Breast MRI Does Not Help Differentiating Radial Scar With and Without Associated Atypia or Malignancy

2020 ◽  
pp. 084653712093036
Author(s):  
Shaza Alsharif ◽  
Ann Aldis ◽  
Ahmad Subahi ◽  
Mona El Khoury ◽  
Benoit Mesurolle
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Breast Imaging ◽  
Breast Mri ◽  
Radial Scar ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Imaging Protocol ◽  
Mri Features ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Heterogeneous Enhancement

Purpose: To review breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features of radial scar (RS) with and without associated atypia/malignancy. Methods: Twenty-eight (mean age 56.8) patients diagnosed with 30 biopsy-proven RS (n = 25, ultrasound-guided 14-gauge, n = 5, stereotactically guided 9-gauge) subsequently underwent breast MRI followed by surgery. Magnetic resonance imaging protocol included axial T1, axial fat sat T2, and postgadolinium in axial and sagittal planes. Two radiologists reviewed the mammographic and MRI findings in consensus according to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System lexicon. Results: Of the 30 RSs excised surgically, 14 (14/30, 47.7%) were not associated with atypia/malignancy while atypia/malignancy was found in 16 (16/30, 53.3%) RSs. Three (3/30, 10%) RS lesions did not enhance on dynamic MR. Mean lesion size on MRI was 1.4 cm (range, 0.5-5 cm). Seventeen (17/30, 56.7%) lesions presented as nonmass enhancement and 9 (9/30, 30%) as masses. Nonmass lesions showed focal distribution (13/17, 76.5%) and heterogeneous enhancement (15/17, 88.2%). Masses showed irregular shape and margins (6/9, 67%) and heterogeneous enhancement (8/9, 89%). Multivariate analysis did not show any significant difference in MRI presentation between RS only and RS associated with atypia/malignancy. Conclusion: Breast MRI does not help differentiate between RS with or without associated atypia/malignancy.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Breast

2001 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 399-406 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher P. Goscin ◽  
Claudia G. Berman ◽  
Robert A. Clark
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Clinical Studies ◽  
Breast Imaging ◽  
Breast Mri ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Valuable Adjunct ◽  
Interpretation Criteria ◽  
Contrast Enhanced

Background Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has the potential to become a useful adjunct in breast imaging. Contrast-enhanced breast MRI has demonstrated a high sensitivity in the detection of invasive breast cancer. In clinical studies, breast MRI has often altered the course of patient care. Although promising results have been generated, MRI of the breast is currently in a development stage. Methods The authors reviewed the literature on the potential indications, sensitivity, specificity, and limitations of MRI of the breast. Results Reported advantages of MRI of the breast over conventional imaging techniques include improved staging and treatment planning, enhanced evaluation of the augmented breast, better detection of recurrence, and improved screening of high-risk women. Contrast-enhanced breast MRI is a sensitive modality for detecting breast cancer, but its variable specificity is a major limitation. Conclusions MRI of the breast is emerging as a valuable adjunct to mammography and sonography for specific clinical indications. Additional clinical studies that define indications, interpretation criteria, imaging parameters, and cost effectiveness are needed. A multi-institutional study designed to address these issues is in progress.

scholarly journals Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Multicentric, Multifocal and Bilateral Cancer — A Case-based Review

2011 ◽  
Vol 07 (01) ◽  
pp. 24
Author(s):  
Virginia Pérez Dueñas ◽  
María Ruíz de Gopegui Andreu ◽  
Sara Morón Hodge ◽  
Asunción Suárez Manrique ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
False Positive ◽  
Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Breast Mri ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Mri Findings ◽  
Mri Features ◽  
Breast Magnetic Resonance

Multifocal or multicentric breast cancer can be difficult to detect on mammography or ultrasound, particularly in patients with dense breast tissue. A multimodality approach that includes breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is indicated, particularly when conservative surgery is being considered as it is the most sensitive technique for identifying additional sites of disease. However, its influence on recurrence and survival rates has yet not been clearly established, and false-positive cases may lead to more aggressive management and treatment. Radiologists should therefore be aware of relevant breast MRI findings. Infiltrating carcinomas, contralateral unsuspected carcinomas, occult carcinomas, false-positive cases and post-chemotherapy changes. Several cases of multiple-site breast carcinomas and their corresponding mammographic, ultrasound and MRI features have been reviewed for this article, in which the definition and differences between multifocal, multicentric and contralateral breast carcinoma are explained and the most relevant imaging findings on MRI are illustrated and correlated with mammogram and ultrasound findings. Finally, the role of breast MRI in the pre-operative assessment of breast cancer is discussed.

Who Should Have Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evaluation?

