Sung Eun Song1,2, Nariya Cho3,4,5, Wonshik Han6. 1. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Radiology, Korea University Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. river7774@gmail.com. 4. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. river7774@gmail.com. 5. Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Centre, Seoul, Republic of Korea. river7774@gmail.com. 6. Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether the post-clip placement MRI following second-look ultrasound (US)-guided core biopsy is useful to confirm the adequate sampling of suspicious lesions identified on breast MRI. METHODS: Between 2014 and 2016, 31 consecutive women with 34 suspicious lesions that had not been identified on previous mammography or US were detected using MRI. Among them, 26 women with 29 lesions (mean size 1.5 cm, range 0.5-5.8 cm) found by second-look US underwent US-guided biopsy, subsequent clip insertion and post-clip placement MRI. Five women with five lesions that were not found by second-look US underwent MRI-guided biopsy. The technical success rate and lesion characteristics were described. RESULTS: The technical success rate was 96.6% (28/29). One failure case was a benign, 1.1-cm non-mass enhancement. Of the 28 success cases, 23 (82.1%) were masses and 5 (17.9%) were non-mass enhancements; 17 (60.7%) were benign, 4 (14.3%) were high-risk and 7 (25.0%) were malignant lesions. The technical success rate was 100% (28/28) for masses and 83.3% (5/6) for non-mass enhancements. CONCLUSIONS: Post-clip placement MRI following US-guided biopsy is useful in confirming the adequate sampling of lesions identified on MRI. This method could be an alternative to MRI-guided biopsy for lesions visible on US. KEY POINTS: • Post-clip MRI is useful for confirming adequate sampling of US-guided biopsy. • Post-clip MRI following US-guided biopsy revealed a 96.6 % technical success rate. • One technical failure case was a benign, 1.1-cm non-mass enhancement. • The technical success rate of US-guided biopsy for non-mass enhancements was 83.3 %.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether the post-clip placement MRI following second-look ultrasound (US)-guided core biopsy is useful to confirm the adequate sampling of suspicious lesions identified on breast MRI. METHODS: Between 2014 and 2016, 31 consecutive women with 34 suspicious lesions that had not been identified on previous mammography or US were detected using MRI. Among them, 26 women with 29 lesions (mean size 1.5 cm, range 0.5-5.8 cm) found by second-look US underwent US-guided biopsy, subsequent clip insertion and post-clip placement MRI. Five women with five lesions that were not found by second-look US underwent MRI-guided biopsy. The technical success rate and lesion characteristics were described. RESULTS: The technical success rate was 96.6% (28/29). One failure case was a benign, 1.1-cm non-mass enhancement. Of the 28 success cases, 23 (82.1%) were masses and 5 (17.9%) were non-mass enhancements; 17 (60.7%) were benign, 4 (14.3%) were high-risk and 7 (25.0%) were malignant lesions. The technical success rate was 100% (28/28) for masses and 83.3% (5/6) for non-mass enhancements. CONCLUSIONS: Post-clip placement MRI following US-guided biopsy is useful in confirming the adequate sampling of lesions identified on MRI. This method could be an alternative to MRI-guided biopsy for lesions visible on US. KEY POINTS: • Post-clip MRI is useful for confirming adequate sampling of US-guided biopsy. • Post-clip MRI following US-guided biopsy revealed a 96.6 % technical success rate. • One technical failure case was a benign, 1.1-cm non-mass enhancement. • The technical success rate of US-guided biopsy for non-mass enhancements was 83.3 %.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Clips; Image-guided biopsy; Magnetic resonance imaging; Ultrasonography
Authors: Pascal A T Baltzer; Matthias Benndorf; Matthias Dietzel; Mieczyslaw Gajda; Ingo B Runnebaum; Werner A Kaiser Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Márcia M Aracava; Rubens Chojniak; Juliana A Souza; Almir G V Bitencourt; Elvira F Marques Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2014-01-04 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Hiroyuki Abe; Robert A Schmidt; Rajshri N Shah; Akiko Shimauchi; Kirti Kulkarni; Charlene A Sennett; Gillian M Newstead Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 3.959