Literature DB >> 25271857

Assessment of BI-RADS category 4 lesions detected with screening mammography and screening US: utility of MR imaging.

Kevin Strobel1, Simone Schrading, Nienke L Hansen, Alexandra Barabasch, Christiane K Kuhl.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate the utility of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging according to different types of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 4 findings from screening mammography and/or screening ultrasonography (US).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This institutional review board-approved prospective study included 340 patients in whom 353 lesions were detected at screening mammography or US and were rated BI-RADS category 4 after appropriate conventional work-up. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients. Women underwent standard dynamic contrast material-enhanced MR imaging for further assessment. Women with negative or benign MR findings who did not proceed to biopsy underwent intensified follow-up for at least 18 months. Pure clustered microcalcifications were followed up for at least 24 months.
RESULTS: Of the 353 study findings, 66 (18.7%) were finally shown to be true-positive (23 cases of ductal carcinoma in situ [DCIS], 43 invasive cancers) and 287 (81.3%) were false-positive. Assessment of MR imaging findings led to a correct diagnosis of no breast cancer in 264 of the 287 false-positive findings (92%) and helped confirm the presence of breast cancer in 63 of 66 malignancies. The false-negative rate for pure clustered microcalcifications was 12% (three of 25 cases) because of three nonenhancing low-grade DCIS cases; in turn, MR imaging depicted additional invasive cancers in three women with false-positive findings from mammography and US. For mammographic findings other than pure clustered microcalcifications, MR imaging increased the positive predictive value (PPV) from 17.5% (21 of 120 cases; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.7%, 24.3%) to 78% (21 of 27 cases; 95% CI: 62.1%, 93.5%), with a false-negative rate of 0%. For all US findings, MR imaging increased the PPV from 12.9% (20 of 155 cases; 95% CI: 7.6%, 18.2%) to 69% (20 of 29 cases; 95% CI: 52.2%, 85.8%), again with a false-negative rate of 0%. MR imaging resulted in false-positive findings that led to MR imaging-guided biopsy in five of the 340 patients (1.5%).
CONCLUSION: MR imaging is useful for the noninvasive work-up of lesions classified as BI-RADS category 4 at mammography or US and can help avoid 92% of unnecessary biopsies. The false-negative rate was 0% for all US findings and for all mammographic findings except pure clustered microcalcifications. Additional invasive cancers were identified in three women with false-positive findings from mammography and US. © RSNA, 2014.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25271857     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.14140645

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  21 in total

1.  Breast cancer: a new imaging approach as an addition to existing guidelines.

Authors:  Monique D Dorrius; Erik F J de Vries; Riemer H J A Slart; Andor W J M Glaudemans
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2015-03-12       Impact factor: 9.236

2.  US and MRI in the evaluation of mammographic BI-RADS 4 and 5 microcalcifications.

Authors:  Ana Hrkac Pustahija; Gordana Ivanac; Boris Brkljacic
Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 2.630

Review 3.  How Can Advanced Imaging Be Used to Mitigate Potential Breast Cancer Overdiagnosis?

Authors:  Habib Rahbar; Elizabeth S McDonald; Janie M Lee; Savannah C Partridge; Christoph I Lee
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2016-03-23       Impact factor: 3.173

4.  The Clinical Utility of a Negative Result at Molecular Breast Imaging: Initial Proof of Concept.

Authors:  Ravi Jain; Deanna R Katz; Amber D Kapoor
Journal:  Radiol Imaging Cancer       Date:  2020-09-25

Review 5.  Multiparametric MR Imaging of Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Habib Rahbar; Savannah C Partridge
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 2.266

6.  Differentiation of ductal carcinoma in-situ from benign micro-calcifications by dedicated breast computed tomography.

Authors:  Shadi Aminololama-Shakeri; Craig K Abbey; Peymon Gazi; Nicolas D Prionas; Anita Nosratieh; Chin-Shang Li; John M Boone; Karen K Lindfors
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2015-10-01       Impact factor: 3.528

7.  The Positive Predictive Values of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 4 Lesions and its Mammographic Morphological Features.

Authors:  Suvendu Kumar Mohapatra; Abhisek Mishra; Tapan Kumar Sahoo; Rashmita Binod Nayak; Prafulla Kumar Das; Bhagyalaxmi Nayak
Journal:  Indian J Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-01-11

Review 8.  The Changing World of Breast Cancer: A Radiologist's Perspective.

Authors:  Christiane K Kuhl
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 6.016

Review 9.  Diagnostic Performance of Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Non-Calcified Equivocal Breast Findings: Results from a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Barbara Bennani-Baiti; Nabila Bennani-Baiti; Pascal A Baltzer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-08-02       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  3 Tesla breast MR imaging as a problem-solving tool: Diagnostic performance and incidental lesions.

Authors:  Claudio Spick; Dieter H M Szolar; Klaus W Preidler; Pia Reittner; Katharina Rauch; Peter Brader; Manfred Tillich; Pascal A Baltzer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-01-02       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.