Literature DB >> 27788035

MR Imaging for Diagnosis of Malignancy in Mammographic Microcalcifications: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Barbara Bennani-Baiti1, Pascal A Baltzer1.   

Abstract

Purpose To assess the use of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for diagnosis of malignancy in lesions that manifest as microcalcifications at mammography. Materials and Methods Two independent readers performed a systematic review of the literature published as of February 1, 2016, by using predefined search terms. All studies in which contrast material-enhanced MR imaging was used for assessment of mammographic microcalcifications that were assigned Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) scores of 3-5 were deemed eligible. The standard of reference was established at clinical follow-up examination or histopathologic evaluation. Study design, technical parameters, number of true- and false-positive and true- and false-negative results were extracted to fit a cross-tabulation. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 applet was used to probe for bias. Statistical analysis included data pooling, meta-regression, heterogeneity testing, and forest plot construction. Results Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria. These comprised 1843 lesions with a mean prevalence of malignancy of 40.6%. Bivariate analysis revealed pooled sensitivity and specificity of 87% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 81%, 92%) and 81% (95% CI: 75%, 86%) for all lesions, respectively; 95% (95% CI: 91%, 98%) and 61% (95% CI: 52%, 69%) for invasive lesions only, respectively; 57% (95% CI: 59%, 81%) and 32% (95% CI: 15%, 92%) for BI-RADS 3 lesions, respectively; 92% (95% CI: 85%, 96%) and 82% (95% CI: 74%, 88%) for BI-RADS 4 lesions, respectively; and 95% (95% CI: 87%, 99%) and 66% (95% CI: 26%, 92%) for BI-RADS 5 lesions. Diagnostic criteria other than presence of enhancement were inversely associated with sensitivity (P ≤ .013). Conclusion Breast MR imaging is not recommended for diagnosis of malignancy in BI-RADS 3 and 5 mammographic microcalcifications, but can be considered for BI-RADS 4 mammographic microcalcifications. The presence or absence of enhancement is the preferable diagnostic criterion to rule out malignancy in mammographic microcalcifications at breast MR imaging. © RSNA, 2016 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27788035     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2016161106

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


  34 in total

1.  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 2.  Advances in Breast MRI in the Setting of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.

Authors:  Nita Amornsiripanitch; Diana L Lam; Habib Rahbar
Journal:  Semin Roentgenol       Date:  2018-08-30       Impact factor: 0.800

3.  Intravenous Line Phase-Wrap Artifact at Bilateral Axial 3-T Breast MRI: Identification, Analysis, and Solution.

Authors:  Einat Slonimsky; Yusef Azraq; John M Gomori; Susan Fisch; Tal Arazi Kleinman; Tamar Sella
Journal:  Radiol Imaging Cancer       Date:  2020-11-06

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.  Digital Analysis in Breast Imaging.

Authors:  Giovanna Negrão de Figueiredo; Michael Ingrisch; Eva Maria Fallenberg
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2019-06-04       Impact factor: 2.860

6.  Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced dual-energy spectral mammography (CESM): a retrospective study involving 644 breast lesions.

Authors:  María Del Mar Travieso-Aja; Daniel Maldonado-Saluzzi; Pedro Naranjo-Santana; Claudia Fernández-Ruiz; Wilsa Severino-Rondón; Mario Rodríguez Rodríguez; Víctor Vega Benítez; Octavio Pérez-Luzardo
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2019-06-27       Impact factor: 3.469

7.  Calling all calcifications: a retrospective case control study.

Authors:  Anand K Narayan; Delia M Keating; Elizabeth A Morris; Victoria L Mango
Journal:  Clin Imaging       Date:  2018-10-05       Impact factor: 1.605

8.  Diagnostic accuracy of cone-beam breast computed tomography: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis.

Authors:  Johannes Uhlig; Annemarie Uhlig; Lorenz Biggemann; Uwe Fischer; Joachim Lotz; Susanne Wienbeck
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-09-25       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Potential of Noncontrast Magnetic Resonance Imaging With Diffusion-Weighted Imaging in Characterization of Breast Lesions: Intraindividual Comparison With Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Authors:  Pascal A T Baltzer; Hubert Bickel; Claudio Spick; Georg Wengert; Ramona Woitek; Panagiotis Kapetas; Paola Clauser; Thomas H Helbich; Katja Pinker
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 6.016

Review 10.  Magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of pathologic nipple discharge: indications and imaging findings.

Authors:  Naziya Samreen; Laura B Madsen; Celin Chacko; Samantha L Heller
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2021-02-05       Impact factor: 3.039

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.