Diagnostic Accuracy of MR Mammography in Comparison with Digital Mammography and Sonomammography
Full Text


Breast Cancer
Contrast-Enhanced MR Mammography
Dense Breast

How to Cite

Sedguli, S., Gowda, R. S., Ranganathan, R., & Kumar B, S. (2022). Diagnostic Accuracy of MR Mammography in Comparison with Digital Mammography and Sonomammography. Galician Medical Journal, 29(1), E202214. https://doi.org/10.21802/gmj.2022.1.4


Background. Even though the sensitivity of contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance mammography (CE-MRM) is consistently high in the range of 94-100%, conventionally, digital mammography and sonomammography continue as standard imaging modalities for the detection and evaluation of breast disease.

The objective of the study was to detect additional lesions that go undetected by routine digital mammography and sonomammography using CE-MRM.

Materials and Methods. In a prospective study, 68 patients who came for screening diagnostic mammogram and had breast lesions of Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System category 3-6 were evaluated. All patients underwent bilateral digital mammography and targeted high-frequency sonomammography of the primary lesion. Those patients who were thought to possibly have breast cancer and to be candidates for surgical management were offered bilateral CE-MRM.

Results. In this prospective study, we included 68 patients (mean age - 50.6 years, range - 30-73 years). A total of 74 lesions were evaluated. In detecting these lesions, digital mammography had a sensitivity of 40.0%, specificity of 100% and diagnostic accuracy of 63.5%. CE-MRM sensitivity was found to be 71.7%, specificity - 96.6% and diagnostic accuracy - 83.7%. Among the 27 additional lesions detected by CE-MRM, histopathological evaluation confirmed only 19, indicating the sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 85.4%, positive predictive value of 67.8%, negative predictive value of 100%, diagnostic accuracy of 89.2%.

Conclusions. The diagnostic accuracy of CE-MRM was found to be 83.7%, with a specificity of 96.6%. CE-MRM detected 19 additional lesions that were undetected by either digital mammography or ultrasonography. CE-MRM is sensitive in detecting additional malignant lesions which are not detected by other imaging modalities.

Full Text


Sprague BL, Arao RF, Miglioretti DL, Henderson LM, Buist DSM, Onega T, et al. National performance benchmarks for modern diagnostic digital mammography: update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Radiology. 2017;283(1):59–69. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017161519

Iranmakani S, Mortezazadeh T, Sajadian F, Ghaziani MF, Ghafari A, Khezerloo D, et al. A review of various modalities in breast imaging: technical aspects and clinical outcomes. Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine. 2020;51(1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43055-020-00175-5

Lee-Felker SA, Tekchandani L, Thomas M, Gupta E, Andrews-Tang D, Roth A, et al. Newly diagnosed breast cancer: comparison of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography and breast MR imaging in the evaluation of extent of disease. Radiology. 2017;285(2):389–400. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017161592

Lynge E, Vejborg I, Andersen Z, von Euler-Chelpin M, Napolitano G. Mammographic density and screening sensitivity, breast cancer incidence and associated risk factors in Danish breast cancer screening. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2019;8(11):2021. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8112021

Yamakanamardi S, Hiremath BV. Accuracy of mammography and sonomammography and its correlation with histopathology in the detection of breast cancer. International Surgery Journal. 2021;8(2):624. Available from: https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20210374

Harvey JA, Mahoney MC, Newell MS, Bailey L, Barke LD, D’Orsi C, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria palpable breast masses. Journal of the American College of Radiology. 2016;13(11):e31–e42. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2016.09.022

Crombé A, Saranathan M, Ruet A, Durieux M, de Roquefeuil E, Ouallet JC, et al. MS lesions are better detected with 3D T1 gradient-echo than with 2D T1 spin-echo Gadolinium-enhanced imaging at 3T. American Journal of Neuroradiology. 2014;36(3):501–507. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A4152

Hollingsworth AB. Redefining the sensitivity of screening mammography: a review. The American Journal of Surgery. 2019;218(2):411–418. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2019.01.039

Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, Carter WB, Bhargavan M, Lewis RS, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology. 2004;233(3):830–849. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2333031484

Fatima S, Waheed S, Khan MI. Diagnostic accuracy of MR mammography in diagnosing malignant breast lesions taking histopathology as gold standard. Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan. 2019;29(1):16–18. Available from: https://doi.org/10.29271/jcpsp.2019.01.16

Pereira R de O, Luz LA da, Chagas DC, Amorim JR, Nery-Júnior E de J, Alves ACBR, et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of mammography, ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in suspect breast lesions. Clinics. 2020;75:e1805. Available from: https://doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2020/e1805

Aydin H. The MRI characteristics of non-mass enhancement lesions of the breast: associations with malignancy. The British Journal of Radiology. 2019;92(1096):20180464. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20180464

Spak DA, Plaxco JS, Santiago L, Dryden MJ, Dogan BE. BI-RADS ® fifth edition: a summary of changes. Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging. 2017;98(3):179–190. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2017.01.001

Magny SJ, Shikhman R, Keppke AL. Breast imaging reporting and data system. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2021. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK459169/

Rao AA, Feneis J, Lalonde C, Ojeda-Fournier H. A pictorial review of changes in the BI-RADS fifth edition. RadioGraphics. 2016;36(3):623–639. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2016150178

Boné B, Péntek Z, Perbeck L, Veress B. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography and contrast-enhanced MR Imaging in 238 histologically verified breast lesions. Acta Radiologica. 1997;38(4):489–496. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/02841859709174374

Ren H, Zhang Y. Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and mammography for breast cancer. Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics. 2017;13(5):862. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4103/jcrt.JCRT_678_17

Suter MB, Pesapane F, Agazzi GM, Gagliardi T, Nigro O, Bozzini A, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for breast lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Breast. 2020;53:8–17. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2020.06.005

Kuhl CK, Strobel K, Bieling H, Leutner C, Schild HH, Schrading S. Supplemental breast MR imaging screening of women with average risk of breast cancer. Radiology. 2017;283(2):361–370. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016161444

Berg WA. Current status of supplemental screening in dense breasts. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2016;34(16):1840–1843. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.65.8674

Welch HG, Prorok PC, O’Malley AJ, Kramer BS. Breast-cancer tumor size, overdiagnosis, and mammography screening effectiveness. New England Journal of Medicine. 2016;375(15):1438–1447. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1600249

Kuhl CK. Abbreviated breast MRI for screening women with dense breast: the EA1141 trial. The British Journal of Radiology. 2018;91(1090):20170441. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20170441

Yoo JL, Woo OH, Kim YK, Cho KR, Yong HS, Seo BK, et al. Can MR imaging contribute in characterizing well-circumscribed breast carcinomas? RadioGraphics. 2010;30(6):1689–1704. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.306105511

Tagliafico AS, Calabrese M, Mariscotti G, Durando M, Tosto S, Monetti F, et al. Adjunct screening with tomosynthesis or ultrasound in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: interim report of a prospective comparative trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2016;34(16):1882–1888. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.63.4147

Bakker MF, de Lange SV, Pijnappel RM, Mann RM, Peeters PHM, Monninkhof EM, et al. Supplemental MRI screening for women with extremely dense breast tissue. New England Journal of Medicine. 2019;381(22):2091–2102. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1903986

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.