O Sarica1, F Uluc. 1. Department of Radiology, Taksim Gaziosmanpasa Research and Training Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Biopsy has long been the standard approach in Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System® (BI-RADS) 4 or BI-RADS 5 (American College of Radiology, Reston, VA) lesions despite a wide variation in reported incidence of malignancy in BI-RADS 4 lesions. This study examined the diagnostic value of breast MRI as well as its ability to decrease unnecessary biopsies in patients with solid breast lesions who had an indication for biopsy. METHODS: In this retrospective study, 277 breast lesions with a documented histological diagnosis as established by ultrasound-guided biopsy were included. All patients were female, and biopsy was performed owing to a BI-RADS score of 4 or 5 on ultrasonography. In addition, all patients had undergone MRI before biopsy. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of MRI in predicting malignancy were calculated. RESULTS: When all lesions were analysed, sensitivity, specificity, NPV and PPV of MRI in detecting malignancy were 94.2%, 56.1%, 90.7% and 68.1%, respectively. When only ultrasonographic BI-RADS 4 lesions are considered, the corresponding figures were as follows: 90.9%, 56.7%, 93.8% and 46.4%, respectively. False-negative rate of MRI for the latter group of lesions was 2.6%. 42% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in sonographic BI-RADS 4 lesions. CONCLUSION: Despite promising results obtained in this study, dynamic MRI currently does not seem to be effective in ruling out the need for biopsy in the assessment of sonographic BI-RADS 4 lesions. However, advanced MRI techniques may assist in improving possible benefits of MRI in this patient group.
OBJECTIVE: Biopsy has long been the standard approach in Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System® (BI-RADS) 4 or BI-RADS 5 (American College of Radiology, Reston, VA) lesions despite a wide variation in reported incidence of malignancy in BI-RADS 4 lesions. This study examined the diagnostic value of breast MRI as well as its ability to decrease unnecessary biopsies in patients with solid breast lesions who had an indication for biopsy. METHODS: In this retrospective study, 277 breast lesions with a documented histological diagnosis as established by ultrasound-guided biopsy were included. All patients were female, and biopsy was performed owing to a BI-RADS score of 4 or 5 on ultrasonography. In addition, all patients had undergone MRI before biopsy. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of MRI in predicting malignancy were calculated. RESULTS: When all lesions were analysed, sensitivity, specificity, NPV and PPV of MRI in detecting malignancy were 94.2%, 56.1%, 90.7% and 68.1%, respectively. When only ultrasonographic BI-RADS 4 lesions are considered, the corresponding figures were as follows: 90.9%, 56.7%, 93.8% and 46.4%, respectively. False-negative rate of MRI for the latter group of lesions was 2.6%. 42% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in sonographic BI-RADS 4 lesions. CONCLUSION: Despite promising results obtained in this study, dynamic MRI currently does not seem to be effective in ruling out the need for biopsy in the assessment of sonographic BI-RADS 4 lesions. However, advanced MRI techniques may assist in improving possible benefits of MRI in this patient group.
Authors: Wendie A Berg; David O Cosgrove; Caroline J Doré; Fritz K W Schäfer; William E Svensson; Regina J Hooley; Ralf Ohlinger; Ellen B Mendelson; Catherine Balu-Maestro; Martina Locatelli; Christophe Tourasse; Barbara C Cavanaugh; Valérie Juhan; A Thomas Stavros; Anne Tardivon; Joel Gay; Jean-Pierre Henry; Claude Cohen-Bacrie Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jung Min Chang; Woo Kyung Moon; Nariya Cho; Ann Yi; Hye Ryoung Koo; Wonsik Han; Dong-Young Noh; Hyeong-Gon Moon; Seung Ja Kim Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2011-06-17 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Linda Moy; Kristin Elias; Vashali Patel; Jiyon Lee; James S Babb; Hildegard K Toth; Cecilia L Mercado Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Peter R Eby; Wendy B DeMartini; Robert L Gutierrez; Monica H Saini; Sue Peacock; Constance D Lehman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Wendie A Berg; Jeffrey D Blume; Jean B Cormack; Ellen B Mendelson; Daniel Lehrer; Marcela Böhm-Vélez; Etta D Pisano; Roberta A Jong; W Phil Evans; Marilyn J Morton; Mary C Mahoney; Linda Hovanessian Larsen; Richard G Barr; Dione M Farria; Helga S Marques; Karan Boparai Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-05-14 Impact factor: 56.272