Journals / Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology / 2015 / Cilt: 21 - Sayı: 4

Can unenhanced breast MRI be used to decrease negative biopsy rates?

Pages
287–292
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

With the use of unenhanced MRI instead of immedi-ate biopsy, it might be possible to decrease negative biopsy rates of low-risk breast masses.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:PURPOSEWe aimed to determine whether low-risk breast masses can be effectively managed with un-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) combining T2-weighted sequences with diffu-sion-weighted imaging (DWI) instead of immediate biopsy to decrease negative biopsy rates.METHODSAfter institutional review board and patient approvals, 141 consecutive women with 156 low-risk breast masses, who underwent unenhanced MRI and later on received a final diagnosis, were in-cluded in the study.
📊
Key Findings & Data:There were 72 BI-RADS 3 masses in women with relative risk factors and 84 BI-RADS 4A masses, all referred for biopsy.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:With the use of unenhanced MRI instead of immedi-ate biopsy, it might be possible to decrease negative biopsy rates of low-risk breast masses.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

PURPOSEWe aimed to determine whether low-risk breast masses can be effectively managed with un-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) combining T2-weighted sequences with diffu-sion-weighted imaging (DWI) instead of immediate biopsy to decrease negative biopsy rates.METHODSAfter institutional review board and patient approvals, 141 consecutive women with 156 low-risk breast masses, who underwent unenhanced MRI and later on received a final diagnosis, were in-cluded in the study. There were 72 BI-RADS 3 masses in women with relative risk factors and 84 BI-RADS 4A masses, all referred for biopsy. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) cutoff was 0.90×10-3 mm2/s. According to ADC values and T2-weighted imaging characteristics, masses were classified as either malignant or benign. Unenhanced MRI results were compared with final diagnoses ob-tained by histopathology or imaging surveillance, and diagnostic values were calculated.RESULTSOf 156 masses, 112 underwent biopsy. Four malignancies were diagnosed, three of which having ADC values lower than the cutoff. In women who rejected the biopsy, masses were stable during a follow-up of at least two years (n=44). MRI revealed 91% specificity and 99% negative predictive value (NPV) for detection of breast cancer. CONCLUSIONCombination of T2-weighted imaging with DWI is a feasible method to further characterize breast masses with a low probability of malignancy. With the use of unenhanced MRI instead of immedi-ate biopsy, it might be possible to decrease negative biopsy rates of low-risk breast masses.

🔖

Cite This Article

KUL, S., OĞUZ, Ş., EYÜBOĞLU, İ., KÖMÜRCÜOĞLU, Ö. (2015). Can unenhanced breast MRI be used to decrease negative biopsy rates?. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Cilt: 21 - Sayı: 4, 287–292. https://ajindex.com/articles/208402

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (4)

  1. American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) atlas. 5th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2013. Available at: www.acr.org. Accessed July 10, 2014.
  2. Harvey JA, Nicholson BT, Lorusso AP, Cohen MA, Bovbjerg VE. Short-term follow-up of pal- pable breast lesions with benign imaging features: evaluation of 375 lesions in 320 women. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 193:1723-1730. [CrossRef] Giess CS, Smeglin LZ, Meyer JE, Ritner JA, Bird- well RL. Risk of malignancy in palpable solid breast masses considered probably benign or low suspicion: implications for management. J Ultrasound Med 2012; 31:1943-1949.
  3. Raza S, Chikarmane SA, Neilsen SS, Zorn LM, Birdwell RL. BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions: value of US in management-follow-up and outcome. Radiology 2008; 248:773-781. [CrossRef] Wiratkapun C, Bunyapaiboonsri W, Wibulpol- prasert B, Lertsithichai P. Biopsy rate and positive predictive value for breast cancer in BI-RADS category 4 breast lesions. J Med Assoc Thai 2010; 93:830-837.
  4. Fu CY, Hsu HH, Yu JC, et al. Influence of age on PPV of sonographic BI-RADS categories 3, 4, and 5. Ultraschall Med 2011; 32:8-13. [CrossRef] Yoon JH, Kim MJ, Moon HJ, Kwak JY, Kim EK. Subcategorization of ultrasonographic BI-RADS category 4: positive predictive value and clinical factors affecting it. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2011; 37:693-699. [CrossRef] Liang W, Lawrence W, Burnett CB, et al. Accept- ability of diagnostic tests for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2003; 79:199-206. [CrossRef] Crowe JP Jr, Rim A, Patrick R, et al. A prospective review of the decline of excisional breast biopsy. Am J Surg 2002; 184:353-355. [CrossRef] Kuhl C. The current status of breast MR imaging. Part I. Choice of technique, image interpretation, diagnostic accuracy, and transfer to clinical prac- tice. Radiology 2007; 244:356-378. [CrossRef] Heywang-Köbrunner SH, Viehweg P, Heinig A, Kuchler C. Contrast enhanced MRI of the breast: accuracy, value, controversies, solutions. Eur J Radiol 1997; 24:94-108. [CrossRef] Warren RML, Pointon L, Thompson D, et al. Reading protocol for dynamic contrast- en- hanced MR images of the breast: sensitivity and specificity analysis. Radiology 2005; 236:779- 788. [CrossRef] Chen X, Li WL, Zhang YL, Wu Q, Guo YM, Bai ZL. Meta-analysis of quantitative diffu- sion-weighted MR imaging in the differential diagnosis of breast lesions. BMC Cancer 2010; 10:693-704. [CrossRef] Jales RM, Sarian LO, Torresan R, Marussi EF, Alvares BR, Der