Journals / The Journal of Breast Health / 2016 / Cilt: 12 - Sayı: 1

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Guided Vacuum Assisted and Core Needle Biopsies

Pages
25–30
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)

There are several advantages relative to each other in both methods.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The purpose of this study to present the results of Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) guided cutting needle biopsy procedures of suspicious breast lesions that can be solely detected on Magnetic resonance (MR) examination.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: The study included 48 patients with 48 lesions which were solely be observed in breast MRI, indistinguishable in ultrasonography and mammography, for MR guided vacuum-assisted cutting needle biopsy and 42 patients with 42 lesions for MR guided cutting needle biopsy for the lesions of the same nature.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:There are several advantages relative to each other in both methods.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study to present the results of Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) guided cutting needle biopsy procedures of suspicious breast lesions that can be solely detected on Magnetic resonance (MR) examination. Materials and Methods: The study included 48 patients with 48 lesions which were solely be observed in breast MRI, indistinguishable in ultrasonography and mammography, for MR guided vacuum-assisted cutting needle biopsy and 42 patients with 42 lesions for MR guided cutting needle biopsy for the lesions of the same nature. MR imaging was performed using a 1.5-Tesla MRI device. Acquired MR images were determined and biopsy protocol was performed using computer-aided diagnosis system on the workstation. Vacuum biopsies were performed using 10 G or 12 G automatic biopsy systems, cutting needle biopsy procedures were performed using fully automated 12 G biopsy needle. Results: All biopsy procedures were finalized successfully without major complications. The lesions were 54 mass (60%), 28 were non-mass contrast enhancement (31%) and 8 were foci (9%) in the MR examination. Histopathological evaluation revealed 18 malignant (invasive, in-situ ductal carcinoma and lobular carcinoma), 66 benign (apocrine metaplasia, fibrosis, fibroadenomatoid lesion, sclerosing adenosis, fibrocystic disease and mild-to-severe epithelial proliferation) and 6 high-risk (atypical ductal hyperplasia, intraductal papilloma, radial scar) lesions. Conclusion: Magnetic resonance guided vacuum and cutting needle biopsy methods are successful methods fort he evaluation of solely MRI detected suspicious breast lesions. There are several advantages relative to each other in both methods.

🔖

Cite This Article

KILIÇ, F., EREN, A., TUNÇ, N., VELİDEDEOĞLU, M., BAKAN, S., AYDOĞAN, F., ÇELİK, V., GAZİOĞLU, E., YILMAZ, M. H. (2016). Magnetic Resonance Imaging Guided Vacuum Assisted and Core Needle Biopsies. The Journal of Breast Health, Cilt: 12 - Sayı: 1, 25–30. https://ajindex.com/articles/362669

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

  1. Kuhl C. The current status of breast MR imaging. Part I. Choice of technique, image interpretation, diagnostic accuracy, and transfer to clinical practice. Radiology 2007; 244:356-378. (PMID: 17641361) [CrossRef] 2. Morris EA. Diagnostic breast MR imaging: current status and future directions. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2010; 18:57-74. (PMID: 19962093) [CrossRef] 3. Riedl CC, Ponhold L, Flory D, Weber M, Kroiss R, Wagner T, Fuchsjäger M, Helbich TH. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast improves detection of invasive cancer, preinvasive cancer, and premalignant lesions during surveillance of women at high risk for breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2007; 13:6144-6152. (PMID: 17947480) [CrossRef] 4. Liberman L, Morris EA, Kim CM, Kaplan JB, Abramson AF, Menell JH, Van Zee KJ, Dershaw DD. MR imaging findings in the contralateral breast of women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 180:333-341. (PMID: 12540428) [CrossRef] 5. Viehweg P, Bernerth T, Kiechle M, Buchmann J, Heinig A, Koelbl H, Laniado M, Heywang-Köbrunner SH. MR-guided intervention in women with a family history of breast cancer. Eur J Radiol 2006; 57:81-89. (PMID: 16364583) [CrossRef] 6. van den Bosch MA, Daniel BL, Pal S, Nowels KW, Birdwell RL, Jeffrey SS, Ikeda DM. MRI-guided needle localization of suspicious breast lesions: results of a freehand technique. Eur Radiol 2006; 16:1811-1817. (PMID: 16683117) [CrossRef] 7. Morris EA, Liberman L, Dershaw DD, Kaplan JB, LaTrenta LR, Abramson AF, Ballon DJ. Preoperative MR imaging-guided needle localization of breast lesions. AJR American journal of roentgenology 2002; 178:1211-1220. (PMID: 11959734) [CrossRef] 8. Orel SG, Rosen M, Mies C, Schnall MD. MR imaging-guided 9-gauge vacuum-assisted core-needle breast biopsy: initial experience. Radiology 2006; 238:54-61. (PMID: 16304093) [CrossRef] 9. Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P. Estimating the world cancer burden: Globocan 2000. Int J Cancer 2001; 94:153-156. (PMID: 11668491) [CrossRef] 10. Eby PR, Lehman CD. Magnetic resonance imaging--guided breast interventions. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2008; 19:151-162. (PMID: 18941395) [CrossRef] 11. Oxner CR, Vora L, Yim J, Kruper L, Ellenhorn JD. Magnetic resonance imaging-guided breast biopsy in lesions not visualized by mammogram or ultrasound. Am Surg 2012; 78:1087-1190. (PMID: 23025947) 12. Schueller G, Schueller-Weidekamm C, Helbich TH. Accuracy of ultrasound-guided, large-core needle breast biopsy. Eur Radiol. 2008; 18: