| Literature DB >> 31842782 |
Ayşegül Altunkeser1, Fatma Zeynep Arslan2, Mehmet Ali Eryılmaz3.
Abstract
Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31842782 PMCID: PMC6916024 DOI: 10.1186/s12880-019-0397-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Imaging ISSN: 1471-2342 Impact factor: 1.930
General descriptive features
| Parameters | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 60 | 35.2 ± 8.73 | 23–65 |
| Mean follow up time | 60 | 2.32 ± 1.47 | 1–7 |
| Complaint | |||
| Mastodinia | 35 | 56.5 | |
| Hardness | 27 | 43.5 | |
| Side | |||
| Single breast | 58 | 96.7 | |
| Bilateral involvement | 2 | 3.3 | |
| Breast quadrant | |||
| Other quadrants | 55 | 88.7 | |
| Retroareolar | 7 | 11.3 | |
n Number of patients, na Number of lesions
Fig. 1On a T2W TIRM image, b Contrast enhanced subtraction image of 34 year-old patients; multiple abcess formations (arrow), rim-like enhancement and diffuse edeame is seen in the left breast
The relationship between MRI findings and the treatment success
| Parameters | Treatment success | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recurrence (%) | Yes (%) | No (%) | Total | ||
| Quadrants | |||||
| Other quadrants | 0 (%0.0) | 40 (%90.9) | 15 (%88.2) | 55 | 0.018* |
| Retroareolar | 1 (%100) | 4 (%9.1) | 2 (%11.8) | 7 | |
| MRG lesion | |||||
| Mass | 0 (%0.0) | 2 (%4.5) | 1 (%5.9) | 3 | 0.976 |
| Mass + NME | 1 (%100) | 31 (%70.5) | 12 (%70.6) | 44 | |
| NME | 0 (%0) | 11 (%25.0) | 4 (%23.5) | 15 | |
| MRI mass | |||||
| Abcess | 1 (%100) | 27 (%81.8) | 11 (%84.6) | 39 | 0.878 |
| Solid | 0 (%0) | 6 (%18.2) | 2 (%15.4) | 8 | |
| Shape | |||||
| Irregular | 0 (%0) | 12 (%36.4) | 4 (%30.8) | 16 | 0.544 |
| Oval | 0 (%0) | 1 (%3) | 2 (%15.4) | 3 | |
| Round | 1 (%100) | 20 (%60.6) | 7 (%53.8) | 28 | |
| Margin | |||||
| Irregular | 0 (%0) | 9 (%27.3) | 3 (%23.1) | 12 | 0.914 |
| Well-circumsribed | 1 (%100) | 23 (%69.7) | 9 (%69.2) | 33 | |
| Spiculated | 0 (%0) | 1 (%3) | 1 (%7.7) | 2 | |
| Mass enhancement | |||||
| Heterogeneous | 0 (%0) | 4 (%12.1) | 1 (%7.7) | 5 | 0.570 |
| Homogeneous | 0 (%0) | 0 (%0) | 1 (%7.7) | 1 | |
| Rim enhancement | 1 (%100) | 29 (%87.9) | 11 (%84.6) | 41 | |
| Nonmass enhancement | |||||
| Regional | 0 (%0) | 22 (%53.7) | 11 (%68.8) | 33 | 0.271 |
| Diffusse | 0 (%0) | 2 (%4.9) | 1 (%6.3) | 3 | |
| Focal | 1 (%100) | 5 (%12.2) | 0 (%0) | 6 | |
| Lineer | 0 (%0) | 2 (%4.9) | 0 (%0) | 2 | |
| Multiple regional | 0 (%0) | 9 (%22) | 4 (%25) | 13 | |
| Segmental | 0 (%0) | 1 (%) | 0 (%0) | 1 | |
| NME (internal) | |||||
| Heterogeneous | 0 (%0) | 25 (%59.5) | 6 (%37.5) | 31 | 0.298 |
| Homogeneous | 0 (%0) | 8 (%19) | 6 (%37.5) | 14 | |
| Clumped | 0 (%0) | 2 (%4.8) | 1 (%6.3) | 3 | |
| Clustered | 1 (%100) | 7 (%16.7) | 3 (%18.8) | 11 | |
P value less than 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. *: statistically significant. NME Nonmass enhancement
The association between MRI findings and treatment success
| Variables | Treatment Success | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Odds Ratio | 95% CI | ||
| Breast Mass | 0.866 | 0.363 to 2.066 | 0.746 |
| Shape | 1.806 | 0.587 to 5.559 | 0.303 |
| Margin | 0.927 | 0.305 to 2.815 | 0.893 |
| Mass enhancement | 1.657 | 0.399 to 6.876 | 0.487 |
| NME (internal) | 1.014 | 0.576 to 1.784 | 0.961 |
| Treatment Methods | 0.670 | 0.373 to 1.205 | 0.181 |
| Fistula Formation | 0.765 | 0.241 to 2.427 | 0.649 |
P value less than 0.05 was considered as statistically significant
NME Nonmass enhancement
The association between the treatment success and treatment methods and fistula formation
| Treatment success | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No | Yes | Recurrence | ||
| Treatment methods | ||||
| Medical | 9 (53%) | 18 (41%) | 0 (0%) | 0.416 |
| Surgery | 0 (0%) | 6 (14%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Drainage | 8 (47%) | 20 (45%) | 1 (100%) | |
| Fistula formation | ||||
| No | 6 (35%) | 17 (39%) | 1 (100%) | 0.435 |
| Yes | 11 (65%) | 27 (61%) | 0 (0%) | |
p: Significance value for Chi-square test, p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant