Literature DB >> 17063274

Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging in screening detected microcalcification lesions of the breast: is there any value?

Takayoshi Uematsu1, Sachiko Yuen, Masako Kasami, Yoshihiro Uchida.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate whether dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging findings can help predict the presence of malignancy when screening detected microcalcification lesions, and its contribution to patient management of stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (SVAB).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging was performed when screening 100 detected microcalcification lesions not visualized by ultrasonography with 11-gauge SVAB. Definitive surgery was performed on all patients with the biopsy resulting in the diagnosis of breast cancer or atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH). Positive predictive values (PPVs) and negative predictive values (NPVs) were calculated on the basis of a BI-RADS (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System) category and the absence or presence of contrast uptake in the area of microcalcification.
RESULTS: The BI-RADS mammography category correlated with the diagnosis of breast cancer (ADH excluded): category 3 = 7% (4/55); category 4 = 48% (13/27); category 5 = 94% (17/18). After dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging, three of four malignancies with BI-RADS mammography category 3 were diagnosed as true positive. Therefore, the PPV of BI-RADS mammography category 3 with MR imaging was 1.8% (1/55). The PPV of contrast uptake of MR imaging was 86% (32/37), significantly higher than the 67% (30/45) PPV of BI-RADS mammography 4 and 5 (P = 0.033). The NPV of BI-RADS mammography 3 was 93% (51/55) versus 97% (61/63) NPV of MR imaging (P = 0.167).
CONCLUSION: In the evaluation of screening detected microcalcification lesions, dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging provides additional information with high PPV and NPV, and may therefore offer an alternative to SVAB for women who do not want to undergo SVAB with equivocal findings following full diagnostic mammographic assessment, but breast MR imaging with imperfect PPV and NPV cannot replace SVAB. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging can demonstrate malignant microcalcifications detected by screening mammography and can be recommended in the evaluation of equivocal microcalcifications prior to SVAB.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17063274     DOI: 10.1007/s10549-006-9373-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.872


  14 in total

1.  The essence of the Japan Radiological Society/Japanese College of Radiology Imaging Guideline.

Authors:  Yasuyuki Yamashita; Sadayuki Murayama; Masahiro Okada; Yoshiyuki Watanabe; Masako Kataoka; Yasushi Kaji; Keiko Imamura; Yasuo Takehara; Hiromitsu Hayashi; Kazuko Ohno; Kazuo Awai; Toshinori Hirai; Kazuyuki Kojima; Shuji Sakai; Naofumi Matsunaga; Takamichi Murakami; Kengo Yoshimitsu; Toshifumi Gabata; Kenji Matsuzaki; Eriko Tohno; Yasuhiro Kawahara; Takeo Nakayama; Shuichi Monzawa; Satoru Takahashi
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 2.374

2.  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

3.  MRI in the differential diagnosis of primary architectural distortion detected by mammography.

Authors:  Lifang Si; Renyou Zhai; Xiaojuan Liu; Kaiyan Yang; Li Wang; Tao Jiang
Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol       Date:  2016 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.630

4.  Can magnetic resonance imaging obviate the need for biopsy for microcalcifications?

Authors:  Shinya Yamamoto; Takashi Chishima
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2017-08

5.  Role of magnetic resonance imaging in probably benign (BI-RADS category 3) microcalcifications of the breast.

Authors:  Anna Linda; Chiara Zuiani; Viviana Londero; Eleonora Di Gaetano; Anna Dal Col; Rossano Girometti; Massimo Bazzocchi
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2013-12-03       Impact factor: 3.469

Review 6.  Breast magnetic resonance imaging as a problem-solving modality in mammographic BI-RADS 3 lesions.

Authors:  M D Dorrius; R M Pijnappel; M C Jansen-van der Weide; M Oudkerk
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2010-10-04       Impact factor: 3.909

7.  Establishing a program for individuals at high risk for breast cancer.

Authors:  Fernando Cadiz; Henry M Kuerer; Julio Puga; Jamile Camacho; Eduardo Cunill; Banu Arun
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2013-07-01       Impact factor: 4.207

8.  Evaluation of the role of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging for patients with BI-RADS 3-4 microcalcifications.

Authors:  Yanni Jiang; Jianjuan Lou; Siqi Wang; Yi Zhao; Cong Wang; Dehang Wang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-06-13       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  A comparative study of the diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging and mammography on patients with BI-RADS 3-5 microcalcifications.

Authors:  Erni Li; Jing Li; Ying Song; Mei Xue; Chunwu Zhou
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-11-03       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 10.  Imaging and cancer: a review.

Authors:  Leonard Fass
Journal:  Mol Oncol       Date:  2008-05-10       Impact factor: 7.449

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.