The American College of Radiology, with more than 30,000 members, is the principal organization of radiologists, radiation oncologists,

and clinical
medical physicists in the United States. The College is a nonprofit professional society whose primary purposes are to advance the science of radiology,
improve radiologic services to the patient, study the socioeconomic aspects of the practice of radiology, and encourage continuing education for
radiologists, radiation oncologists, medical physicists, and persons practicing in allied professional fields.

The American College of Radiology will periodically define new practice parameters and technical standards for radiologic practice to help advance the
science of radiology and to improve the quality of service to patients throughout the United States. Existing practice parameters and technical standards
will be reviewed for revision or renewal, as appropriate, on their fifth anniversary or sooner, if indicated.

Each practice parameter and technical standard, representing a policy statement by the College, has undergone a thorough consensus process in which it has
been subjected to extensive review and approval. The practice parameters and technical standards recognize that the safe and effective use of diagnostic
and therapeutic radiology requires specific training, skills, and techniques, as described in each document. Reproduction or modification of the published
practice parameter and technical standard by those entities not providing these services is not authorized.

Revised 2018 (Resolution 34)*

ACR PRACTICE PARAMETER FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONTRAST-

ENHANCED MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING (MRI) OF THE BREAST
PREAMBLE

This document is an educational tool designed to assist practitioners in providing appropriate radiologic care for
patients. Practice Parameters and Technical Standards are not inflexible rules or requirements of practice and are
not intended, nor should they be used, to establish a legal standard of care1. For these reasons and those set forth
below, the American College of Radiology and our collaborating medical specialty societies caution against the
use of these documents in litigation in which the clinical decisions of a practitioner are called into question.
The ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any specific procedure or course of action must be made by the
practitioner in light of all the circumstances presented. Thus, an approach that differs from the guidance in this
document, standing alone, does not necessarily imply that the approach was below the standard of care. To the
contrary, a conscientious practitioner may responsibly adopt a course of action different from that set forth in this
document when, in the reasonable judgment of the practitioner, such course of action is indicated by the condition
of the patient, limitations of available resources, or advances in knowledge or technology subsequent to
publication of this document. However, a practitioner who employs an approach substantially different from the
guidance in this document is advised to document in the patient record information sufficient to explain the
approach taken.
The practice of medicine involves not only the science, but also the art of dealing with the prevention, diagnosis,
alleviation, and treatment of disease. The variety and complexity of human conditions make it impossible to
always reach the most appropriate diagnosis or to predict with certainty a particular response to treatment.
Therefore, it should be recognized that adherence to the guidance in this document will not assure an accurate
diagnosis or a successful outcome. All that should be expected is that the practitioner will follow a reasonable
course of action based on current knowledge, available resources, and the needs of the patient to deliver effective
and safe medical care. The sole purpose of this document is to assist practitioners in achieving this objective.

1 Iowa Medical Society and Iowa Society of Anesthesiologists v. Iowa Board of Nursing, ___ N.W.2d ___ (Iowa 2013) Iowa Supreme Court refuses to find
that the ACR Technical Standard for Management of the Use of Radiation in Fluoroscopic Procedures (Revised 2008) sets a national standard for who may
perform fluoroscopic procedures in light of the standard’s stated purpose that ACR standards are educational tools and not intended to establish a legal
standard of care. See also, Stanley v. McCarver, 63 P.3d 1076 (Ariz. App. 2003) where in a concurring opinion the Court stated that “published standards or
guidelines of specialty medical organizations are useful in determining the duty owed or the standard of care applicable in a given situation” even though
ACR standards themselves do not establish the standard of care.

PRACTICE PARAMETER 1 MRI of the Breast

I. INTRODUCTION

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast is a useful tool for the detection and characterization of breast
disease, assessment of local disease extent, evaluation of treatment response, and guidance for biopsy and
localization. MRI findings should be correlated with clinical history, physical examination findings, and the
results of mammography and any other prior breast imaging.

