Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
203,234 studies31 sourcesUpdated 9 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Current Medical Imaging

Contralateral Breast Background Parenchymal Enhancement: A Physiologic Marker, not a Predictor of ER Status

  • Dana Haddad1
  • Stephanie B Shamir2
  • Zoha Baig3
  • Michelle Zhang4,5
  • Meredith Sadinski4
  • Min Sun Bae6
  • Danny F Martinez4
  • Peter Gibbs4
  • Elizabeth A Morris4,7
  • Elizabeth J Sutton4
7 affiliations
  1. 1American Hospital Dubai, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
  2. 2Montefiore Einstein Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, USA
  3. 3Cornell University, Doha, Qatar
  4. 4Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA
  5. 5Department of Diagnostic Radiology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
  6. 6Department of Radiology, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Ansan, Republic of Korea
  7. 7Department of Radiology, UC Davis School of Medicine; UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, Sacramento, California, USA
Read full textDOICite

Abstract

Introduction: Breast MRI, specifically background parenchymal enhancement (BPE), plays a crucial role in evaluating breast cancer risk and tumor biology. BPE, influenced by vascularity, permeability, and hormonal status, reflects the physiological state of the breast tissue. This study investigates the relationship between quantitative BPE in the contralateral, non-tumor breast and estrogen receptor (ER) status in early-stage invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), alongside factors like age, breast density, and menopausal status. It also compares quantitative BPE to qualitative BI-RADS assessments.

Methods: This retrospective study included 233 women with pathologically confirmed early-stage IDC undergoing preoperative breast MRI. BPE was quantitatively assessed using MATLAB-based segmentation techniques, measuring initial, overall, late enhancement, and area under the enhancement curve (AUC). The data were compared to qualitative BI-RADS BPE categories (minimal, mild, moderate, marked). Statistical analyses were performed using Spearman’s rank correlation and Kruskal-Wallis tests, with significance set at p<0.05.

Results: Out of 233 patients, 187 (median age 49.6, range 43.1–57.3) had ER+ cancer, while the remaining 46 (median age 52.4, range 46.9–60.6) had early-stage ER− cancer. Significant correlation between quantitative BPE values and qualitative BPE categories was observed; specifically, increasing median values of BPE enhancement curve parameters (p<0.001) and mean values of the top 10% of pixels (p<0.02) were observed across qualitative BPE categories from minimal to marked BPE. Quantitative BPE was independent of breast density (p>0.11), while qualitative BPE was influenced by breast density, with an increase from minimal (median=0.33, IQR=0.21–0.41) compared with marked BPE (median=0.39, IQR=0.28–0.55) (p=0.04). Quantitative BPE values decreased with age and menopausal status (p<0.02). Quantitative BPE was not associated with ER status, even when stratified by age.

Discussion: The study found that quantitative BPE of the contralateral breast increased across qualitative BI-RADS BPE categories, independent of breast density, and decreased with age and post-menopausal status, but did not distinguish ER+ from ER- cancers. Published literature demonstrates age and hormone-associated effects on BPE, whereas the correlations with molecular subtype, cancer risk, and treatment response are not clear, highlighting its potential and limitations as a biomarker.

Conclusion: While BPE reflects hormonal influences, its role in predicting tumor ER expression in early-stage cancer is limited. However, it provides a reproducible method for assessing breast tissue physiology, with potential utility in evaluating treatment response and hormonal effects. Furthermore, the study also delineates the need for larger, multicenter investigations to explore BPE’s potential as a complementary biomarker for breast cancer characterization and treatment response.

Related

  1. Background parenchymal enhancement in ultrafast MRI: Inter-reader agreement before and after training, and correlations with prognostic factors of breast cancer.
    Ken Yamaguchi, Kanto Ichinohe, Takahiko Nakazono +6
    European journal of radiology openPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textMedical imaging & radiologyEurope PMC
  2. AI-assisted Decision-support Framework for Breast Density and Background Parenchymal Enhancement Assessment in Contrast-enhanced Mammography
    Graziella Di Grezia, Antonio Nazzaro, Luigi Schiavone +4
    Current Medical ImagingPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textMedical imaging & radiologyPMC
  3. Intratracheal microspray delivery of iohexol for sustained lung-parenchymal enhancement in preclinical micro-computed tomography: A feasibility and acute-safety study in mice
    Sheng-Chieh Lin, Kuo-Kai Lin, Kevin Aristyo +4
    PLOS OnePeer-reviewedCC BYFull textMedical imaging & radiologyPharmacology & toxicologyPLOSEurope PMC
  4. Extensive Parenchymal Brain Calcification in a Patient With Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease and Stage 5 Chronic Kidney Disease
    Noorelle Khan, Nicholas Streicher
    Clinical case reportsPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-NDFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC
  5. A rare twist after Ex-vivo RIRS: graft parenchymal urine leak in a living donor kidney
    Asad Bashir, Nasrum Minallah, Fiaz Ahmed Touqeer +5
    CEN Case ReportsPeer-reviewedLicence not statedFull textGeneral medicinePMC

