Literature DB >> 28861368

Can magnetic resonance imaging obviate the need for biopsy for microcalcifications?

Shinya Yamamoto1, Takashi Chishima1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although microcalcifications detected with mammography (MG) are usually biopsied, biopsies cannot be performed in all cases. We sought to determine if magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings could indicate whether stereotactic vacuum-assisted biopsy (SVAB) is necessary.
METHODS: Patients with mammographically detected Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 3, 4, and 5 microcalcifications were analyzed from April 2012 to September 2014. All patients underwent MRI. All patients with enhancing lesions in the region of the microcalcifications underwent SVAB. Non-enhancing lesions were followed or biopsied, depending on the patient's preferences. MRI findings were classified as either malignant-suspicious or benign-suspicious ("none" or "nonspecific"), and we evaluated the positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of these classifications for predicting malignancy.
RESULTS: A total of 87 patients underwent both MRI and SVAB. The NPV of MRI was 100% in the group with no enhancement. In BI-RADS category 3, there were 57 benign-suspicious lesions on MRI, of which eight were malignant (NPV of MRI: 85.0%).
CONCLUSIONS: It may be possible to omit SVAB for microcalcifications if there is no enhancement on MRI; however, any kind of enhancement indicates the need for biopsy in cases of BI-RADS 3 calcifications on MG.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biopsy; breast neoplasms; invasive ductal carcinoma, breast; magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); mammography (MG)

Year:  2017        PMID: 28861368      PMCID: PMC5566654          DOI: 10.21037/gs.2017.03.14

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gland Surg        ISSN: 2227-684X


  6 in total

1.  Mammography of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: review of 909 cases with radiographic-pathologic correlations.

Authors:  Béatrice Barreau; Isabelle de Mascarel; Caroline Feuga; Gaétan MacGrogan; Marie-Hélène Dilhuydy; Véronique Picot; Jean-Marie Dilhuydy; Christine Tunon de Lara; Emmanuel Bussières; I Schreer
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 3.528

2.  Differentiation of benign from malignant breast disease associated with screening detected microcalcifications using dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  P J Kneeshaw; M Lowry; D Manton; A Hubbard; P J Drew; L W Turnbull
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2005-07-05       Impact factor: 4.380

3.  Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging in screening detected microcalcification lesions of the breast: is there any value?

Authors:  Takayoshi Uematsu; Sachiko Yuen; Masako Kasami; Yoshihiro Uchida
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2006-10-25       Impact factor: 4.872

4.  Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer.

Authors:  Donald A Berry; Kathleen A Cronin; Sylvia K Plevritis; Dennis G Fryback; Lauren Clarke; Marvin Zelen; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Andrei Y Yakovlev; J Dik F Habbema; Eric J Feuer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2005-10-27       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  The value of dynamic contrast enhanced breast MRI in mammographically detected BI-RADS 5 microcalcifications.

Authors:  Dana Houserkova; Sachin N Prasad; Ivan Svach; Ladislava Kucerova; Milada Duskova; Jiri Bucil; Ivan Sisola; Nora Zlamalova; Hana Svebisova
Journal:  Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 1.245

Review 6.  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

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.