II. CURRENT INDICATIONS

A. Current indications for breast MRI include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Screening

a. High-risk patients – Clinical trials from the United States and Europe have demonstrated that
breast MRI can significantly improve the detection of cancer that is otherwise clinically,
mammographically, and sonographically occult [1-12]. Breast MRI is indicated in the
surveillance of women with greater than or equal to 20% lifetime risk of breast cancer (for
example, individuals with genetic predisposition to breast cancer as determined by either
gene testing or family pedigree, or individuals with a history of mantle radiation for Hodgkin
lymphoma ) [13]. High-risk patients may be referred for annual screening breast MRI in
addition to mammography, preferably after risk assessment and counseling either by
personnel trained in the assessment of hereditary breast cancer or by a referring physician
who has used a breast cancer risk assessment model. Although there is no direct evidence
that MRI reduces mortality, supplementing annual screening with MRI facilitates early
disease detection in high-risk patients [13].

b. Intermediate-risk patients – Breast MRI may be considered as a supplement to

mammography to screen women at moderately elevated risk of breast cancer (15%-20%).
Annual screening MRI is recommended for women with a personal history of breast cancer
and dense tissue or for those diagnosed with breast cancer under the age of 50 [14].

c. Bilateral breast MRI for patients with a newly diagnosed breast malignancy can detect occult
malignancy in the contralateral breast in at least 3% to 5% of patients [15-20].Contralateral breast
MRI screening in the newly diagnosed cancer patient may reduce the incidence of metachronous
contralateral cancer [21].

d. For patients with breast augmentation While the integrity of silicone implants can be
determined by noncontrast breast MRI, the use of contrast may be indicated in the evaluation
of patients with silicone or saline implants and/or free injections with silicone, paraffin, or
polyacrylamide gel in whom mammography is difficult. Additionally, patients who have
undergone implant reconstruction following lumpectomy or mastectomy for breast cancer
may benefit from contrast-enhanced breast MRI screening (see 3a).

2. Extent of disease

a. Invasive carcinoma and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) – Breast MRI may be useful to determine the
extent of disease and the presence of multifocality and multicentricity in patients with invasive
carcinoma and DCIS. Multiple clinical trials in the United States and Europe show that, on average,
MRI can detect occult disease in the ipsilateral breast (containing the index malignancy) in
approximately 15% of patients, with ranges reported from 12% to 27% and disease in the
contralateral breast in 4 3% to 5% of patients [15,16,22-29]. MRI determines disease extent more
accurately than mammography and physical examination in many patients. It remains to be shown

MRI of the Breast 2 PRACTICE PARAMETER

 conclusively, however, that this increased accuracy decreases posttreatment recurrence rates or
surgical re-excision.

b. Invasion deep to fascia – MRI evaluation of breast carcinoma prior to surgical treatment may be
useful in both mastectomy and breast conservation candidates to define the relationship of the tumor
to the muscular fascia and identify any extension into the pectoralis major, serratus anterior, and/or
intercostal muscles [30,31].

c. Postlumpectomy with positive margins – Breast MRI may be useful for subsequent surgical planning
to identify occult multicentric or multifocal malignancy in the evaluation of patients whose
pathology specimens demonstrate close or positive margins [32].

d. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy – Breast MRI may be useful before, during, and/or after chemotherapy to
evaluate treatment response and the extent of residual disease prior to surgical treatment. If used for
this purpose, a pretreatment MRI is recommended [33-35] to facilitate assessment of
subsequent treatment response. MRI-compatible localization tissue markers should be placed prior to
neoadjuvant chemotherapy to indicate the location of the tumor in the event of complete response
[36,37].

3. Additional evaluation of clinical or imaging findings

a. Recurrence of breast cancer – Breast MRI may be useful in women with a prior history of breast
cancer and suspected recurrence when clinical, mammographic, and/or sonographic findings are
inconclusive [38].

b. Metastatic cancer when the primary is unknown and suspected to be of breast origin – MRI may be
useful in patients presenting with axillary or distant metastatic disease and no mammographic or
physical findings of primary breast carcinoma. Clinical trials demonstrate that breast MRI can locate
the primary tumor in over half of women presenting with metastatic axillary lymph adenopathy of
occult breast origin [39-42].

c. Lesion characterization – In rare cases, breast MRI may be indicated when other diagnostic imaging
examinations, such as ultrasound and mammography (with or without tomosynthesis), and physical
examination are inconclusive for the presence of breast cancer and biopsy cannot be performed (eg,
possible architectural distortion on only one mammographic view without a sonographic correlate)
[43-49]. MRI may also considered when the clinical suspicion is very high and mammography and
ultrasound are normal, such as bloody nipple discharge [50]. MRI should not precede or replace
diagnostic mammography and ultrasound to evaluate clinical signs or symptoms in the breast or to
evaluate lesions identified on screening mammography.

d. Postoperative tissue reconstruction – Breast MRI may be useful in the evaluation of suspected cancer
recurrence in patients with tissue transfer flaps. Breast MRI may also be helpful in differentiating
between recurrence and fat necrosis in patients with a history of breast cancer who have undergone
autologous fat grafting.

e. MRI-guided biopsy – MRI is indicated for guidance of interventional procedures such as vacuum-
assisted biopsy and preoperative wire localization for lesions that are occult on mammography or
sonography and demonstrable only with MRI.

