  55. Mennella, S.; Garlaschi, A.; Paparo, F.; Perillo, M.; Celenza, M.; Massa, T.; Rollandi, G.A.; Garlaschi, G. Magnetic resonance imaging of breast cancer: Factors affecting the accuracy of preoperative lesion sizing. Acta Radiol. 2015, 56, 260–268.
  56. Jethava, A.; Ali, S.; Wakefield, D.; Crowell, R.; Sporn, J.; Vrendenburgh, J. Diagnostic Accuracy of MRI in Predicting Breast Tumor Size: Comparative Analysis of MRI vs Histopathological Assessed Breast Tumor Size. Conn Med. 2015, 79, 261–267.
  57. Gest, R.; Cayet, S.; Arbion, F.; Vildé, A.; Body, G.; Ouldamer, L. Predictive factors of major deviation (>20 mm) between lesion sizes measured by magnetic resonance imaging and histology for invasive lobular breast cancer. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2020, 251, 14–19.
  58. Weinstein, S.P.; Orel, S.G.; Heller, R.; Reynolds, C.; Czerniecki, B.; Solin, L.J.; Schnall, S.M. MR imaging of the breast in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2001, 176, 399–406.
  59. Barker, S.J.; Anderson, E.; Mullen, R. Magnetic resonance imaging for invasive lobular carcinoma: Is it worth it? Gland Surg. 2019, 8, 237–241.
  60. Ha, S.M.; Chae, E.Y.; Cha, J.H.; Kim, H.H.; Shin, H.J.; Choi, W.J. Breast MR Imaging before Surgery: Outcomes in Patients with Invasive Lobular Carcinoma by Using Propensity Score Matching. Radiology 2018, 287, 771–777.
  61. Brennan, M.E.; McKessar, M.; Snook, K.; Burgess, I.; Spillane, A.J. Impact of selective use of breast MRI on surgical decision-making in women with newly diagnosed operable breast cancer. Breast Edinb. Scotl. 2017, 32, 135–143.
  62. Steinhof-Radwańska, K.; Lorek, A.; Holecki, M.; Barczyk-Gutkowska, A.; Grażyńska, A.; Szczudło-Chraścina, J.; Bożek, O.; Habas, J.; Szyluk, K.; Niemiec, P.; et al. Multifocality and Multicentrality in Breast Cancer: Comparison of the Efficiency of Mammography, Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in a Group of Patients with Primarily Operable Breast Cancer. Curr. Oncol. 2021, 28, 4016–4030.
  63. Sardanelli, F.; Giuseppetti, G.M.; Panizza, P.; Bazzocchi, M.; Fausto, A.; Simonetti, G.; Lattanzio, V.; Del Maschio, A. Sensitivity of MRI versus mammography for detecting foci of multifocal, multicentric breast cancer in Fatty and dense breasts using the whole-breast pathologic examination as a gold standard. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2004, 183, 1149–1157.
  64. Parvaiz, M.A.; Yang, P.; Razia, E.; Mascarenhas, M.; Deacon, C.; Matey, P.; Isgar, B.; Sircar, T. Breast MRI in Invasive Lobular Carcinoma: A Useful Investigation in Surgical Planning? Breast J. 2016, 22, 143–150.
  65. Moloney, B.M.; McAnena, P.F.; Ryan, É.J.; Beirn, E.O.; Waldron, R.M.; Connell, A.O.; Walsh, S.; Ennis, R.; Glynn, C.; Lowery, A.J.; et al. The Impact of Preoperative Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging on Surgical Management in Symptomatic Patients with Invasive Lobular Carcinoma. Breast Cancer Basic Clin. Res. 2020, 14, 1178223420948477.
  66. Hlubocky, J.; Bhavnagri, S.; Swinford, A.; Mitri, C.; Rebner, M.; Pai, V. Does the use of pretreatment MRI change the management of patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer? Breast J. 2018, 24, 309–313.
  67. van Nijnatten, T.J.A.; Ploumen, E.H.; Schipper, R.J.; Goorts, B.; Andriessen, E.H.; Vanwetswinkel, S.; Schavemaker, M.; Nelemans, P.; de Vries, B.; Beets-Tan, R.G.H.; et al. Routine use of standard breast MRI compared to axillary ultrasound for differentiating between no, limited and advanced axillary nodal disease in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. Eur. J. Radiol. 2016, 85, 2288–2294.
