Literature DB >> 27284757

Breast MR Imaging for Equivocal Mammographic Findings: Help or Hindrance?

Catherine S Giess1, Sona A Chikarmane1, Dorothy A Sippo1, Robyn L Birdwell1.   

Abstract

Breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, because of its extremely high sensitivity in detecting invasive breast cancers, is sometimes used as a diagnostic tool to evaluate equivocal mammographic findings. However, breast MR imaging should never substitute for a complete diagnostic evaluation or for biopsy of suspected, localizable suspicious mammographic lesions, whenever possible. The modality's high cost, in addition to only moderate specificity, mandate that radiologists use it sparingly and with discrimination for problematic mammographic findings. It is rare that the reality or significance of a noncalcified mammographic finding remains equivocal or problematic at diagnostic mammography evaluation, which usually includes targeted ultrasonography (US). There are several reasons for this infrequent occurrence: (a) an asymmetry may persist on diagnostic views but be visible only on craniocaudal or mediolateral oblique projections, precluding three-dimensional localization for US or biopsy, or a lesion may persist on some diagnostic spot views but dissipate or efface on others; (b) uncertainty may exist as to whether apparent change is clinically important or owing to technical factors such as compression or positioning differences; or (c) a lesion may be suspected but biopsy options are limited owing to lack of a US correlate and lesion inaccessibility for stereotactic biopsy, or biopsy of a vague or questionably real lesion has been attempted unsuccessfully. This article will discuss the indications for problem-solving MR imaging for equivocal mammographic findings, present cases illustrating appropriate and inappropriate uses of problem-solving MR imaging, and present false-positive and false-negative cases affecting the specificity of breast MR imaging. (©)RSNA, 2016.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27284757     DOI: 10.1148/rg.2016150205

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiographics        ISSN: 0271-5333            Impact factor:   5.333


  6 in total

1.  Can positron emission mammography help to identify clinically significant breast cancer in women with suspicious calcifications on mammography?

Authors:  Almir G V Bitencourt; Eduardo N P Lima; Bruna R C Macedo; Jorge L F A Conrado; Elvira F Marques; Rubens Chojniak
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-09-02       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Muscular variant presenting as an asymmetry on mammogram.

Authors:  Haley Letter; Santo Maimone; Robert Maxwell
Journal:  Radiol Case Rep       Date:  2022-05-06

3.  Indications for breast magnetic resonance imaging in Brazil: past, present, and future.

Authors:  Almir Galvão Vieira Bitencourt; Rubens Chojniak
Journal:  Radiol Bras       Date:  2021 May-Jun

4.  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

5.  Influence of breast compression pressure on the performance of population-based mammography screening.

Authors:  Katharina Holland; Ioannis Sechopoulos; Ritse M Mann; Gerard J den Heeten; Carla H van Gils; Nico Karssemeijer
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2017-11-28       Impact factor: 6.466

6.  A survey by the European Society of Breast Imaging on the utilisation of breast MRI in clinical practice.

Authors:  Paola Clauser; Ritse Mann; Alexandra Athanasiou; Helmut Prosch; Katja Pinker; Matthias Dietzel; Thomas H Helbich; Michael Fuchsjäger; Julia Camps-Herrero; Francesco Sardanelli; Gabor Forrai; Pascal A T Baltzer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-11-22       Impact factor: 5.315

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.