B. Other Considerations

1. Screening of general population

Routine screening breast MRI currently is not recommended for asymptomatic, average-risk women.

PRACTICE PARAMETER 3 MRI of the Breast

 2. False positives

Breast MRI may yield findings that are not evident clinically or on mammography or ultrasound. The
findings may or may not be clinically significant. As with mammography or any other test, false-positive
results can be expected. The additional abnormalities detected on MRI may result in a follow-up
examination or recommendation for biopsy. Published results for MRI-directed biopsy are similar to
those for mammography [51,52].

3. Treatment planning

MRI findings in breast cancer patients may change their planned treatment. Caution should be exercised
in altering management based on MRI findings alone without biopsy confirmation. Additional biopsies
and/or correlation with other clinical and imaging information should be used together with clinical
judgment. There currently is no evidence that identification of additional ipsilateral or contralateral occult
malignancies improves patient outcomes.

4. Inappropriate uses of breast MRI

MRI should not supplant careful problem-solving mammographic views or ultrasound in the diagnostic
setting. Because MRI will miss some cancers that mammography will detect, it should not be used as a
substitute for screening mammography. MRI should not be used in lieu of biopsy of a suspicious finding
identifiable by mammography, ultrasound, or clinical examination.

5. Abbreviated (Fast) MRI protocols

Recent preliminary studies have reported shortened or abbreviated MRI protocols to have similar
sensitivities and specificities compared to a full MRI protocol [53-57]. Such shortened MRI protocols
could make contrast-enhanced MRI more cost effective as a screening tool.

III. SAFETY GUIDELINES AND POSSIBLE CONTRAINDICATIONS

See the ACR Practice Parameter for Performing and Interpreting Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), the ACR
Manual on Contrast Media, and the ACR Guidance Document on MR Safe Practices [57-60].

Peer-reviewed literature pertaining to MR safety should be reviewed on a regular basis [54,55,61,62].

IV. QUALIFICATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF PERSONNEL

See the ACR Practice Parameter for Performing and Interpreting Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) [59].

In addition, interpreting physicians should have knowledge and expertise in breast disease and breast imaging
diagnosis. Facilities performing breast MRI should have the capacity to perform mammographic correlation,
directed breast ultrasound, and MRI-guided intervention or create a referral arrangement with a cooperating
facility that can provide these services. If MRI-guided breast biopsy is performed, histopathologic results should
be available to the interpreting physician as well as the procedural physician.

V. SPECIFICATIONS OF THE EXAMINATION

Patients should undergo standard mammography in addition to breast MRI (unless patient consideration precludes
X-ray imaging), and the mammographic study images and report should be available for review. Additionally, an
attempt should be made to obtain prior breast MRI studies for comparison. If the patient has had recent
biopsy(ies) and/or excisional surgery, the histopathologic results should also be available for review.

The written or electronic request for MRI of the breast should provide sufficient information to demonstrate the
medical necessity of the examination and allow for its proper performance and interpretation.

MRI of the Breast 4 PRACTICE PARAMETER

Documentation that satisfies medical necessity includes 1) signs and symptoms and/or 2) relevant history
(including known diagnoses). Additional information regarding the specific reason for the examination or a
provisional diagnosis would be helpful and may at times be needed to allow for the proper performance and
interpretation of the examination.

The request for the examination must be originated by a physician or other appropriately licensed health care
provider. The accompanying clinical information should be provided by a physician or other appropriately
licensed health care provider familiar with the patient’s clinical problem or question and consistent with the stated
scope of practice requirements. (ACR Resolution 35, adopted in 2006 – revised in 2016, Resolution 12-b)

A. Patient Selection and Preparation

The physician responsible for the breast MRI should supervise patient selection and preparation. Patients should
be interviewed and screened for possible contraindications for MRI as discussed in section III. Patients suffering
from anxiety or claustrophobia may require sedation or additional assistance. Administration of anxiolysis or
moderate sedation may be needed to achieve a successful examination (see the ACR–SIR Practice Parameter for
Sedation/Analgesia) [63]. A recovery area is necessary, and appropriate personnel must be available to monitor
the patient following sedation. Sedation must be administered in accordance with institutional policy and state and
federal law by a physician or by a nurse with training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Increased parenchymal enhancement has been observed normally during the secretory phase of the menstrual
cycle. This normal enhancement may give rise to false positive and false negative MRI scans. It is therefore
recommended that breast MRI scans be performed during the second week of the menstrual cycle for patients
undergoing screening examinations. This may not be warranted for women undergoing evaluation for breast
cancer treatment planning.

