Dergiler / Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology / 2018 / Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 5

Problem-solving breast MRI: useful or a source of new problems?

Sayfa
255–261
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

However, it has moderatelylow specificity which may cause unnecessary biopsies, follow-ups, and anxiety to patients.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:PURPOSEWe aimed to evaluate the findings and results from breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)examinations performed for problem-solving purposes due to inconclusive conventional imagingfindings.METHODSImaging findings, biopsy and follow-up results were retrospectively evaluated for breast MRI performedfor problem-solving purposes at our department between January 2011 and December2016 for cases whose mammography, tomosynthesis, or ultrasonography findings were inconclusive.RESULTSLesions were identified in 414 of 986 problem-solving MRI examinations, and 13.3% of theselesions were diagnosed as malignant.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:A total of 124 lesions were additionally found by MRI, and9.7% of these lesions were diagnosed as malignant.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:However, it has moderatelylow specificity which may cause unnecessary biopsies, follow-ups, and anxiety to patients.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2011 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

PURPOSEWe aimed to evaluate the findings and results from breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)examinations performed for problem-solving purposes due to inconclusive conventional imagingfindings.METHODSImaging findings, biopsy and follow-up results were retrospectively evaluated for breast MRI performedfor problem-solving purposes at our department between January 2011 and December2016 for cases whose mammography, tomosynthesis, or ultrasonography findings were inconclusive.RESULTSLesions were identified in 414 of 986 problem-solving MRI examinations, and 13.3% of theselesions were diagnosed as malignant. A total of 124 lesions were additionally found by MRI, and9.7% of these lesions were diagnosed as malignant. MRI produced false-negative results in fourcases. In cases whose conventional imaging methods yielded indefinite results, the sensitivity,specificity, negative and positive predictive values of MRI were found to be 96.3%, 83%, 99.3%,and 46.5%, respectively. For the additional lesions identified, the sensitivity, specificity, negativeand positive predictive values of MRI were found to be 91.7%, 69%, 98.7%, and 24%, respectively.CONCLUSIONBreast MRI is a reliable problem-solving method for excluding malignancy that cannot be confirmedby conventional imaging. In such cases, additional findings from MRI may help identifynew cancers that cannot be detected with conventional methods. However, it has moderatelylow specificity which may cause unnecessary biopsies, follow-ups, and anxiety to patients.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

TAŞKIN, F., POLAT, Y. D., ERDOĞDU, İ. H., TÜRKDOĞAN, F. T., ÖZTÜRK, V. S., ÖZBAŞ, S. (2018). Problem-solving breast MRI: useful or a source of new problems?. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Cilt: 24 - Sayı: 5, 255–261. https://ajindex.com/articles/350025

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (2)

  1. Peters NH, Borel Rinkes IH, Zuithoff NP, et al. Metaanalysis of MR imaging in the diagnosis of breast lesions. Radiology 2008; 246:116–124. [CrossRef ] 2. Houssami N, Ciatto S, Macaskill P, et al. Accuracy and surgical impact of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging: systematic review and meta-analysis in detection of multifocal and multicentric cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26:3248–3258. [CrossRef ] 3. Warner E, Messersmith H, Causer P, Eisen A, Shumak R, Plewes D. Systematic review: using magnetic resonance imaging to screen women at high risk for breast cancer. Ann Intern Med 2008; 148:671–679. [CrossRef ] 4. Kuhl CK. Current status of breast MR imaging. Part 2. Clinical applications. Radiology 2007; 244:672–691. [CrossRef ] 5. ACR practice guideline for the performance of contrast-enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) of the breast. Available from: http://www.acr.org/∼/media/2a0eb28eb59041e2825179afb72ef624. pdf 6. Sardanelli F, Boetes C, Borisch B, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer 2010; 46:1296–1316. [CrossRef ] 7. Mann RM, Kuhl CK, Kinkel K, Boetes C. Breast MRI: Guidelines from the European Society of Breast Imaging. Eur Radiol 2008;18:1307–1318. [CrossRef ] 8. Lee CH. Problem solving MR imaging of the breast. Radiol Clin N Am 2004; 42:919–934. [CrossRef ] 9. Sardanelli F, Mealni E, Ottonello C, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast in characterizing positive or uncertain mammographic findings. Cancer Detect Prev 1998; 22:39–42. [CrossRef ] 10. Olsen ML, Morton MJ, Stan DL, Pruthi S. Is there a role for magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosing palpable breast masses when mammogram and ultrasound are negative? J Women’s Health 2012; 21:1149–1154. [CrossRef ] 11. Spick C, Szolar DH, Preidler KW, Tillich M, Reittner P, Baltzer PA. Breast MRI used as a problem- solving tool reliably excludes malignancy. Eur J Radiol 2015; 84:61–64. [CrossRef ] 12. Giess CS, Chikarmane SA, Sippo DA, Birdwell RL. Clinical utility of breast MRI in the diagnosis of malignancy after inconclusive or equivocal mammographic diagnostic evaluation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2017; 208:1–8. [CrossRef ] 13. BI-RADS: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, Atlas, 5th Edition, 2013.
  2. ACR, Reston, VA, USA. 14. Sickles EA. The spectrum of breast asymmetries: imaging features, work-up, management. Radiol Clin N Am 2007; 45:765–771. [CrossRef ] 15. Chesebro AL, Winkler NS, Birdwell RL, Giess