Literature DB >> 12076929

Breast lesions detected on MR imaging: features and positive predictive value.

Laura Liberman1, Elizabeth A Morris, Melissa Joo-Young Lee, Jennifer B Kaplan, Linda R LaTrenta, Jennifer H Menell, Andrea F Abramson, Stephen M Dashnaw, Douglas J Ballon, D David Dershaw.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to analyze features of breast lesions detected on MR imaging that had subsequent biopsy and to determine the positive predictive value (PPV) of these features.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review was performed of 100 consecutive solitary MR imaging-detected breast lesions that had MR imaging-guided needle localization and surgical excision. We described lesions, using terms found in a proposed breast MR imaging lexicon. Histologic findings were reviewed.
RESULTS: Carcinoma was identified in 25 lesions (25%), including ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in 13 (52%) and infiltrating carcinoma in 12 (48%). Carcinoma was found in 15 (25%) of 60 masses versus 10 (25%) of 40 nonmass lesions; most malignant masses (73%) were infiltrating carcinoma, whereas most malignant nonmass lesions (90%) were DCIS. The features with the highest PPV were spiculated margin (80% carcinoma), rim enhancement (40% carcinoma), and irregular shape (32% carcinoma) for mass lesions and segmental (67% carcinoma) or clumped linear and ductal enhancement (31% carcinoma) for nonmass lesions. Visually assessed kinetic patterns were not significant predictors of carcinoma, but washout was present in 70% of infiltrating carcinomas versus 9% of DCIS lesions (p < 0.01). Carcinoma was present in 17 (19%) of 88 lesions classified as suspicious versus eight (67%) of 12 lesions classified as highly suggestive of malignancy (p = 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Among MR imaging-detected breast lesions referred for biopsy, carcinoma was found in 25%, of which half were DCIS. Features with the highest PPV were spiculated margin, rim enhancement, and irregular shape for mass lesions and segmental or clumped linear and ductal enhancement for nonmass lesions. Final assessment categories were significant predictors of carcinoma.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12076929     DOI: 10.2214/ajr.179.1.1790171

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  54 in total

1.  [Functional and molecular imaging of breast tumors].

Authors:  K Pinker; P Brader; G Karanikas; K El-Rabadi; W Bogner; S Gruber; M Reisegger; S Trattnig; T H Helbich
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 0.635

2.  Vacuum-assisted biopsies under MR guidance: results of 72 procedures.

Authors:  C Malhaire; C El Khoury; F Thibault; A Athanasiou; P Petrow; L Ollivier; A Tardivon
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-01-30       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Classification of small contrast enhancing breast lesions in dynamic magnetic resonance imaging using a combination of morphological criteria and dynamic analysis based on unsupervised vector-quantization.

Authors:  Thomas Schlossbauer; Gerda Leinsinger; Axel Wismuller; Oliver Lange; Michael Scherr; Anke Meyer-Baese; Maximilian Reiser
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 6.016

4.  The clinical value of bilateral breast MR imaging: is it worth performing on patients showing suspicious microcalcifications on mammography?

Authors:  Ayano Akita; Akihiro Tanimoto; Hiromitsu Jinno; Kaori Kameyama; Sachio Kuribayashi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-04-07       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  DCEMRI of breast lesions: is kinetic analysis equally effective for both mass and nonmass-like enhancement?

Authors:  Sanaz A Jansen; Xiaobing Fan; Gregory S Karczmar; Hiroyuki Abe; Robert A Schmidt; Maryellen Giger; Gillian M Newstead
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 4.071

6.  Clinical application of bilateral high temporal and spatial resolution dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the breast at 7 T.

Authors:  K Pinker; W Bogner; P Baltzer; S Trattnig; S Gruber; O Abeyakoon; M Bernathova; O Zaric; P Dubsky; Z Bago-Horvath; M Weber; D Leithner; T H Helbich
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-12-05       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Segmental enhancement on breast MR images: differential diagnosis and diagnostic strategy.

Authors:  Sachiko Yuen; Takayoshi Uematsu; Kasami Masako; Yoshihiro Uchida; Tsunehiko Nishimura
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-05-20       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  What is the sensitivity of mammography and dynamic MR imaging for DCIS if the whole-breast histopathology is used as a reference standard?

Authors:  F Sardanelli; L Bacigalupo; L Carbonaro; A Esseridou; G M Giuseppetti; P Panizza; V Lattanzio; A Del Maschio
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2008-07-09       Impact factor: 3.469

9.  Sensitivity and specificity of unenhanced MR mammography (DWI combined with T2-weighted TSE imaging, ueMRM) for the differentiation of mass lesions.

Authors:  Pascal A T Baltzer; Matthias Benndorf; Matthias Dietzel; Mieczyslaw Gajda; Oumar Camara; Werner A Kaiser
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-11-20       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Molecular Imaging in Breast Cancer - Potential Future Aspects.

Authors:  Katja Pinker; Wolfgang Bogner; Stephan Gruber; Peter Brader; Siegfried Trattnig; Georgios Karanikas; Thomas H Helbich
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2011-04-29       Impact factor: 2.860

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.