  68. Abel, M.K.; Greenwood, H.; Kelil, T.; Guo, R.; Brabham, C.; Hylton, N.; Wong, J.; Alvarado, M.; Ewing, C.; Esserman, L.J.; et al. Accuracy of breast MRI in evaluating nodal status after neoadjuvant therapy in invasive lobular carcinoma. NPJ Breast Cancer 2021, 7, 25.
  69. Mori, M.; Tsunoda, H.; Takamoto, Y.; Murai, M.; Kikuchi, M.; Honda, S.; Suzuki, K.; Yamauchi, H. MRI and ultrasound evaluation of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast after primary systemic therapy. Breast Cancer Tokyo Jpn. 2015, 22, 356–365.
  70. Tse, G.M.K.; Chaiwun, B.; Wong, K.-T.; Yeung, D.K.; Pang, A.L.M.; Tang, A.P.Y.; Cheung, H.S. Magnetic resonance imaging of breast lesions—A pathologic correlation. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2007, 103, 1–10.
  71. Amin, A.L.; Sack, S.; Larson, K.E.; Winblad, O.; Balanoff, C.R.; Nazir, N.; Wagner, J.L. Does the Addition of Breast MRI Add Value to the Diagnostic Workup of Invasive Lobular Carcinoma? J. Surg. Res. 2021, 257, 144–152.
  72. Sinclair, K.; Sakellariou, S.; Dawson, N.; Litherland, J. Does preoperative breast MRI significantly impact on initial surgical procedure and re-operation rates in patients with screen-detected invasive lobular carcinoma? Clin. Radiol. 2016, 71, 543–550.
  73. Peters, N.H.G.M.; van Esser, S.; van den Bosch, M.A.A.J.; Storm, R.K.; Plaisier, P.W.; van Dalen, T.; Diepstraten, S.C.E.; Weis, T.; Westenend, P.J.; Stapper, G.; et al. Preoperative MRI and surgical management in patients with nonpalpable breast cancer: The MONET—Randomised controlled trial. Eur. J. Cancer Oxf. Engl. 2011, 47, 879–886.
  74. Lobbes, M.B.I.; Vriens, I.J.H.; van Bommel, A.C.M.; Nieuwenhuijzen, G.A.P.; Smidt, M.L.; Boersma, L.J.; van Dalen, T.; Smorenburg, C.; Struikmans, H.; Siesling, S.; et al. Breast MRI increases the number of mastectomies for ductal cancers, but decreases them for lobular cancers. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2017, 162, 353–364.
  75. Mann, R.M.; Loo, C.E.; Wobbes, T.; Bult, P.; Barentsz, J.O.; Gilhuijs, K.G.A.; Boetes, C. The impact of preoperative breast MRI on the re-excision rate in invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2010, 119, 415–422.
  76. Fortune-Greeley, A.K.; Wheeler, S.B.; Meyer, A.-M.; Reeder-Hayes, K.E.; Biddle, A.K.; Muss, H.B.; Carpenter, W.R. Preoperative breast MRI and surgical outcomes in elderly women with invasive ductal and lobular carcinoma: A population-based study. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2014, 143, 203–212.
  77. Heil, J.; Bühler, A.; Golatta, M.; Rom, J.; Harcos, A.; Schipp, A.; Rauch, G.; Junkermann, H.; Sohn, C. Does a supplementary preoperative breast MRI in patients with invasive lobular breast cancer change primary and secondary surgical interventions. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2011, 18, 2143–2149.
  78. Turnbull, L.; Brown, S.; Harvey, I.; Olivier, C.; Drew, P.; Napp, V.; Hanby, A.; Brown, J. Comparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: A randomised controlled trial. Lancet Lond. Engl. 2010, 375, 563–571.
  79. Yeh, E.D.; Slanetz, P.J.; Edmister, W.B.; Talele, A.; Monticciolo, D.; Kopans, D.B. Invasive lobular carcinoma: Spectrum of enhancement and morphology on magnetic resonance imaging. Breast J. 2003, 9, 13–18.
  80. Schmitz, A.C.; Meeuwis, C.; Veldhuis, W.B.; van Hillegersberg, R.; Schipper, M.E.I.; van den Bosch, M.A.A.J. High-spatial-resolution bilateral contrast-enhanced breast MRI at 3 T: Preoperative staging of patients diagnosed with invasive lobular cancer. Breast J. 2008, 14, 206–208.
