OBJECTIVE: To determine the utility of short-interval follow-up after benign concordant MRI-guided breast biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approved, retrospective review of consecutive biopsies performed over 3 years (2007-10) yielded 170 women with 188 lesions that were considered benign concordant. Indication for original study, biopsy results, follow-up recommendations, compliance and outcomes of subsequent MRI and mammography examinations were reviewed. RESULTS: The most common indication for breast MRI was high-risk screening 119/170 (70 %). Overall, 59 % of lesions (113/188) had follow-up MRI. Of those lesions (n = 113), 43 % (49/113) presented within 7 months, 26 % (29/113) presented within 8-13 months, 11.5 % (13/113) presented within 14-22 months, and 19 % (22/113) presented after 23 months. At initial follow-up, 37 % of lesions were stable and 61 % were decreased in size. Three lesions were recommended for excision based on follow-up imaging with one malignancy diagnosed 2 years following biopsy. One additional patient had MRI-detected bilateral cancers remote from the biopsy site 3 years after biopsy. CONCLUSION: Overall cancer yield of lesions with follow-up MRI was 0.9 % (1/113); no cancers were detected at 6 months. Our data suggests that 6-month follow-up may not be required and that annual screening MRI would be acceptable to maintain a reasonable cancer detection rate. KEY POINTS: Follow-up recommendations after benign concordant MRI-guided breast biopsy remain controversial. Cancer detection rate was 0.9 % overall with no cancers detected at 6 months. Short-interval follow-up after benign concordant MRI-guided breast biopsy may not be necessary.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the utility of short-interval follow-up after benign concordant MRI-guided breast biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approved, retrospective review of consecutive biopsies performed over 3 years (2007-10) yielded 170 women with 188 lesions that were considered benign concordant. Indication for original study, biopsy results, follow-up recommendations, compliance and outcomes of subsequent MRI and mammography examinations were reviewed. RESULTS: The most common indication for breast MRI was high-risk screening 119/170 (70 %). Overall, 59 % of lesions (113/188) had follow-up MRI. Of those lesions (n = 113), 43 % (49/113) presented within 7 months, 26 % (29/113) presented within 8-13 months, 11.5 % (13/113) presented within 14-22 months, and 19 % (22/113) presented after 23 months. At initial follow-up, 37 % of lesions were stable and 61 % were decreased in size. Three lesions were recommended for excision based on follow-up imaging with one malignancy diagnosed 2 years following biopsy. One additional patient had MRI-detected bilateral cancers remote from the biopsy site 3 years after biopsy. CONCLUSION: Overall cancer yield of lesions with follow-up MRI was 0.9 % (1/113); no cancers were detected at 6 months. Our data suggests that 6-month follow-up may not be required and that annual screening MRI would be acceptable to maintain a reasonable cancer detection rate. KEY POINTS: Follow-up recommendations after benign concordant MRI-guided breast biopsy remain controversial. Cancer detection rate was 0.9 % overall with no cancers detected at 6 months. Short-interval follow-up after benign concordant MRI-guided breast biopsy may not be necessary.
Authors: Constance D Lehman; Elizabeth R Deperi; Sue Peacock; Michelle D McDonough; Wendy B Demartini; Jennifer Shook Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 3.959
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: Laura Liberman; Elizabeth A Morris; D David Dershaw; Cynthia M Thornton; Kimberly J Van Zee; Lee K Tan Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Mieke Kriege; Cecile T M Brekelmans; Carla Boetes; Peter E Besnard; Harmine M Zonderland; Inge Marie Obdeijn; Radu A Manoliu; Theo Kok; Hans Peterse; Madeleine M A Tilanus-Linthorst; Sara H Muller; Sybren Meijer; Jan C Oosterwijk; Louk V A M Beex; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Harry J de Koning; Emiel J T Rutgers; Jan G M Klijn Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-07-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Matthew O Thompson; Jafi Lipson; Bruce Daniel; Chivonne Harrigal; Paul Mullarkey; Sunita Pal; Atalie C Thompson; Debra Ikeda Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: J Lambert; T Steelandt; S H Heywang-Köbrunner; K Gieraerts; I Van Den Berghe; Ch Van Ongeval; J W Casselman Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-01-18 Impact factor: 5.315