CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · South Asian J Cancer 2023; 12(01): 068-073
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1755468
Original Article
Breast Cancer

MRI Features of Synchronous Masses in Known Breast Cancer Patients in Predicting Benign Versus Malignant Lesions: A Case Based Review at Tertiary Care Cancer Hospital

1   Department of Radiology, Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Centre, Lahore, Pakistan
Bushra Rehman
2   Department of Breast Surgery, Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Centre, Lahore, Pakistan
Anis ur Rehman
1   Department of Radiology, Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Centre, Lahore, Pakistan
Islah Ud Din
1   Department of Radiology, Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Centre, Lahore, Pakistan
Aamer Iftikhar
1   Department of Radiology, Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Centre, Lahore, Pakistan
Ainy Javaid
1   Department of Radiology, Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Centre, Lahore, Pakistan
Muhammad Asad Parvaiz
2   Department of Breast Surgery, Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Centre, Lahore, Pakistan
› Author Affiliations
Funding None.


Zoom Image
Sara Rehman

Objectives The purpose of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in classifying incidental satellite masses in biopsy-proven breast cancer patients as benign or malignant masses and assessing its impact on surgical management of these patients. We also analyzed the incidence of MRI-detected lesions, which were thereafter assessed with second look ultrasound (US).

Materials and Methods A retrospective study was performed on breast cancer patients presenting from August 01, 2016 to July 31, 2019, with satellite masses seen on base line MRI. Satellite masses were classified as benign and malignant based on MRI features of shape, margin, T2-weighted imaging signals, internal enhancement pattern, enhancement kinetic curves, and diffusion restriction. This was compared with results of histopathological examination. The number of MRI-detected lesions, location of the satellite mass, and type of surgery were also documented.

Results Out of 400 breast cancer patients undergoing MRI breast, 115 patients had multiple masses. Histopathological diagnosis was available for 73 patients; and a total of 93 satellite masses were evaluated. There was evidence of additional masses on second look ultrasound in 21 patients. Of 72 masses classified as malignant on MRI, 58 showed malignant pathological outcome; while out of 21 masses characterized as benign on MRI, 18 turned out to be benign on histopathology. A statistically significant association was found between MRI features and pathological outcome of satellite masses (p = 0.001). The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy were 95%, 56%, 80.56%, 85.7% and 81.7%, respectively. Based on these findings, modified radical mastectomy (MRM)/mastectomy was done for 42 patients, 5 patients underwent lumpectomy limited to a single tumor, extended resection done for 14 patients, 5 underwent bilateral breast conservation surgery (BCS), BCS for contralateral breast done for 4 patients undergoing ipsilateral MRM/mastectomy, and bilateral MRM/mastectomies were performed for 2 patients. One patient was lost to follow up.

Conclusion Breast MRI is the most sensitive modality for the assessment of breast cancer and plays an essential role in the detection of additional tumor foci. These findings can modify the surgical approach in these patients. However, considering the low specificity, biopsy of satellite masses is imperative to determine the most appropriate surgical plan.


This study was presented as an e-poster at the Shaukat Khanum Cancer Symposium in November 2021 and as poster at the Association of Breast Surgery Conference, Liverpool, in May 2022.

Authors' Contributions

Dr. SR contributed to conceptualization, data curation, statistical analysis, literature search, and writing original draft. Dr. BR contributed to data curation, statistical analysis, and editing. Dr. AR contributed to supervision, review, and editing. Dr. IUD contributed to supervision, review, and editing. Dr. AI contributed to supervision, review, and editing. Dr. AJ contributed to data curation and editing. Dr. MAP contributed to supervision, review, and editing.

Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval

Our hospital's institutional review board approved this retrospective data collection and analysis and granted waiver of informed consent (EX-05–08–19–01).

Publication History

Article published online:
22 August 2022

© 2022. MedIntel Services Pvt Ltd. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

