Non-mass enhancement (breast MRI)
Citation, DOI, disclosures and article data
At the time the article was created Francis Deng had no recorded disclosures.View Francis Deng's current disclosures
At the time the article was last revised Henry Knipe had no recorded disclosures.View Henry Knipe's current disclosures
Non-mass enhancement at breast MRI is defined in the BI-RADS lexicon as an area of enhancement that does not meet criteria for a mass, such as by having nonconvex borders or intervening fat or fibroglandular tissue between the enhancing components.
On this page:
A wide variety of benign, high risk and malignant processes can manifest as non-mass enhancement 2,6:
- fibrocystic changes
- pseudoangiomatous stromal hyperplasia (PASH)
- apocrine metaplasia
- radiation therapy effect
- flat epithelial atypia
- atypical ductal hyperplasia
- radial scar/complex sclerosing lesion
- intraductal papilloma
- ductal carcinoma in situ
- invasive carcinoma of no special type (ductal carcinoma not otherwise specified)
- invasive lobular carcinoma
The BI-RADS lexicon (5th edition) provides standard descriptors for the distribution and internal pattern of non-mass contrast enhancement 1.
- focal: confined area less than a breast quadrant characterized by a non-mass internal enhancement pattern
- linear: straight, curved, or branching arrangement of enhancement, suggestive of ductal or periductal involvement
- segmental: triangular or conical arrangement with the apex directed toward the nipple, suggestive of ductal or periductal involvement
- regional: area larger than a breast quadrant
- multiple regions: more than one large area, separated by normal tissue, not conforming to a ductal distribution (patchy)
- diffuse: randomly arranged throughout the breast
- internal enhancement patterns
- homogeneous: confluent and uniform
- heterogeneous: randomly separated by normal tissue in a nonuniform pattern
- clumped: small aggregates of enhancement ("cobblestone" like) in various sizes and shapes, suggestive of ductal involvement; used in combination with focal, linear, segmental, or regional distribution
- clustered ring: multiple small ring shapes closely arranged, suggestive of periductal involvement
Treatment and prognosis
In general, a substantial minority of non-mass enhancement proves to be malignant 3-5. Second-look breast ultrasound is prudent to look for a correlate that can be targeted for ultrasound-guided rather than MRI-guided breast biopsy.
Alternative considerations for describing an enhancing area depends on the size, shape, and distinctness from the rest of the breast parenchyma:
Non-mass enhancement is usually assessed as suspicious and managed with core needle biopsy (BI-RADS 4).
There are limited data supporting a probably benign assessment for certain types of non-mass enhancement (BI-RADS 3), which remains a matter of intuition for most radiologists 1. In one newer study, a linear distribution of non-mass enhancement <1 cm that is not branching is probably benign 7. Anecdotal experience suggests homogeneous non-mass enhancement in a focal, regional, or multiple regions distribution on baseline examination may also fit this category 8,9.
In some clinical situations, enhancement could be transient and related to hormonal status. For instance, a premenopausal patient may be scanned in a suboptimal part of her cycle, or a postmenopausal patient may be taking hormone replacement therapy. If this is suspected but the finding is not clearly background parenchymal enhancement, the non-mass enhancement may be assessed as probably benign (BI-RADS 3) with a recommendation for a very short interval follow up (2-3 months), timed for week 2 of the patient's cycle or after suspending hormonal therapy 1.
- 1. D’Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB, Morris EA, et al. ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Reston, VA, American College of Radiology; 2013. ISBN:155903016X. Read it at Google Books - Find it at Amazon
- 2. Chadashvili T, Ghosh E, Fein-Zachary V, Mehta TS, Venkataraman S, Dialani V, Slanetz PJ. Nonmass enhancement on breast MRI: review of patterns with radiologic-pathologic correlation and discussion of management. (2015) AJR. American journal of roentgenology. 204 (1): 219-27. doi:10.2214/AJR.14.12656 - Pubmed
- 3. Chikarmane SA, Michaels AY, Giess CS. Revisiting Nonmass Enhancement in Breast MRI: Analysis of Outcomes and Follow-Up Using the Updated BI-RADS Atlas. (2017) AJR. American journal of roentgenology. 209 (5): 1178-1184. doi:10.2214/AJR.17.18086 - Pubmed
- 4. Chikarmane SA, Birdwell RL, Poole PS, Sippo DA, Giess CS. Characteristics, Malignancy Rate, and Follow-up of BI-RADS Category 3 Lesions Identified at Breast MR Imaging: Implications for MR Image Interpretation and Management. (2016) Radiology. 280 (3): 707-15. doi:10.1148/radiol.2016151548 - Pubmed
- 5. Gutierrez RL, DeMartini WB, Eby PR, Kurland BF, Peacock S, Lehman CD. BI-RADS lesion characteristics predict likelihood of malignancy in breast MRI for masses but not for nonmasslike enhancement. (2009) AJR. American journal of roentgenology. 193 (4): 994-1000. doi:10.2214/AJR.08.1983 - Pubmed
- 6. Shimauchi A, Ota H, Machida Y, Yoshida T, Satani N, Mori N, Takase K, Tozaki M. Morphology evaluation of nonmass enhancement on breast MRI: Effect of a three-step interpretation model for readers' performances and biopsy recommendations. (2016) European journal of radiology. 85 (2): 480-8. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.11.043 - Pubmed
- 7. Machida Y, Tozaki M, Shimauchi A, Yoshida T. Two Distinct Types of Linear Distribution in Nonmass Enhancement at Breast MR Imaging: Difference in Positive Predictive Value between Linear and Branching Patterns. (2015) Radiology. 276 (3): 686-94. doi:10.1148/radiol.2015141775 - Pubmed
- 8. Spick C, Szolar DH, Baltzer PA, Tillich M, Reittner P, Preidler KW, Pinker-Domenig K, Helbich TH. Rate of malignancy in MRI-detected probably benign (BI-RADS 3) lesions. (2014) AJR. American journal of roentgenology. 202 (3): 684-9. doi:10.2214/AJR.13.10928 - Pubmed
- 9. Lee KA, Talati N, Oudsema R, Steinberger S, Margolies LR. BI-RADS 3: Current and Future Use of Probably Benign. (2018) Current radiology reports. 6 (2): 5. doi:10.1007/s40134-018-0266-8 - Pubmed