  81. Jochelson, M.S.; Lobbes, M.B.I. Contrast-enhanced Mammography: State of the Art. Radiology 2021, 299, 36–48.
  82. Lee, C.H.; Phillips, J.; Sung, J.S.; Lewin, J.M.; Newell, M.S. Contrast Enhanced Mammography: A Supplement to ACR BI-RADS Mammography 2013. 2022. Available online: https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/RADS/BI-RADS/BIRADS_CEM_2022.pdf (accessed on 25 February 2023).
  83. Ali-Mucheru, M.; Pockaj, B.; Patel, B.; Pizzitola, V.; Wasif, N.; Stucky, C.-C.; Gray, R. Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography in the Surgical Management of Breast Cancer. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2016, 23, 649–655.
  84. Gelardi, F.; Ragaini, E.M.; Sollini, M.; Bernardi, D.; Chiti, A. Contrast-Enhanced Mammography versus Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 1890.
  85. Xiang, W.; Rao, H.; Zhou, L. A meta-analysis of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus MRI in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Thorac. Cancer 2020, 11, 1423–1432.
  86. Xing, D.; Lv, Y.; Sun, B.; Xie, H.; Dong, J.; Hao, C.; Chen, Q.; Chi, X. Diagnostic Value of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography in Comparison to Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Breast Lesions. J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr. 2019, 43, 245–251.
  87. Cozzi, A.; Magni, V.; Zanardo, M.; Schiaffino, S.; Sardanelli, F. Contrast-enhanced Mammography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance. Radiology 2022, 302, 568–581.
  88. Costantini, M.; Montella, R.A.; Fadda, M.P.; Tondolo, V.; Franceschini, G.; Bove, S.; Garganese, G.; Rinaldi, P.M. Diagnostic Challenge of Invasive Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast: What Is the News? Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Emerging Role of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography. J. Pers. Med. 2022, 12, 867.
  89. Amato, F.; Bicchierai, G.; Cirone, D.; Depretto, C.; Di Naro, F.; Vanzi, E.; Scaperrotta, G.; Bartolotta, T.V.; Miele, V.; Nori, J. Preoperative loco-regional staging of invasive lobular carcinoma with contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM). Radiol. Med. (Torino) 2019, 124, 1229–1237.
  90. Fallenberg, E.M.; Dromain, C.; Diekmann, F.; Engelken, F.; Krohn, M.; Sing, J.M.; Ingold-Heppner, B.; Winzer, K.J.; Bick, U.; Renz, D.M. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus MRI: Initial results in the detection of breast cancer and assessment of tumor size. Eur. Radiol. 2014, 1, 256–264.
  91. Cheung, Y.C.; Juan, Y.H.; Lo, Y.F.; Lin, Y.C.; Yeh, C.H.; Ueng, S.H. Preoperative assessment of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography of diagnosed breast cancers after sonographic biopsy: Correlation to contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and 5-year postoperative follow-up. Medicine. 2020, 19024.
  92. Patel, B.K.; Garza, S.A.; Eversman, S.; Lopez-Alvarez, Y.; Kosiorek, H.; Pockaj, B.A. Assessing tumor extent on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus full-field digital mammography and ultrasound. Clin. Imaging 2017, 46, 78–84.
  93. Patel, B.K.; Davis, J.; Ferraro, C.; Kosiorek, H.; Hasselbach, K.; Ocal, T.; Pockaj, B. Value Added of Preoperative Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography in Patients with Invasive Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast. Clin. Breast Cancer 2018, 18, e1339-45.
  94. Carnahan, M.B.; Pockaj, B.; Pizzitola, V.; Giurescu, M.E.; Lorans, R.; Eversman, W.; Sharpe, R.E.; Cronin, P.; Patel, B.K. Contrast-Enhanced Mammography for Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer in Women with Breast Augmentation: Preliminary Findings. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2021, 217, 855–856.
  95. Marino, M.A.; Avendano, D.; Zapata, P.; Riedl, C.C.; Pinker, K. Lymph Node Imaging in Patients with Primary Breast Cancer: Concurrent Diagnostic Tools. Oncologist 2020, 25, e231–e242.
  96. Kong, X.; Zhang, Q.; Wu, X.; Zou, T.; Duan, J.; Song, S.; Nie, J.; Tao, C.; Tang, M.; Wang, M.; et al. Advances in Imaging in Evaluating the Efficacy of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer. Front. Oncol. 2022, 12, 816297.
