Literature DB >> 20489112

Breast cancers not detected at MRI: review of false-negative lesions.

Akiko Shimauchi1, Sanaz A Jansen, Hiroyuki Abe, Nora Jaskowiak, Robert A Schmidt, Gillian M Newstead.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to determine the sensitivity of cancer detection at breast MRI using current imaging techniques and to evaluate the characteristics of lesions with false-negative examinations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred seventeen patients with 222 newly diagnosed breast cancers or highly suspicious breast lesions that were subsequently shown to be malignant underwent breast MRI examinations for staging. Two breast imaging radiologists performed a consensus review of the breast MRI examinations. The absence of perceptible contrast enhancement at the expected site was considered to be a false-negative MRI. Histology of all lesions was reviewed by an experienced breast pathologist.
RESULTS: Enhancement was observed in 213 (95.9%) of the 222 cancer lesions. Of the nine lesions without visible enhancement, two lesions were excluded because the entire tumor had been excised at percutaneous biopsy performed before the MRI examination and no residual tumor was noted on the final histology. The overall sensitivity of MRI for the known cancers was 96.8% (213/220); for invasive cancer, 98.3% (176/179); and for ductal carcinoma in situ, 90.2% (37/41).
CONCLUSION: In a population of 220 sequentially diagnosed breast cancer lesions, we found seven (3.2%) MRI-occult cancers, fewer than seen in other published studies. Small tumor size and diffuse parenchymal enhancement were the principal reasons for these false-negative results. Although the overall sensitivity of cancer detection was high (96.8%), it should be emphasized that a negative MRI should not influence the management of a lesion that appears to be of concern on physical examination or on other imaging techniques.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20489112     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.09.3568

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


  18 in total

Review 1.  Pearls and pitfalls in breast MRI.

Authors:  I Millet; E Pages; D Hoa; S Merigeaud; F Curros Doyon; X Prat; P Taourel
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-11-29       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Does the degree of background enhancement in breast MRI affect the detection and staging of breast cancer?

Authors:  Takayoshi Uematsu; Masako Kasami; Junichiro Watanabe
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-06-18       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Evaluation of Kinetic Entropy of Breast Masses Initially Found on MRI using Whole-lesion Curve Distribution Data: Comparison with the Standard Kinetic Analysis.

Authors:  Akiko Shimauchi; Hiroyuki Abe; David V Schacht; Jian Yulei; Federico D Pineda; Sanaz A Jansen; Rajiv Ganesh; Gillian M Newstead
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-02-20       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Computerized breast mass detection using multi-scale Hessian-based analysis for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI.

Authors:  Yan-Hao Huang; Yeun-Chung Chang; Chiun-Sheng Huang; Jeon-Hor Chen; Ruey-Feng Chang
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 4.056

5.  Does background parenchymal enhancement on MRI affect the rate of positive resection margin in breast cancer patients?

Authors:  S Y Park; D K Kang; T H Kim
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2014-11-27       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 6.  Comparison of Diagnostic Test Accuracy of Cone-Beam Breast Computed Tomography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Approach.

Authors:  Temitope Emmanuel Komolafe; Cheng Zhang; Oluwatosin Atinuke Olagbaju; Gang Yuan; Qiang Du; Ming Li; Jian Zheng; Xiaodong Yang
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-09       Impact factor: 3.847

7.  Effect of Background Parenchymal Enhancement on Breast MR Imaging Interpretive Performance in Community-based Practices.

Authors:  Kimberly M Ray; Karla Kerlikowske; Iryna V Lobach; Michael B Hofmann; Heather I Greenwood; Vignesh A Arasu; Nola M Hylton; Bonnie N Joe
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-10-25       Impact factor: 11.105

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 comparison study between gross tumor volumes defined by preoperative magnetic resonance imaging, postoperative specimens, and tumor bed for radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery.

Authors:  Aiping Zhang; Jianbin Li; Wei Wang; Yongsheng Wang; Dianbin Mu; Zhaoqiu Chen; Qian Shao; Fengxiang Li
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 1.889

10.  Discrimination of Breast Cancer from Healthy Breast Tissue Using a Three-component Diffusion-weighted MRI Model.

Authors:  Maren M Sjaastad Andreassen; Ana E Rodríguez-Soto; Rebecca Rakow-Penner; Anders M Dale; Christopher C Conlin; Igor Vidić; Tyler M Seibert; Anne M Wallace; Somaye Zare; Joshua Kuperman; Boya Abudu; Grace S Ahn; Michael Hahn; Neil P Jerome; Agnes Østlie; Tone F Bathen; Haydee Ojeda-Fournier; Pål Erik Goa
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2020-11-04       Impact factor: 12.531

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.