Ana P Lourenco1, Hanan Khalil, Matthew Sanford, Linda Donegan. 1. 1 Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Rhode Island Hospital, Main Bldg, 3rd Fl, 593 Eddy St, Providence, RI 02903.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to determine the underestimation rate of high-risk lesions diagnosed at MRI-guided breast biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective review of 446 MRI-guided breast biopsies from January 2006 through December 2010. Data were collected on examination indication, lesion size and type, and pathology results. Biopsies were performed with a 9-gauge vacuum-assisted device. Biopsy results of atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), papillary lesion, radial scar, lobular neoplasia, and atypia were identified and compared with final excisional pathology results. Underestimation rates were calculated and data were compared by patient and lesion characteristics using chi-square analysis. RESULTS: Of the 446 MRI-guided biopsies, 96 (21.5%) were high-risk lesions. Forty-two of 96 lesions (44%) were masses, and 54 (56%) showed nonmass enhancement. Twenty of 96 lesions (20.8%) were ADH, nine (9.4%) were lobular neoplasia, 27 (28.1%) were papillary lesions, 20 (20.8%) were radial scar, and 20 (20.8%) were other atypias. Sixty-nine of 96 lesions (71.9%) had surgical excisional pathology results available. Sixteen of 69 (23.2%) lesions were upgraded to malignancy; 11 of the 16 (68.8%) were upgraded to ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and five (31.2%) were upgraded to invasive carcinoma. The underestimation rate was 31.6% (6/19) for ADH, 5.9% (1/17) for papillary lesions, 23.1% (3/13) for radial scar, 28.6% (2/7) for lobular neoplasia, and 30.8% (4/13) for other atypias (p = 0.43). There was no statistically significant difference in underestimation rate by lesion type, size, or history of newly diagnosed breast cancer. CONCLUSION: MRI-guided breast biopsy yielded high-risk lesions in 21.5% of cases, and the underestimation rate was 23.2%. No patient or lesion characteristics correlated with underestimation rate.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to determine the underestimation rate of high-risk lesions diagnosed at MRI-guided breast biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective review of 446 MRI-guided breast biopsies from January 2006 through December 2010. Data were collected on examination indication, lesion size and type, and pathology results. Biopsies were performed with a 9-gauge vacuum-assisted device. Biopsy results of atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), papillary lesion, radial scar, lobular neoplasia, and atypia were identified and compared with final excisional pathology results. Underestimation rates were calculated and data were compared by patient and lesion characteristics using chi-square analysis. RESULTS: Of the 446 MRI-guided biopsies, 96 (21.5%) were high-risk lesions. Forty-two of 96 lesions (44%) were masses, and 54 (56%) showed nonmass enhancement. Twenty of 96 lesions (20.8%) were ADH, nine (9.4%) were lobular neoplasia, 27 (28.1%) were papillary lesions, 20 (20.8%) were radial scar, and 20 (20.8%) were other atypias. Sixty-nine of 96 lesions (71.9%) had surgical excisional pathology results available. Sixteen of 69 (23.2%) lesions were upgraded to malignancy; 11 of the 16 (68.8%) were upgraded to ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and five (31.2%) were upgraded to invasive carcinoma. The underestimation rate was 31.6% (6/19) for ADH, 5.9% (1/17) for papillary lesions, 23.1% (3/13) for radial scar, 28.6% (2/7) for lobular neoplasia, and 30.8% (4/13) for other atypias (p = 0.43). There was no statistically significant difference in underestimation rate by lesion type, size, or history of newly diagnosed breast cancer. CONCLUSION: MRI-guided breast biopsy yielded high-risk lesions in 21.5% of cases, and the underestimation rate was 23.2%. No patient or lesion characteristics correlated with underestimation rate.
Authors: Safia Cheeney; Habib Rahbar; Brian N Dontchos; Sara H Javid; Mara H Rendi; Savannah C Partridge Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-02-09 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Eumee Cha; Emily B Ambinder; Eniola T Oluyemi; Lisa A Mullen; Babita Panigrahi; Joanna Rossi; Philip A Di Carlo; Kelly S Myers Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2022-10-15 Impact factor: 4.624
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: Megan E Speer; Monica L Huang; Basak E Dogan; Beatriz E Adrada; Rosalind P Candelaria; Kenneth R Hess; Palita Hansakul; Wei T Yang; Gaiane M Rauch Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-07-05 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Roberto Lo Gullo; Kerri Vincenti; Carolina Rossi Saccarelli; Peter Gibbs; Michael J Fox; Isaac Daimiel; Danny F Martinez; Maxine S Jochelson; Elizabeth A Morris; Jeffrey S Reiner; Katja Pinker Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-01-20 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Christiane K Kuhl; Annika Keulers; Kevin Strobel; Hannah Schneider; Nadine Gaisa; Simone Schrading Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2018-02-09 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Christoph J Rageth; Elizabeth Am O'Flynn; Christopher Comstock; Claudia Kurtz; Rahel Kubik; Helmut Madjar; Domenico Lepori; Gert Kampmann; Alexander Mundinger; Astrid Baege; Thomas Decker; Stefanie Hosch; Christoph Tausch; Jean-François Delaloye; Elisabeth Morris; Zsuzsanna Varga Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-08-13 Impact factor: 4.872