B. Facility Requirements

Appropriate emergency equipment with medications must be immediately available to treat adverse reactions
associated with administered medications. The equipment and medications should be monitored for inventory and
drug expiration dates on a regular basis. The equipment, medications, and other emergency support must also be
appropriate for the range of ages and sizes in the patient population.

VI. DOCUMENTATION

Reporting should be in accordance with the ACR Practice Parameter for Communication of Diagnostic Imaging
Findings [64]. The report should follow the guidelines for terminology, including descriptions of lesion features
and location, as published in the ACR BI-RADS® Lexicon for Breast MRI. Analysis of abnormalities on breast
MRI ought to consider both morphologic and kinetic features of the abnormality. The BI-RADS assessment
category should be included in the conclusion of the report [65].

VII. EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS

The MRI equipment specifications and performance must meet all state and federal requirements. The
requirements include, but are not limited to, specifications of maximum static magnetic field strength, maximum
rate of change of magnetic field strength (dB/dT), maximum radiofrequency power deposition (specific
absorption rate), and maximum acoustic noise levels [65,66].

Technical Guidelines

1. Resolution, contrast, and field strength – The selection of field strength is a major technical decision. A
1.5T magnet has traditionally been considered a minimum technical recommendation because of the
relationship between field strength and resolution. However, improvements in other components of the
scanning process have resulted in improved scan quality at lower field strengths. High spatial and temporal

PRACTICE PARAMETER 5 MRI of the Breast

 resolutions are needed to detect and characterize small abnormalities on MRI. The slice thickness should
be 3 mm or less, and in-plane pixel resolution should be 1 mm or less to minimize volume-averaging
effects. Optimized contrast between tumor and surrounding tissue is important. When high-resolution
images are being obtained, chemical fat suppression is helpful as a method to reduce fat signal while
preserving the signal-to-noise ratio. Sole reliance on subtraction imaging for assessment of enhancement
may result in misregistration due to patient motion; use of fat suppression is recommended on sequences
used to assess contrast enhancement. Some protocols may incorporate both fat suppression and subtraction.
Motion correction may be helpful in reducing artifacts encountered with image subtraction.Simultaneous
bilateral imaging – Simultaneous bilateral high-resolution imaging should be performed as the breasts are
symmetric organs. Contrast – Gadolinium contrast enhancement is required for the evaluation of breast
parenchyma but is not necessary in the evaluation of implant integrity in asymptomatic average-risk
patients. Gadolinium contrast should be administered as a bolus with a standard dose of 0.1 mmol/kg
followed by a saline flush of at least 10 ml.

2. Scan time – A precontrast scan is obtained. Scan time in relation to contrast injection is extremely
important for lesion characterization. Kinetic information should be reported and based on enhancement
data determined at specified intervals separated by 4 minutes or less. Imaging sites should have
adequately short temporal resolution for accurate capture of lesion kinetics. Computer-aided detection
(CAD) software is commonly used at image interpretation to manage large datasets and highlight kinetic
information.

3. Contrast – Gadolinium contrast enhancement is required for the evaluation of breast parenchyma but is
not necessary in the evaluation of implant integrity in asymptomatic average-risk patients. Gadolinium
contrast should be administered as a bolus with a standard dose of 0.1 mmol/kg followed by a saline flush
of at least 10 ml.

4. Scan time – A precontrast scan is obtained. Scan time in relation to contrast injection is extremely
important for lesion characterization. Kinetic information should be reported and based on enhancement
data determined at specified intervals separated by 4 minutes or less. Imaging sites should have
adequately short temporal resolution for accurate capture of lesion kinetics. Computer-aided detection
(CAD) software is commonly used at image interpretation to manage large datasets and highlight kinetic
information.