  97. Iotti, V.; Ravaioli, S.; Vacondio, R.; Coriani, C.; Caffarri, S.; Sghedoni, R.; Nitrosi, A.; Ragazzi, M.; Gasparini, E.; Masini, C.; et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography in neoadjuvant chemotherapy monitoring: A comparison with breast magnetic resonance imaging. Breast Cancer Res. BCR 2017, 19, 106.
  98. Patel, B.K.; Hilal, T.; Covington, M.; Zhang, N.; Kosiorek, H.E.; Lobbes, M.; Northfelt, D.W.; Pockaj, B.A. Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography is Comparable to MRI in the Assessment of Residual Breast Cancer Following Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2018, 25, 1350–1356.
  99. Canteros, D.; Walbaum, B.; Córdova-Delgado, M.; Torrealba, A.; Reyes, C.; Navarro, M.E.; Razmilic, D.; Camus, M.; Dominguez, F.; Navarrete, O.; et al. Contrast-enhanced mammography predicts pathological response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer. Ecancermedicalscience 2022, 16, 1396.
  100. Patel, B.K.; Gray, R.J.; Pockaj, B.A. Potential Cost Savings of Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2017, 208, W231–W237.
  101. Phillips, J.; Miller, M.M.; Mehta, T.S.; Fein-Zachary, V.; Nathanson, A.; Hori, W.; Monahan-Earley, R.; Slanetz, P.J. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) versus MRI in the high-risk screening setting: Patient preferences and attitudes. Clin. Imaging 2017, 42, 193–197.
  102. Sogani, J.; Mango, V.L.; Keating, D.; Sung, J.S.; Jochelson, M.S. Contrast-enhanced mammography: Past, present, and future. Clin. Imaging 2021, 69, 269–279.
  103. Zanardo, M.; Cozzi, A.; Trimboli, R.M.; Labaj, O.; Monti, C.B.; Schiaffino, S.; Carbonaro, L.A.; Sardanelli, F. Technique, protocols and adverse reactions for contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM): A systematic review. Insights Imaging 2019, 10, 76.
  104. Hobbs, M.M.; Taylor, D.B.; Buzynski, S.; Peake, R.E. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) and contrast enhanced MRI (CEMRI): Patient preferences and tolerance. J. Med. Imaging Radiat. Oncol. 2015, 59, 300–305.
  105. Patel, B.K.; Lobbes, M.B.I.; Lewin, J. Contrast Enhanced Spectral Mammography: A Review. Semin. Ultrasound CT MR 2018, 39, 70–79.
  106. James, J.R.; Pavlicek, W.; Hanson, J.A.; Boltz, T.F.; Patel, B.K. Breast Radiation Dose With CESM Compared With 2D FFDM and 3D Tomosynthesis Mammography. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2017, 208, 362–372.
  107. James, J. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM)-guided breast biopsy as an alternative to MRI-guided biopsy. Br. J. Radiol. 2022, 95, 20211287.
  108. National Library of Medicine (U.S.). (23 November 2022). Comparison of Breast Cancer Screening With CESM to DBT in Women With Dense Breasts (CMIST). Identifier NCT05625659. Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05625659 (accessed on 25 February 2023).
  109. National Library of Medicine (U.S.). (18 June 2020). Added Value of Preoperative Contrast Enhanced Mammography in Staging of Malignant Breast Lesions (PROCEM). Identifier NCT04437602. Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04437602 (accessed on 25 February 2023).
  110. Åhsberg, K.; Gardfjell, A.; Nimeus, E.; Ryden, L.; Zackrisson, S. The PROCEM study protocol: Added value of preoperative contrast-enhanced mammography in staging of malignant breast lesions—A prospective randomized multicenter study. BMC Cancer 2021, 21, 1115.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register : Alicia M Pereslucha , Danielle M Wenger ,
Michael F Morris
, Zeynep Bostanci Aydi
View Times: 963
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 17 Mar 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Notice
    You are not a member of the advisory board for this topic. If you want to update advisory board member profile, please contact office@encyclopedia.pub.
    OK
    Confirm
    Only members of the Encyclopedia advisory board for this topic are allowed to note entries. Would you like to become an advisory board member of the Encyclopedia?
    Yes
    No
    Academic Video Service
    Feedback