OBJECTIVE: The purposes of our study were to compare the diagnostic value of whole-breast sonography and MR imaging as adjunctive techniques to mammography and to determine whether MR imaging should be used routinely in the preoperative assessment of patients with suspected breast cancer. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: . One hundred four women (age range, 34-84 years; mean age, 60 years) with findings highly suggestive of malignancy in the breast were examined with mammography, sonography, and dynamic MR imaging before undergoing surgery. All visualized suspicious lesions were correlated histologically. The diagnostic relevance of sonographic and MR imaging findings was compared with the diagnostic value of the findings of clinical examination and mammography alone. RESULTS: . Twenty-seven tumors showed multifocal or multicentric invasive growth at pathology. Of these 27, 48% were correctly diagnosed via mammography alone; 63%, via the combination of mammography and sonography; and 81%, via MR imaging. Nine of the index tumors were invisible on mammography but were detected on sonography. Use of sonography benefited 13 patients and produced two studies with false-positive findings. Use of MR imaging benefited seven patients and produced eight studies with false-positive findings. In summary, 93% of all patients gained no advantage from MR imaging. Relevant additional findings were significantly more frequent in patients with dense breasts. CONCLUSION: Although MR imaging is most sensitive for the detection of small tumors, routine preoperative MR imaging appears to be unnecessary for most patients if a combination of mammography and whole-breast sonography is used. Additional MR imaging can be restricted to problematic cases in women with dense breast parenchyma.
OBJECTIVE: The purposes of our study were to compare the diagnostic value of whole-breast sonography and MR imaging as adjunctive techniques to mammography and to determine whether MR imaging should be used routinely in the preoperative assessment of patients with suspected breast cancer. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: . One hundred four women (age range, 34-84 years; mean age, 60 years) with findings highly suggestive of malignancy in the breast were examined with mammography, sonography, and dynamic MR imaging before undergoing surgery. All visualized suspicious lesions were correlated histologically. The diagnostic relevance of sonographic and MR imaging findings was compared with the diagnostic value of the findings of clinical examination and mammography alone. RESULTS: . Twenty-seven tumors showed multifocal or multicentric invasive growth at pathology. Of these 27, 48% were correctly diagnosed via mammography alone; 63%, via the combination of mammography and sonography; and 81%, via MR imaging. Nine of the index tumors were invisible on mammography but were detected on sonography. Use of sonography benefited 13 patients and produced two studies with false-positive findings. Use of MR imaging benefited seven patients and produced eight studies with false-positive findings. In summary, 93% of all patients gained no advantage from MR imaging. Relevant additional findings were significantly more frequent in patients with dense breasts. CONCLUSION: Although MR imaging is most sensitive for the detection of small tumors, routine preoperative MR imaging appears to be unnecessary for most patients if a combination of mammography and whole-breast sonography is used. Additional MR imaging can be restricted to problematic cases in women with dense breast parenchyma.
Authors: Wendy B DeMartini; Laura Ichikawa; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Diana Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Berta Geller; Tracy Onega; Robert D Rosenberg; Constance D Lehman Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Wendy B Demartini; Brenda F Kurland; Robert L Gutierrez; C Craig Blackmore; Sue Peacock; Constance D Lehman Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-02-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Melanie Freed; Jacco A de Zwart; Jennifer T Loud; Riham H El Khouli; Kyle J Myers; Mark H Greene; Jeff H Duyn; Aldo Badano Journal: Med Phys Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: María Nieves Plana; Carmen Carreira; Alfonso Muriel; Miguel Chiva; Víctor Abraira; Jose Ignacio Emparanza; Xavier Bonfill; Javier Zamora Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-08-17 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Wendy B DeMartini; Lucy Hanna; Constantine Gatsonis; Mary C Mahoney; Constance D Lehman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Gisela Lg Menezes; Floor M Knuttel; Bertine L Stehouwer; Ruud M Pijnappel; Maurice Aaj van den Bosch Journal: World J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-05-10