PURPOSE: To assess the utility of second-look ultrasound (US) for identifying and characterising incidental enhancing lesions detected by breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: From among 655 consecutive breast MRI studies, 62 lesions (MRI visible, nonpalpable, occult at first-look US and mammography) were recommended for second-look US. MRI enhancement of lesions was mass-like in 59 cases (95%) and non-mass-like in three (5%). Forty-two lesions (68%) were ≤10 mm; only three lesions (5%) were >20 mm. Of all lesions, the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) MRI category was highly suggestive of malignancy in six cases (10%), suspicious abnormality in 33 (53%) and probably benign in 23 (37%). The correlation between MRI lesion appearance, lesion size, histopathology findings and detection rate at second-look US were analysed. The reference standard was histopathology and/or follow-up (range 18-24 months). Statistical analysis was performed with the Fisher exact test. RESULTS: Second-look US identified 44 out of 62 (71%) lesions depicted at MRI. The detection rate at second-look US was higher for mass-like MRI lesions (75%) than non-mass-like lesions (0%), for lesion size >10mm (90%) and for BI-RADS 4 lesions (88%). Second-look US-guided biopsy detected 12 out of 17 (71%) malignant lesions. There was no correlation between the likelihood of carcinoma and the presence of a sonographic correlate. CONCLUSIONS: Second-look US is a reliable problem-solving tool in identifying and characterising most incidental MRI findings. It contributes to accurately selecting the cases in which MRI-guided biopsy is required.
PURPOSE: To assess the utility of second-look ultrasound (US) for identifying and characterising incidental enhancing lesions detected by breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: From among 655 consecutive breast MRI studies, 62 lesions (MRI visible, nonpalpable, occult at first-look US and mammography) were recommended for second-look US. MRI enhancement of lesions was mass-like in 59 cases (95%) and non-mass-like in three (5%). Forty-two lesions (68%) were ≤10 mm; only three lesions (5%) were >20 mm. Of all lesions, the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) MRI category was highly suggestive of malignancy in six cases (10%), suspicious abnormality in 33 (53%) and probably benign in 23 (37%). The correlation between MRI lesion appearance, lesion size, histopathology findings and detection rate at second-look US were analysed. The reference standard was histopathology and/or follow-up (range 18-24 months). Statistical analysis was performed with the Fisher exact test. RESULTS: Second-look US identified 44 out of 62 (71%) lesions depicted at MRI. The detection rate at second-look US was higher for mass-like MRI lesions (75%) than non-mass-like lesions (0%), for lesion size >10mm (90%) and for BI-RADS 4 lesions (88%). Second-look US-guided biopsy detected 12 out of 17 (71%) malignant lesions. There was no correlation between the likelihood of carcinoma and the presence of a sonographic correlate. CONCLUSIONS: Second-look US is a reliable problem-solving tool in identifying and characterising most incidental MRI findings. It contributes to accurately selecting the cases in which MRI-guided biopsy is required.
Authors: Nicky H G M Peters; Inne H M Borel Rinkes; Nicolaas P A Zuithoff; Willem P T M Mali; Karel G M Moons; Petra H M Peeters Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-11-16 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: F Sardanelli; G M Giuseppetti; G Canavese; L Cataliotti; S Corcione; E Cossu; M Federico; L Marotti; L Martincich; P Panizza; F Podo; M Rosselli Del Turco; C Zuiani; C Alfano; M Bazzocchi; P Belli; S Bianchi; A Cilotti; M Calabrese; L Carbonaro; L Cortesi; C Di Maggio; A Del Maschio; A Esseridou; A Fausto; M Gennaro; R Girometti; R Ienzi; A Luini; S Manoukian; S Morassutt; D Morrone; J Nori; A Orlacchio; F Pane; P Panzarola; R Ponzone; G Simonetti; P Torricelli; G Valeri Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2008-10-16 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: V Girardi; G Carbognin; L Camera; M Tonegutti; F Bonetti; E Manfrin; R Pozzi Mucelli Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2009-09-22 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Elizabeth A Morris; Laura Liberman; Douglas J Ballon; Mark Robson; Andrea F Abramson; Alexandra Heerdt; D David Dershaw Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Andrea Teifke; Hans Anton Lehr; Toni Werner Vomweg; Alexander Hlawatsch; Manfred Thelen Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Michael Braun; Martin Pölcher; Simone Schrading; Oliver Zivanovic; Theresa Kowalski; Uta Flucke; Claudia Leutner; Tong-Wong Park-Simon; Christian Rudlowski; Walther Kuhn; Christiane K Kuhl Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2007-09-29 Impact factor: 4.872
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: M L Luciani; F Pediconi; M Telesca; F Vasselli; V Casali; E Miglio; R Passariello; C Catalano Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2011-02-01 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Ceren Yalnız; Juliana Rosenblat; David Spak; Wei Wei; Marion Scoggins; Carisa Le-Petross; Mark J Dryden; Beatriz Adrada; Başak E Doğan Journal: Eur J Breast Health Date: 2019-10-01
Authors: Ana Delgado Laguna; S Jimenez Arranz; V Quintana Checa; S Alonso Roca; D Expósito Jiménez; J Oliver-Goldaracena Journal: J Clin Imaging Sci Date: 2011-06-25
Authors: Michael Kolta; Paola Clauser; Panagiotis Kapetas; Maria Bernathova; Katja Pinker; Thomas H Helbich; Pascal A T Baltzer Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2020-04-11 Impact factor: 3.528