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@article{haddad2026contralateral,
  title = {{Contralateral Breast Background Parenchymal Enhancement: A Physiologic Marker, not a Predictor of ER Status}},
  author = {Dana Haddad and Stephanie B Shamir and Zoha Baig and Michelle Zhang and Meredith Sadinski and Min Sun Bae and Danny F Martinez and Peter Gibbs and Elizabeth A Morris and Elizabeth J Sutton},
  journal = {Current Medical Imaging},
  year = {2026},
  month = may,
  doi = {10.2174/0115734056457319260515073941},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.2174/0115734056457319260515073941},
  note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Contralateral Breast Background Parenchymal Enhancement: A Physiologic Marker, not a Predictor of ER Status
AU  - Dana Haddad
AU  - Stephanie B Shamir
AU  - Zoha Baig
AU  - Michelle Zhang
AU  - Meredith Sadinski
AU  - Min Sun Bae
AU  - Danny F Martinez
AU  - Peter Gibbs
AU  - Elizabeth A Morris
AU  - Elizabeth J Sutton
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/05/24
JO  - Current Medical Imaging
DO  - 10.2174/0115734056457319260515073941
UR  - https://doi.org/10.2174/0115734056457319260515073941
AB  - Introduction: Breast MRI, specifically background parenchymal enhancement (BPE), plays a crucial role in evaluating breast cancer risk and tumor biology. BPE, influenced by vascularity, permeability, and hormonal status, reflects the physiological state of the breast tissue. This study investigates the relationship between quantitative BPE in the contralateral, non-tumor breast and estrogen receptor (ER) status in early-stage invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), alongside factors like age, breast density, and menopausal status. It also compares quantitative BPE to qualitative BI-RADS assessments.  Methods: This retrospective study included 233 women with pathologically confirmed early-stage IDC undergoing preoperative breast MRI. BPE was quantitatively assessed using MATLAB-based segmentation techniques, measuring initial, overall, late enhancement, and area under the enhancement curve (AUC). The data were compared to qualitative BI-RADS BPE categories (minimal, mild, moderate, marked). Statistical analyses were performed using Spearman’s rank correlation and Kruskal-Wallis tests, with significance set at p<0.05.  Results: Out of 233 patients, 187 (median age 49.6, range 43.1–57.3) had ER+ cancer, while the remaining 46 (median age 52.4, range 46.9–60.6) had early-stage ER− cancer. Significant correlation between quantitative BPE values and qualitative BPE categories was observed; specifically, increasing median values of BPE enhancement curve parameters (p<0.001) and mean values of the top 10% of pixels (p<0.02) were observed across qualitative BPE categories from minimal to marked BPE. Quantitative BPE was independent of breast density (p>0.11), while qualitative BPE was influenced by breast density, with an increase from minimal (median=0.33, IQR=0.21–0.41) compared with marked BPE (median=0.39, IQR=0.28–0.55) (p=0.04). Quantitative BPE values decreased with age and menopausal status (p<0.02). Quantitative BPE was not associated with ER status, even when stratified by age.  Discussion: The study found that quantitative BPE of the contralateral breast increased across qualitative BI-RADS BPE categories, independent of breast density, and decreased with age and post-menopausal status, but did not distinguish ER+ from ER- cancers. Published literature demonstrates age and hormone-associated effects on BPE, whereas the correlations with molecular subtype, cancer risk, and treatment response are not clear, highlighting its potential and limitations as a biomarker.  Conclusion: While BPE reflects hormonal influences, its role in predicting tumor ER expression in early-stage cancer is limited. However, it provides a reproducible method for assessing breast tissue physiology, with potential utility in evaluating treatment response and hormonal effects. Furthermore, the study also delineates the need for larger, multicenter investigations to explore BPE’s potential as a complementary biomarker for breast cancer characterization and treatment response.
SN  - 1573-4056
ER  -