  • References

  • 1 American College of Radiology. ACR practice parameter for the performance of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast. American College of Radiology; 2018
  • 2 Malich A, Fischer DR, Wurdinger S. et al. Potential MRI interpretation model: differentiation of benign from malignant breast masses. Am J Roentgenol 2005; 185 (04) 964-970 DOI: 10.2214/AJR.04.1073.
  • 3 Sardanelli F, Giuseppetti GM, Panizza P. et al; Italian Trial for Breast MR in Multifocal/Multicentric Cancer. 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. Am J Roentgenol 2004; 183 (04) 1149-1157 DOI: 10.2214/ajr.183.4.1831149.
  • 4 Sardanelli F. Overview of the role of pre-operative breast MRI in the absence of evidence on patient outcomes. Breast 2010; 19 (01) 3-6 DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2009.11.003.
  • 5 Hong MJ, Cha JH, Kim HH. et al. Second-look ultrasonography for MRI-detected suspicious breast lesions in patients with breast cancer. Ultrasonography 2015; 34 (02) 125-132 DOI: 10.14366/usg.14046.
  • 6 Abe H, Schmidt RA, Shah RN. et al. MR-directed (“Second-Look”) ultrasound examination for breast lesions detected initially on MRI: MR and sonographic findings. Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194 (02) 370-377 DOI: 10.2214/AJR.09.2707.
  • 7 American College of Radiology. . D'Orsi CJ. ACR BI-RADS atlas: breast imaging reporting and data system; mammography, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, follow-up and outcome monitoring, data dictionary. ACR, American College of Radiology; 2013: 125-143
  • 8 Macura KJ, Ouwerkerk R, Jacobs MA, Bluemke DA. Patterns of enhancement on breast MR images: interpretation and imaging pitfalls. Radiographics 2006; 26 (06) 1719-1734, quiz 1719 DOI: 10.1148/rg.266065025.
  • 9 Middleton LP, Vlastos G, Mirza NQ, Eva S, Sahin AA. Multicentric mammary carcinoma: evidence of monoclonal proliferation. Cancer 2002; 94 (07) 1910-1916 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.10452.
  • 10 Tot T. Axillary lymph node status in unifocal, multifocal, and diffuse breast carcinomas: differences are related to macrometastatic disease. Ann Surg Oncol 2012; 19 (11) 3395-3401 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-012-2346-y.
  • 11 Neri A, Marrelli D, Megha T. et al. “Clinical significance of multifocal and multicentric breast cancers and choice of surgical treatment: a retrospective study on a series of 1158 cases”. BMC Surg 2015; 15 (01) 1 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2482-15-1.
  • 12 Rehman S, Niazi IK, Naveed MA, Javaid A, Rehman B. Sonographic evaluation of incidental synchronous masses in patients with breast cancer: clinical significance and diagnostic workup. Eur J Breast Health 2020; 17 (01) 28-35 DOI: 10.4274/ejbh.2020.5858.
  • 13 Yamaguchi K, Schacht D, Sennett CA. et al. Decision making for breast lesions initially detected at contrast-enhanced breast MRI. Am J Roentgenol 2013; 201 (06) 1376-1385 DOI: 10.2214/AJR.12.8953.
  • 14 Park VY, Kim MJ, Kim EK, Moon HJ. Second-look US: how to find breast lesions with a suspicious MR imaging appearance. Radiographics 2013; 33 (05) 1361-1375 DOI: 10.1148/rg.335125109.
  • 15 Liberman L, Morris EA, Lee MJ. et al. Breast lesions detected on MR imaging: features and positive predictive value. Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179 (01) 171-178 DOI: 10.2214/ajr.179.1.1790171.
  • 16 Jiang X, Xie F, Liu L, Peng Y, Cai H, Li L. Discrimination of malignant and benign breast masses using automatic segmentation and features extracted from dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MRI. Oncol Lett 2018; 16 (02) 1521-1528 DOI: 10.3892/ol.2018.8805.
  • 17 Chen X, Li WL, Zhang YL, Wu Q, Guo YM, Bai ZL. Meta-analysis of quantitative diffusion-weighted MR imaging in the differential diagnosis of breast lesions. BMC Cancer 2010; 10: 693 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-10-693.
  • 18 Cai H, Liu L, Peng Y, Wu Y, Li L. Diagnostic assessment by dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance in differentiation of breast lesions under different imaging protocols. BMC Cancer 2014; 14: 366 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-14-366.
  • 19 Lim HI, Choi JH, Yang JH. et al. Does pre-operative breast magnetic resonance imaging in addition to mammography and breast ultrasonography change the operative management of breast carcinoma?. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010; 119 (01) 163-167 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-009-0525-8.
  • 20 Fischer U, Baum F, Luftner-Nagel S. Preoperative MR imaging in patients with breast cancer: preoperative staging, effects on recurrence rates, and outcome analysis. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2006; 14 (03) 351-362, vi DOI: 10.1016/j.mric.2006.07.009.
  • 21 Tillman GF, Orel SG, Schnall MD, Schultz DJ, Tan JE, Solin LJ. Effect of breast magnetic resonance imaging on the clinical management of women with early-stage breast carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20 (16) 3413-3423 DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2002.08.600.