5. Examinations should be performed with a dedicated bilateral breast MRI coil.

VIII. QUALITY CONTROL AND IMPROVEMENT, SAFETY, INFECTION CONTROL, AND

PATIENT EDUCATION

Policies and procedures related to quality, patient education, infection control, and safety should be developed and
implemented in accordance with the ACR Policy on Quality Control and Improvement, Safety, Infection Control,
and Patient Education appearing under the heading Position Statement on QC & Improvement, Safety, Infection
Control, and Patient Education on the ACR website (https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Practice-
Parameters-and-Technical-Standards).

Equipment monitoring should be in accordance with the ACR–AAPM Technical Standard for Diagnostic Medical
Physics Performance Monitoring of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Equipment, including testing of the
breast coil(s) by a Qualified Medical Physicist or Qualified Medical Scientist [67].

Examinations should be systematically reviewed and evaluated as part of the overall quality improvement
program at the facility. Monitoring should evaluate the accuracy of interpretation as well as the appropriateness of
indications for the examinations. Complications and adverse events or activities that may have the potential for
sentinel events must be monitored, analyzed, reported, and periodically reviewed to identify opportunities to
improve patient care. These data should be collected in a manner that complies with statutory and regulatory peer-
review procedures in order to ensure the confidentiality of the peer-review process.

MRI of the Breast 6 PRACTICE PARAMETER

Each facility should establish and maintain a medical outcome audit program to follow up positive assessments
and to correlate pathology results with the interpreting physician’s findings. (If the facility does not perform MRI-
guided intervention, it should have access to correlative pathology results from the accredited facility with which
it has a referral arrangement.) As above, such audits should encompass interpretation accuracy and examination
appropriateness. Facilities should use the BI-RADS final assessment codes and terminology for reporting and
tracking outcomes. The BI-RADS Atlas contains guidance on monitoring outcomes and conducting audits [53].
Summary statistics and comparisons generated for each physician and for each facility should be reviewed
annually by the lead interpreting physician.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This practice parameter was revised according to the process described under the heading The Process for
Developing ACR Practice Parameters and Technical Standards on the ACR website
(https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Practice-Parameters-and-Technical-Standards) by the Committee
Practice Parameters – Breast Imaging of the ACR Commission on Breast Imaging.

Principal Reviewer: Catherine S. Giess, MD

Committee on Practice Parameters – Breast Imaging

(ACR Committee responsible for sponsoring the draft through the process)

Mary S. Newell, MD, FACR, Chair Susan O. Holley, MD

Catherine S. Giess, MD, Vice-Chair Lillian K. Ivansco, MD, MPH
Amy D. Argus, MD John M. Lewin, MD, FACR
Phoebe Freer, MD Linda Moy, MD
Sarah M. Friedewald, MD Karla A. Sepulveda, MD
Edward D. Green, MD Priscilla J. Slanetz, MD, MPH, FACR
Carolyn A. Haerr, MD Karen S. Zheng, MD

Debra L. Monticciolo, MD, FACR, Chair, Commission on Breast Imaging

Jacqueline Anne Bello, MD, FACR, Chair, Commission on Quality and Safety
Matthew S. Pollack, MD, FACR, Chair, Committee on Practice Parameters and Technical Standards

Comments Reconciliation Committee

Mark D. Alson, MD, FACR, Chair Paul A. Larson, MD, FACR
Samir B. Patel, MD, FACR, Co-Chair Michelle Lee, MD
Jacqueline Anne Bello, MD, FACR Debra L. Monticciolo, MD, FACR
R. James Brenner, MD, JD, FACR Linda Moy, MD
Richard Duszak, Jr., MD, FACR Mary S. Newell, MD, FACR
Peter R. Eby, MD, FACR Matthew S. Pollack, MD, FACR
Catherine S. Giess, MD Timothy L. Swan, MD, FACR, FSIR
Sally D. Herschorn, MD

