OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to assess the rate of underestimation of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) at MRI-guided 9-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An institutional review board-approved retrospective review was performed of 373 consecutive lesions that had undergone MRI vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. In 34 lesions with subsequent surgery, vacuum-assisted breast biopsy yielded DCIS without frank microinvasion or invasion. DCIS underestimates were lesions for which vacuum-assisted breast biopsy yielded DCIS without frank microinvasion or invasion at biopsy and surgery yielded invasive cancer. Records and pathology findings were reviewed. RESULTS: Among 34 lesions, vacuum-assisted breast biopsy histology was DCIS in 29 and DCIS with possible microinvasion in five. Of 29 lesions yielding DCIS at MRI vacuum-assisted breast biopsy, surgical excision revealed invasive cancer in five (17%; 95% CI, 6-36%). The DCIS underestimation rate was significantly higher in lesions 6 cm or larger versus smaller lesions (60% vs 8%, p = 0.02). MRI lesion type, kinetics, number of specimens, menopausal status, and target sampling versus excision did not significantly affect underestimation. Of five lesions yielding DCIS with possible microinvasion at MRI vacuum-assisted breast biopsy, surgery revealed invasive carcinoma in four (80%; 95% CI, 28-99%). DCIS underestimation was significantly more likely if MRI vacuum-assisted breast biopsy showed possible microinvasion than if it did not (80% vs 17%, p =0.01). CONCLUSION: Underestimation occurred in 17% of lesions yielding DCIS and in 80% of lesions yielding DCIS with possible microinvasion at MRI vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. DCIS underestimation was significantly more likely in lesions measuring 6 cm or larger. No other patient or lesion factors significantly affected DCIS underestimation at MRI vacuum-assisted breast biopsy.
OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to assess the rate of underestimation of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) at MRI-guided 9-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An institutional review board-approved retrospective review was performed of 373 consecutive lesions that had undergone MRI vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. In 34 lesions with subsequent surgery, vacuum-assisted breast biopsy yielded DCIS without frank microinvasion or invasion. DCIS underestimates were lesions for which vacuum-assisted breast biopsy yielded DCIS without frank microinvasion or invasion at biopsy and surgery yielded invasive cancer. Records and pathology findings were reviewed. RESULTS: Among 34 lesions, vacuum-assisted breast biopsy histology was DCIS in 29 and DCIS with possible microinvasion in five. Of 29 lesions yielding DCIS at MRI vacuum-assisted breast biopsy, surgical excision revealed invasive cancer in five (17%; 95% CI, 6-36%). The DCIS underestimation rate was significantly higher in lesions 6 cm or larger versus smaller lesions (60% vs 8%, p = 0.02). MRI lesion type, kinetics, number of specimens, menopausal status, and target sampling versus excision did not significantly affect underestimation. Of five lesions yielding DCIS with possible microinvasion at MRI vacuum-assisted breast biopsy, surgery revealed invasive carcinoma in four (80%; 95% CI, 28-99%). DCIS underestimation was significantly more likely if MRI vacuum-assisted breast biopsy showed possible microinvasion than if it did not (80% vs 17%, p =0.01). CONCLUSION: Underestimation occurred in 17% of lesions yielding DCIS and in 80% of lesions yielding DCIS with possible microinvasion at MRI vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. DCIS underestimation was significantly more likely in lesions measuring 6 cm or larger. No other patient or lesion factors significantly affected DCIS underestimation at MRI vacuum-assisted breast biopsy.
Authors: Elena Belloni; Pietro Panizza; Silvia Ravelli; Francesco De Cobelli; Simone Gusmini; Claudio Losio; Isabella Sassi; Gianluca Perseghin; Alessandro Del Maschio Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2013-06-25 Impact factor: 3.469
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
Authors: Eva C Gombos; Jayender Jagadeesan; Danielle M Richman; Daniel F Kacher Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am Date: 2015-07-08 Impact factor: 2.266
Authors: Rafael da Silva Sá; Angela Flávia Logullo; Simone Elias; Gil Facina; Vanessa Monteiro Sanvido; Afonso Celso Pinto Nazário Journal: Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press) Date: 2021-06-21
Authors: Kwan Ho Lee; Jeong Woo Han; Eun Young Kim; Ji Sup Yun; Yong Lai Park; Chan Heun Park Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2019-12-10 Impact factor: 4.430