• Radiology · Feb 2015

    Assessment of BI-RADS category 4 lesions detected with screening mammography and screening US: utility of MR imaging.

    • Kevin Strobel, Simone Schrading, Nienke L Hansen, Alexandra Barabasch, and Christiane K Kuhl.
    • From the Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital of Aachen, RWTH, Pauwelsstrasse 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany.
    • Radiology. 2015 Feb 1; 274 (2): 343-51.

    PurposeTo investigate the utility of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging according to different types of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 4 findings from screening mammography and/or screening ultrasonography (US).Materials And MethodsThis institutional review board-approved prospective study included 340 patients in whom 353 lesions were detected at screening mammography or US and were rated BI-RADS category 4 after appropriate conventional work-up. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients. Women underwent standard dynamic contrast material-enhanced MR imaging for further assessment. Women with negative or benign MR findings who did not proceed to biopsy underwent intensified follow-up for at least 18 months. Pure clustered microcalcifications were followed up for at least 24 months.ResultsOf the 353 study findings, 66 (18.7%) were finally shown to be true-positive (23 cases of ductal carcinoma in situ [DCIS], 43 invasive cancers) and 287 (81.3%) were false-positive. Assessment of MR imaging findings led to a correct diagnosis of no breast cancer in 264 of the 287 false-positive findings (92%) and helped confirm the presence of breast cancer in 63 of 66 malignancies. The false-negative rate for pure clustered microcalcifications was 12% (three of 25 cases) because of three nonenhancing low-grade DCIS cases; in turn, MR imaging depicted additional invasive cancers in three women with false-positive findings from mammography and US. For mammographic findings other than pure clustered microcalcifications, MR imaging increased the positive predictive value (PPV) from 17.5% (21 of 120 cases; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.7%, 24.3%) to 78% (21 of 27 cases; 95% CI: 62.1%, 93.5%), with a false-negative rate of 0%. For all US findings, MR imaging increased the PPV from 12.9% (20 of 155 cases; 95% CI: 7.6%, 18.2%) to 69% (20 of 29 cases; 95% CI: 52.2%, 85.8%), again with a false-negative rate of 0%. MR imaging resulted in false-positive findings that led to MR imaging-guided biopsy in five of the 340 patients (1.5%).ConclusionMR imaging is useful for the noninvasive work-up of lesions classified as BI-RADS category 4 at mammography or US and can help avoid 92% of unnecessary biopsies. The false-negative rate was 0% for all US findings and for all mammographic findings except pure clustered microcalcifications. Additional invasive cancers were identified in three women with false-positive findings from mammography and US.© RSNA, 2014.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.