PRACTICE PARAMETER 7 MRI of the Breast

REFERENCES

1. Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D, et al. Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound
or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA : the journal of
the American Medical Association. 2012;307(13):1394-1404.
2. Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, et al. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening
in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. The New England journal of medicine. 2004;351(5):427-
437.
3. Kuhl C, Weigel S, Schrading S, et al. Prospective multicenter cohort study to refine management
recommendations for women at elevated familial risk of breast cancer: the EVA trial. Journal of clinical
oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2010;28(9):1450-1457.
4. Leach MO, Boggis CR, Dixon AK, et al. Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a
UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS).
Lancet. 2005;365(9473):1769-1778.
5. Lehman CD, Blume JD, Weatherall P, et al. Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with
mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer. 2005;103(9):1898-1905.
6. Morris EA, Liberman L, Ballon DJ, et al. MRI of occult breast carcinoma in a high-risk population. AJR.
American journal of roentgenology. 2003;181(3):619-626.
7. Sardanelli F, Podo F, Santoro F, et al. Multicenter surveillance of women at high genetic breast cancer risk
using mammography, ultrasonography, and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (the high breast
cancer risk italian 1 study): final results. Investigative radiology. 2011;46(2):94-105.
8. Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA, et al. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic
resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA : the journal of the
American Medical Association. 2004;292(11):1317-1325.
9. Weinstein SP, Localio AR, Conant EF, Rosen M, Thomas KM, Schnall MD. Multimodality screening of
high-risk women: a prospective cohort study. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American
Society of Clinical Oncology. 2009;27(36):6124-6128.
10. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, et al. Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging
for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal
of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2005;23(33):8469-8476.
11. Lehman CD, Isaacs C, Schnall MD, et al. Cancer yield of mammography, MR, and US in high-risk women:
prospective multi-institution breast cancer screening study. Radiology. 2007;244(2):381-388.
12. Raikhlin A, Curpen B, Warner E, Betel C, Wright B, Jong R. Breast MRI as an adjunct to mammography for
breast cancer screening in high-risk patients: retrospective review. AJR. American journal of roentgenology.
2015;204(4):889-897.
13. Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an
adjunct to mammography. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians. 2007;57(2):75-89.
14. Monticciolo D, Newell M, Moy L, Niell BL, Monsees B, Sickles E. Breast cancer screening in women at
higher than average risk: recommendations from the American College of Radiology. JACR. 2017;In Press.
15. Fischer U, Kopka L, Grabbe E. Breast carcinoma: effect of preoperative contrast-enhanced MR imaging on
the therapeutic approach. Radiology. 1999;213(3):881-888.
16. Hollingsworth AB, Stough RG, O'Dell CA, Brekke CE. Breast magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative
locoregional staging. American journal of surgery. 2008;196(3):389-397.
17. Lehman CD, Gatsonis C, Kuhl CK, et al. MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently
diagnosed breast cancer. The New England journal of medicine. 2007;356(13):1295-1303.
18. Liberman L, Morris EA, Kim CM, et al. MR imaging findings in the contralateral breast of women with
recently diagnosed breast cancer. AJR. American journal of roentgenology. 2003;180(2):333-341.
19. Lee SG, Orel SG, Woo IJ, et al. MR imaging screening of the contralateral breast in patients with newly
diagnosed breast cancer: preliminary results. Radiology. 2003;226(3):773-778.
20. Lehman CD, Blume JD, Thickman D, et al. Added cancer yield of MRI in screening the contralateral breast
of women recently diagnosed with breast cancer: results from the International Breast Magnetic Resonance
Consortium (IBMC) trial. Journal of surgical oncology. 2005;92(1):9-15; discussion 15-16.
21. Kim JY, Cho N, Koo HR, et al. Unilateral breast cancer: screening of contralateral breast by using
preoperative MR imaging reduces incidence of metachronous cancer. Radiology. 2013;267(1):57-66.

