Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2011 Jul;260(1):50-60.
doi: 10.1148/radiol.11102156. Epub 2011 Apr 14.

Background parenchymal enhancement at breast MR imaging and breast cancer risk

Valencia King  1 , Jennifer D Brooks, Jonine L Bernstein, Anne S Reiner, Malcolm C Pike, Elizabeth A Morris
Affiliations

Background parenchymal enhancement at breast MR imaging and breast cancer risk

Valencia King et al. Radiology. 2011 Jul.

Abstract

Purpose: To examine the relationships between breast cancer and both amount of fibroglandular tissue (FGT) and level of background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) at magnetic resonance (MR) imaging.

Materials and methods: A waiver of authorization was granted by the institutional review board for this retrospective HIPAA-compliant study. Among 1275 women who underwent breast MR imaging screening between December 2002 and February 2008, 39 breast carcinoma cases were identified. Two comparisons were performed: In one comparison, two normal controls--those of the women with negative (benign) findings at breast MR imaging--were matched to each breast cancer case on the basis of age and date of MR imaging. In the second comparison, one false-positive control--that of a woman with suspicious but nonmalignant findings at MR imaging--was similarly matched to each breast cancer case. Two readers independently rated the level of MR imaging-depicted BPE and the amount of MR imaging-depicted FGT by using a categorical scale: BPE was categorized as minimal, mild, moderate, or marked, and FGT was categorized as fatty, scattered, heterogeneously dense, or dense.

Results: Compared with the odds ratio (OR) for a normal control, the OR for breast cancer increased significantly with increasing BPE: The ORs for moderate or marked BPE versus minimal or mild BPE were 10.1 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.9, 35.3; P < .001) and 3.3 (95% CI: 1.3, 8.3; P = .006) for readers 1 and 2, respectively. Similar odds were seen when the false-positive controls were compared with the breast cancer cases: The ORs for moderate or marked BPE versus minimal or mild BPE were 5.1 (95% CI: 1.4, 19.1; P = .005) and 3.7 (95% CI: 1.2, 11.2; P = .013) for readers 1 and 2, respectively. The breast cancer odds also increased with increasing FGT, but the BPE findings remained significant after adjustment for FGT.

Conclusion: Increased BPE is strongly predictive of breast cancer odds.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1a:
Figure 1a:
T1-weighted fat-suppressed contrast-enhanced subtraction MR images show different right breasts with (a) minimal, (b) mild, (c) moderate, and (d) marked BPE.
Figure 1b:
Figure 1b:
T1-weighted fat-suppressed contrast-enhanced subtraction MR images show different right breasts with (a) minimal, (b) mild, (c) moderate, and (d) marked BPE.
Figure 1c:
Figure 1c:
T1-weighted fat-suppressed contrast-enhanced subtraction MR images show different right breasts with (a) minimal, (b) mild, (c) moderate, and (d) marked BPE.
Figure 1d:
Figure 1d:
T1-weighted fat-suppressed contrast-enhanced subtraction MR images show different right breasts with (a) minimal, (b) mild, (c) moderate, and (d) marked BPE.
Figure 2a:
Figure 2a:
T1-weighted non–fat-suppressed MR images show different breasts with (a) fatty, (b) scattered, (c) heterogeneously dense, and (d) dense amounts of FGT. (a and d = right breasts, b and c = left breasts.)
Figure 2b:
Figure 2b:
T1-weighted non–fat-suppressed MR images show different breasts with (a) fatty, (b) scattered, (c) heterogeneously dense, and (d) dense amounts of FGT. (a and d = right breasts, b and c = left breasts.)
Figure 2c:
Figure 2c:
T1-weighted non–fat-suppressed MR images show different breasts with (a) fatty, (b) scattered, (c) heterogeneously dense, and (d) dense amounts of FGT. (a and d = right breasts, b and c = left breasts.)
Figure 2d:
Figure 2d:
T1-weighted non–fat-suppressed MR images show different breasts with (a) fatty, (b) scattered, (c) heterogeneously dense, and (d) dense amounts of FGT. (a and d = right breasts, b and c = left breasts.)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Wolfe JN. Risk for breast cancer development determined by mammographic parenchymal pattern. Cancer 1976;37(5):2486–2492. - PubMed
    1. Wolfe JN. Breast patterns as an index of risk for developing breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1976;126(6):1130–1137. - PubMed
    1. Wolfe JN, Saftlas AF, Salane M. Mammographic parenchymal patterns and quantitative evaluation of mammographic densities: a case-control study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1987;148(6):1087–1092. - PubMed
    1. van Gils CH, Hendriks JH, Holland R, et al. . Changes in mammographic breast density and concomitant changes in breast cancer risk. Eur J Cancer Prev 1999;8(6):509–515. - PubMed
    1. Byrne C, Schairer C, Wolfe J, et al. . Mammographic features and breast cancer risk: effects with time, age, and menopause status. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87(21):1622–1629. - PubMed