Journals / Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology / 2020 / Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 6

Is biopsy necessary? Role of DCE-MRI in BIRADS-3 lesions

Pages
552–556
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)

We suggest that DCE-MRI should be an additional diagnostic tool and problem-solvingmodality for BIRADS-3 lesions, particularly in patients with relative risk factors.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:PURPOSEWe aimed to evaluate BIRADS-3 breast lesions with dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) and compare with histopathology, and to investigate the effectivenessof breast MRI for follow-up and management.METHODSA total of 84 BIRADS-3 lesions reported by US or mammography and evaluated by DCE-MRI between September 2014 and October 2015 were included in this study.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Morphologic and kinematic features on MRI were compared with histopathologic results.RESULTSOf the 84 BIRADS-3 breast lesions, 9 (10.7%) had malignant features on DCE-MRI and all wereverified with histopathologic results.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:We suggest that DCE-MRI should be an additional diagnostic tool and problem-solvingmodality for BIRADS-3 lesions, particularly in patients with relative risk factors.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2014 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

PURPOSEWe aimed to evaluate BIRADS-3 breast lesions with dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) and compare with histopathology, and to investigate the effectivenessof breast MRI for follow-up and management.METHODSA total of 84 BIRADS-3 lesions reported by US or mammography and evaluated by DCE-MRI between September 2014 and October 2015 were included in this study. All patients underwentpercutaneous or surgical biopsy for histopathologic diagnosis. Morphologic and kinematic features on MRI were compared with histopathologic results.RESULTSOf the 84 BIRADS-3 breast lesions, 9 (10.7%) had malignant features on DCE-MRI and all wereverified with histopathologic results. DCE-MRI had 96.7% sensitivity, 72% specificity, 92% positive predictive value, and 82.5% negative predictive value. MRI and histopathology results werecorrelated for the diagnosis of malignant lesions. The sensitivity and negative predictive value ofMRI for diagnosis of malignant lesions were both 100%.CONCLUSIONDifferentiation of benign versus malignant lesions was accomplished with 100% accuracy withDCE-MRI. We suggest that DCE-MRI should be an additional diagnostic tool and problem-solvingmodality for BIRADS-3 lesions, particularly in patients with relative risk factors.

🔖

Cite This Article

TÜRK, G., ÖZDEMİR, M., ÇOBAN, M., KOÇ, A. (2020). Is biopsy necessary? Role of DCE-MRI in BIRADS-3 lesions. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 6, 552–556. https://ajindex.com/articles/349985

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Mann RM, Kuhl CK, Kinkel K, Boetes C. Breast MRI: guidelines from the European Society of Breast Imaging. Eur Radiol 2008
  2. 1307– 1318. [Crossref] 2. Reboli M, Assi V, Brentnall A, Parmar D, Duffy SW. Addition of ultrasound to mammography in the case of dense breast tissue: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Cancer 2018
  3. 1559–1570. [Crossref] 3. Macura KJ, Ouwerkerk R, Jacobs MA, Bluemke DA. Patterns of enhancement on breast MR images: interpretation and imaging pitfalls. Radiographics 2006
  4. 1719–1734. [Crossref] 4. Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology 2004
  5. 830–849. [Crossref] 5. Sosthene M, Meye JF, Ngou-Mve JP, Mendome G, Mounanga M. Nonpalpable breast lesions: correlation of the BIRADS classification and histological findings. Sante 2006
  6. 179–183. 6. Bruening W, Launders J, Pinkney N, Kostinsky H, Schoelles K, Turkelson C. Effectiveness of non-invasive diagnostic test for breast abnormalities. AHRQ publication no. 06-EHC005-EF, 2006, 2009. 7. Kuhl CK. Current status of breast MR imaging. Part 2. Clinical applications. Radiology 2007
  7. 672–691. [Crossref] 8. Fiaschetti V, Salimbeni C, Gaspari E, et al. The role of second-look ultrasound of BIRADS-3 mammary lesions detected by breast MR imaging. Eur J Radiol 2012
  8. 3178–3184. [Crossref] 9. Pediconi F, Catalano C, Padula S, et al. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance mammography: does it affect surgical decision-making in patients with breast cancer? Breast Cancer Res Treat 2007
  9. 65–74. [Crossref] 10. Mainiero MB, Moy L, Baron P, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria breast cancer screening. J Am Coll Radiol 2017
  10. S383–S390. [Crossref] 11. Dorrius M.D, Pijnappel RM, Sijens PE, van der Weide MC, Oudkerk M. The negative predictive value of breast magnetic resonance imaging in noncalcified BIRADS 3 lesions. Eur J Radiol 2012
  11. 209–213. [Crossref] 12. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Apruzzese A, et al. Reader variability in reporting breast imaging according to BI-RADS assessment categories (the Florence experience). Breast 2006
  12. 44–51. [Crossref] 13. Graf O, Helbich TH, Fuchsjaeger MH, et al. Follow-up of palpable circumscribed noncalcified solid breast masses at mammography and US: can biopsy be averted? Radiology 2004
  13. 850–856. [Crossref] 14. Abdullah N, Mesurolle B, El-Khoury M,Kao E. Breast imaging reporting and data system lexicon fo