MRI of the Breast 8 PRACTICE PARAMETER

22. Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination,
US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology. 2004;233(3):830-849.
23. Gutierrez RL, DeMartini WB, Silbergeld JJ, et al. High cancer yield and positive predictive value: outcomes
at a center routinely using preoperative breast MRI for staging. AJR. American journal of roentgenology.
2011;196(1):W93-99.
24. Liberman L, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, Abramson AF, Tan LK. MR imaging of the ipsilateral breast in
women with percutaneously proven breast cancer. AJR. American journal of roentgenology. 2003;180(4):901-
910.
25. Schnall MD, Blume J, Bluemke DA, et al. MRI detection of distinct incidental cancer in women with primary
breast cancer studied in IBMC 6883. Journal of surgical oncology. 2005;92(1):32-38.
26. Barco I, Chabrera C, Garcia-Fernandez A, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in the preoperative setting for
breast cancer patients with undetected additional disease. European journal of radiology. 2016;85(10):1786-
1793.
27. Braun M, Polcher M, Schrading S, et al. Influence of preoperative MRI on the surgical management of
patients with operable breast cancer. Breast cancer research and treatment. 2008;111(1):179-187.
28. Debald M, Abramian A, Nemes L, et al. Who may benefit from preoperative breast MRI? A single-center
analysis of 1102 consecutive patients with primary breast cancer. Breast cancer research and treatment.
2015;153(3):531-537.
29. Schell AM, Rosenkranz K, Lewis PJ. Role of breast MRI in the preoperative evaluation of patients with
newly diagnosed breast cancer. AJR. American journal of roentgenology. 2009;192(5):1438-1444.
30. Morris EA, Schwartz LH, Drotman MB, et al. Evaluation of pectoralis major muscle in patients with posterior
breast tumors on breast MR images: early experience. Radiology. 2000;214(1):67-72.
31. Kazama T, Nakamura S, Doi O, Suzuki K, Hirose M, Ito H. Prospective evaluation of pectoralis muscle
invasion of breast cancer by MR imaging. Breast Cancer. 2005;12(4):312-316.
32. Lee JM, Orel SG, Czerniecki BJ, Solin LJ, Schnall MD. MRI before reexcision surgery in patients with breast
cancer. AJR. American journal of roentgenology. 2004;182(2):473-480.
33. Hylton NM, Blume JD, Bernreuter WK, et al. Locally Advanced Breast Cancer: MR Imaging for Prediction
of Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy--Results from ACRIN 6657/I-SPY TRIAL. Radiology.
2012;263(3):663-672.
34. De Los Santos JF, Cantor A, Amos KD, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging as a predictor of pathologic
response in patients treated with neoadjuvant systemic treatment for operable breast cancer. Translational
Breast Cancer Research Consortium trial 017. Cancer. 2013;119(10):1776-1783.
35. Fatayer H, Sharma N, Manuel D, et al. Serial MRI scans help in assessing early response to neoadjuvant
chemotherapy and tailoring breast cancer treatment. European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the
European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology. 2016;42(7):965-
972.
36. Marinovich ML, Houssami N, Macaskill P, et al. Meta-analysis of magnetic resonance imaging in detecting
residual breast cancer after neoadjuvant therapy. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2013;105(5):321-
333.
37. Mariscotti G, Houssami N, Durando M, et al. Accuracy of mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis,
ultrasound and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Anticancer research.
2014;34(3):1219-1225.
38. Bennani-Baiti B, Bennani-Baiti N, Baltzer PA. Diagnostic Performance of Breast Magnetic Resonance
Imaging in Non-Calcified Equivocal Breast Findings: Results from a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
PloS one. 2016;11(8):e0160346.
39. Buchanan CL, Morris EA, Dorn PL, Borgen PI, Van Zee KJ. Utility of breast magnetic resonance imaging in
patients with occult primary breast cancer. Annals of surgical oncology. 2005;12(12):1045-1053.
40. Obdeijn IM, Brouwers-Kuyper EM, Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Wiggers T, Oudkerk M. MR imaging-guided
sonography followed by fine-needle aspiration cytology in occult carcinoma of the breast. AJR. American
journal of roentgenology. 2000;174(4):1079-1084.
41. Olson JA, Jr., Morris EA, Van Zee KJ, Linehan DC, Borgen PI. Magnetic resonance imaging facilitates breast
conservation for occult breast cancer. Annals of surgical oncology. 2000;7(6):411-415.
42. Orel SG, Weinstein SP, Schnall MD, et al. Breast MR imaging in patients with axillary node metastases and
unknown primary malignancy. Radiology. 1999;212(2):543-549.

