Hye Mi Gweon1,2, Nariya Cho3, Soo-Yeon Kim1, Hye Ryoung Koo4, Mirinae Seo5, Ajung Chu6, Eun Ju Son2. 1. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehakro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Radiology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehakro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea. river7774@gmail.com. 4. Department of Radiology, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 5. Department of Radiology, Kyung Hee University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 6. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Boramae Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively evaluate characteristics of and determine appropriate follow-up recommendations for BI-RADS category 3 lesions detected in preoperative MRI of breast cancer patients. METHODS: BI-RADS category 3 assessments were identified from the breast MRI database for 5,110 consecutive breast cancer patients who had undergone preoperative MRI and surgery. Patient and lesion characteristics, malignancy rate, and interval between lesion detection and cancer diagnosis were analysed. Histopathological results or imaging at or after 2-year follow-up were used as reference standards. RESULTS: Of the 626 lesions, morphological features included a single focus in 26.5% (n = 166), multiple foci in 47.1% (n = 295), mass in 21.7% (n = 136) and non-mass enhancement in 4.6% (n = 29). Cancer was found in 0.8% (5/626) at a median interval of 50 months (range, 29-66 months). Malignancy rate according to morphological feature was: 1.8% (3/166) in a single focus, 0.7% (1/136) in mass and 3.4% (1/29) in non-mass enhancement. All detected cancers were stage 0 or IA. CONCLUSIONS: Annual follow-up might be adequate for BI-RADS category 3 lesions detected at preoperative MRI because of the 0.8% (5/626) malignancy rate, long interval between lesion detection and cancer diagnosis, and early stage of diagnosed cancers. KEY POINTS: • BI-RADS category 3 lesions on preoperative MRI had 0.8% malignancy rate. • All cancer diagnoses from BI-RADS 3 occurred after 24-month follow-up. • Annual follow-up might be adequate for BI-RADS 3 detected on preoperative MRI.
OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively evaluate characteristics of and determine appropriate follow-up recommendations for BI-RADS category 3 lesions detected in preoperative MRI of breast cancerpatients. METHODS: BI-RADS category 3 assessments were identified from the breast MRI database for 5,110 consecutive breast cancerpatients who had undergone preoperative MRI and surgery. Patient and lesion characteristics, malignancy rate, and interval between lesion detection and cancer diagnosis were analysed. Histopathological results or imaging at or after 2-year follow-up were used as reference standards. RESULTS: Of the 626 lesions, morphological features included a single focus in 26.5% (n = 166), multiple foci in 47.1% (n = 295), mass in 21.7% (n = 136) and non-mass enhancement in 4.6% (n = 29). Cancer was found in 0.8% (5/626) at a median interval of 50 months (range, 29-66 months). Malignancy rate according to morphological feature was: 1.8% (3/166) in a single focus, 0.7% (1/136) in mass and 3.4% (1/29) in non-mass enhancement. All detected cancers were stage 0 or IA. CONCLUSIONS: Annual follow-up might be adequate for BI-RADS category 3 lesions detected at preoperative MRI because of the 0.8% (5/626) malignancy rate, long interval between lesion detection and cancer diagnosis, and early stage of diagnosed cancers. KEY POINTS: • BI-RADS category 3 lesions on preoperative MRI had 0.8% malignancy rate. • All cancer diagnoses from BI-RADS 3 occurred after 24-month follow-up. • Annual follow-up might be adequate for BI-RADS 3 detected on preoperative MRI.
Entities:
Keywords:
Appointments and schedule; Breast cancer; Follow-up studies; Imaging; Magnetic resonance imaging
Authors: R Gruber; S Jaromi; M Rudas; G Pfarl; C C Riedl; D Flöry; O Graf; E A Sickles; T H Helbich Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2012-03-18 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Susan P Weinstein; Lucy G Hanna; Constantine Gatsonis; Mitchell D Schnall; Mark A Rosen; Constance D Lehman Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sona A Chikarmane; Robyn L Birdwell; Patricia S Poole; Dorothy A Sippo; Catherine S Giess Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-04-18 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Claudio Spick; Dieter H M Szolar; Pascal A Baltzer; Manfred Tillich; Pia Reittner; Klaus W Preidler; Katja Pinker-Domenig; Thomas H Helbich Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Fiona J Gilbert; Ruth M L Warren; Gek Kwan-Lim; Deborah J Thompson; Ros A Eeles; D Gareth Evans; Martin O Leach Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ximena Varas; José H Leborgne; Francisco Leborgne; Julieta Mezzera; Sylvia Jaumandreu; Felix Leborgne Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Peter R Eby; Wendy B DeMartini; Robert L Gutierrez; Constance D Lehman Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 2.266
Authors: Santo Maimone; Andrey P Morozov; Zhuo Li; Emily C Craver; Erin A Elder; Sarah A McLaughlin Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2022-03-08 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Derek L Nguyen; Kelly S Myers; Eniola Oluyemi; Lisa A Mullen; Babita Panigrahi; Joanna Rossi; Emily B Ambinder Journal: J Breast Imaging Date: 2022-06-28