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 703-711 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Orel
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Breast Imaging ◽  
Breast Biopsy ◽  
Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Breast Mri ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Technical Requirements ◽  
Clinical Indications ◽  
Breast Magnetic Resonance

During the last two decades, tremendous advances have been made in the performance and interpretation of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations. Technical requirements for optimal breast imaging including the requirement for a breast MRI biopsy system are now being defined as part of a voluntary American College of Radiology (ACR) breast MRI accreditation program. The ACR BI-RADS (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System) lexicon for breast MRI has brought uniformity to the interpretation of breast MRI examinations. With these advances in imaging technique, interpretation guidelines, and increasing availability of MR-compatible breast biopsy systems, MRI of the breast is rapidly gaining popularity in clinical practice in both the diagnostic setting and, more recently, in the screening setting. The clinical indications for breast MRI, however, remain to be defined. There are clinical indications that have emerged where MRI, as an adjunct to mammography, seems to be the imaging study of choice. There are other indications, specifically breast cancer staging, in which MRI is being utilized with increasing frequency, but in which controversy persists.

scholarly journals Diagnostic performance of mammography and magnetic resonance imaging for evaluating mammographically visible breast masses

2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (9) ◽  
pp. 030006052097309
Author(s):  
Xueli Zhu ◽  
Yi Cao ◽  
Ruidie Li ◽  
Mingxia Zhu ◽  
Xin Chen
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Breast Mri ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Predictive Values ◽  
Breast Masses ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Diagnostic Values ◽  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging Mri

Objective We compared the diagnostic values of mammography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for evaluating breast masses. Methods We retrospectively analyzed mammography, MRI, and histopathological data for 377 patients with breast masses on mammography, including 73 benign and 304 malignant masses. Results The sensitivities and negative predictive values (NPVs) were significantly higher for MRI compared with mammography for detecting breast cancer (98.4% vs. 89.8% and 87.8% vs. 46.6%, respectively). The specificity and positive predictive values (PPV) were similar for both techniques. Compared with mammography alone, mammography plus MRI improved the specificity (67.1% vs. 37.0%) and PPV (91.8% vs. 85.6%), but there was no significant difference in sensitivity or NPV. Compared with MRI alone, the combination significantly improved the specificity (67.1% vs. 49.3%), but the sensitivity (88.5% vs. 98.4%) and NPV (58.3% vs. 87.8%) were reduced, and the PPV was similar in both groups. There was no significant difference between mammography and MRI in terms of sensitivity or specificity among 81 patients with breast masses with calcification. Conclusion Breast MRI improved the sensitivity and NPV for breast cancer detection. Combining MRI and mammography improved the specificity and PPV, but MRI offered no advantage in patients with breast masses with calcification.

scholarly journals Predictive performance of BI-RADS magnetic resonance imaging descriptors in the context of suspicious (category 4) findings

2016 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 137-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
João Ricardo Maltez de Almeida ◽  
André Boechat Gomes ◽  
Thomas Pitangueiras Barros ◽  
Paulo Eduardo Fahel ◽  
Mário de Seixas Rocha
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Multivariate Analysis ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Roc Curve ◽  
Breast Imaging ◽  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
Predictive Performance ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Mass Enhancement

Abstract Objective: To determine the positive predictive value (PPV) and likelihood ratio for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) characteristics of category 4 lesions, as described in the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS®) lexicon, as well as to test the predictive performance of the descriptors using multivariate analysis and the area under the curve derived from a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Materials and Methods: This was a double-blind review study of 121 suspicious findings from 98 women examined between 2009 and 2013. The terminology was based on the 2013 edition of the BI-RADS. Results: Of the 121 suspicious findings, 53 (43.8%) were proven to be malignant lesions, with no significant difference between mass and non-mass enhancement (p = 0.846). The PPVs were highest for masses with a spiculated margin (71%) and round shape (63%), whereas segmental distribution achieved a high PPV (80%) for non-mass enhancement. Kinetic analyses performed poorly, except for type 3 curves applied to masses (PPV of 73%). Logistic regression models were significant for both patterns, although the results were better for masses, particularly when kinetic assessments were included (p = 0.015; pseudo R2 = 0.48; area under the curve = 90%). Conclusion: Some BI-RADS MRI descriptors have high PPV and good predictive performance-as demonstrated by ROC curve and multivariate analysis-when applied to BI-RADS category 4 findings. This may allow future stratification of this category.

scholarly journals Usefulness of Grayscale Values of Hypoechoic Lesions Matched with Target Lesions Observed on Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Prediction of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dong Gyun Kim ◽  
Jeong Woo Yoo ◽  
Kyo Chul Koo ◽  
Byung Ha Chung ◽  
Kwang Suk Lee
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
Imaging Data ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Scoring Method ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Picture Archiving And Communication ◽  
Clinically Significant

Abstract INTRODUCTION: To analyze grayscale values for hypoechoic lesions matched with target lesions evaluated using prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS We collected data on 420 target lesions in patients who underwent MRI/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsies. Images of hypoechoic lesions that matched the target lesions on MRI were stored in a picture archiving and communication system, and their grayscale values were estimated using the red/green/blue scoring method through an embedded function. We analyzed imaging data using grayscale values. RESULTS Of the 420 lesions, 261 (62.1%) were prostate cancer lesions. Grayscale ranges (42.6–91.8) were significant predictors of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC) in multivariable logistic regression analyses. Area under the curve for detecting csPC using grayscale values along with conventional variables was 0.839, which was significantly higher than that for detecting csPC using only conventional variables (0.828; p = 0.036). Subgroup analysis revealed a significant difference for PI-RADS 3 lesions between grayscale values for benign and cancerous lesions (p = 0.008). Grayscale values were the only significant predictive factor (p = 0.005) for csPC. CONCLUSIONS Distribution of grayscale values according to PI-RAD 3 scores was useful, and the grayscale range (42.6–91.8) was an important factor for csPC diagnosis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document