PRACTICE PARAMETER 9 MRI of the Breast

43. Lee CH, Smith RC, Levine JA, Troiano RN, Tocino I. Clinical usefulness of MR imaging of the breast in the
evaluation of the problematic mammogram. AJR. American journal of roentgenology. 1999;173(5):1323-
1329.
44. Moy L, Elias K, Patel V, et al. Is breast MRI helpful in the evaluation of inconclusive mammographic
findings? AJR. American journal of roentgenology. 2009;193(4):986-993.
45. Oztekin PS, Kosar PN. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast as a problem-solving method: to be or not
to be? The breast journal. 2014;20(6):622-631.
46. Sardanelli F, Melani E, Ottonello C, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast in characterizing positive
or uncertain mammographic findings. Cancer detection and prevention. 1998;22(1):39-42.
47. Spick C, Szolar DH, Preidler KW, Tillich M, Reittner P, Baltzer PA. Breast MRI used as a problem-solving
tool reliably excludes malignancy. European journal of radiology. 2015;84(1):61-64.
48. Yau EJ, Gutierrez RL, DeMartini WB, Eby PR, Peacock S, Lehman CD. The utility of breast MRI as a
problem-solving tool. The breast journal. 2011;17(3):273-280.
49. Giess CS, Chikarmane SA, Sippo DA, Birdwell RL. Clinical Utility of Breast MRI in the Diagnosis of
Malignancy After Inconclusive or Equivocal Mammographic Diagnostic Evaluation. AJR. American journal
of roentgenology. 2017:1-8.
50. Berger N, Luparia A, Di Leo G, et al. Diagnostic Performance of MRI Versus Galactography in Women With
Pathologic Nipple Discharge: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. AJR. American journal of
roentgenology. 2017;209(2):465-471.
51. Chikarmane SA, Tai R, Meyer JE, Giess CS. Prevalence and Predictive Value of BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5
Lesions Detected on Breast MRI: Correlation with Study Indication. Academic radiology. 2017;24(4):435-
441.
52. Niell BL, Gavenonis SC, Motazedi T, et al. Auditing a breast MRI practice: performance measures for
screening and diagnostic breast MRI. Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR. 2014;11(9):883-
889.
53. 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.
54. Grimm LJ, Soo MS, Yoon S, Kim C, Ghate SV, Johnson KS. Abbreviated screening protocol for breast MRI:
a feasibility study. Academic radiology. 2015;22(9):1157-1162.
55. Harvey SC, Di Carlo PA, Lee B, Obadina E, Sippo D, Mullen L. An Abbreviated Protocol for High-Risk
Screening Breast MRI Saves Time and Resources. Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.
2016;13(4):374-380.
56. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Strobel K, Schild HH, Hilgers RD, Bieling HB. Abbreviated breast magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI): first postcontrast subtracted images and maximum-intensity projection-a novel
approach to breast cancer screening with MRI. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American
Society of Clinical Oncology. 2014;32(22):2304-2310.
57. Shellock FG, Spinazzi A. MRI safety update 2008: part 2, screening patients for MRI. AJR. American journal
of roentgenology. 2008;191(4):1140-1149.
58. American College of Radiology. ACR manual on contrast media, v.10.3. 2016; Available at:
https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Contrast-Manual. Accessed December 14, 2016.
59. American College of Radiology. ACR practice parameter for performing and interpreting magnetic resonance
imaging (MRI) 2017; Available at: https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/Practice-Parameters/MR-Perf-
Interpret.pdf. Accessed December 14, 2016.
60. Kanal E, Barkovich AJ, Bell C, et al. ACR guidance document on MR safe practices: 2013. Journal of
magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI. 2013;37(3):501-530.
61. Shellock FG. Magnetic resonance safety update 2002: implants and devices. Journal of magnetic resonance
imaging : JMRI. 2002;16(5):485-496.
62. Shellock FG, Crues JV. MR procedures: biologic effects, safety, and patient care. Radiology.
2004;232(3):635-652.
63. American College of Radiology. ACR–SIR practice parameter for sedation/analgesia 2015; Available at:
https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/Practice-Parameters/Sed-Analgesia.pdf. Accessed December 14,
2016.
64. American College of Radiology. ACR practice parameter for communication of diagnostic imaging findings
2014; Available at: https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/Practice-Parameters/CommunicationDiag.pdf.
Accessed December 14, 2016.

MRI of the Breast 10 PRACTICE PARAMETER

65. Kanal E, Barkovich AJ, Bell C, et al. ACR guidance document for safe MR practices: 2007. AJR. American
journal of roentgenology. 2007;188(6):1447-1474.
66. Hendrick RE. Breast MRI: fundamentals and technical aspects. New York, NY: Springer; 2008.
67. American College of Radiology. ACR–AAPM technical standard for diagnostic medical physics performance
monitoring of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) equipment 2014; Available at: https://www.acr.org/-
/media/ACR/Files/Practice-Parameters/MR-Equip.pdf. Accessed December 14, 2016.

*Practice parameters and technical standards are published annually with an effective date of October 1 in the
year in which amended, revised, or approved by the ACR Council. For practice parameters and technical
standards published before 1999, the effective date was January 1 following the year in which the practice
parameter or technical standard was amended, revised, or approved by the ACR Council.

Development Chronology for this Practice Parameter

2004 (Resolution 11)
Amended 2006 (Resolution 35)
Revised 2008 (Resolution 25)
Revised 2013 (Resolution 12)
Amended 2014 (Resolution 39)
Revised 2018 (Resolution 34)

PRACTICE PARAMETER 11 MRI of the Breast