4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Pathologic correlates of false positive breast magnetic resonance imaging findings: which lesions warrant biopsy?

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 190, Issue 4, Pages 633-640

Publisher

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.06.030

Keywords

breast magnetic resonance imaging; false positive breast MRI findings; MRI-guided biopsy

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is highly sensitive for breast cancer. However, adoption of breast MRI is hampered by frequent false positive (FP) findings. Though ultimately proven benign, these suspicious findings require biopsy due to abnormal morphology and/or kinetic enhancement curves that simulate malignancy on MRI. We hypothesized that analysis of a series of FP MRI findings could reveal a pattern of association between certain suspicious lesions and benign disease that might help avoid unnecessary biopsy of such lesions in the future. Methods: A retrospective chart review identified women undergoing breast MRI between June 1995 and March 2002 with FP findings identified by MRI alone. Lesions were retrospectively characterized according to an MRI Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System lexicon and matched to pathology. Results: Twenty-two women were identified with 29 FP lesions. Morphology revealed 1 focus (3.5%), 5 masses, less than 5 mm (17%), 11 masses greater than 5 trim (38%), 1 (3.5%) linear enhancement, and 11 (38%) non-mass-like enhancement. Kinetic curves were suspicious in 15 (52%). Histology demonstrated 20 (69%) variants of normal tissue and 9 (31%) benign masses. MRI lesions less than 5 min (n = 6, 20.5%) were small, well-delineated nodules of benign breast tissue. Conclusion: Suspicious MRI lesions less than 5 mm often represent benign breast tissue and could potentially undergo surveillance instead of biopsy. (c) 2005 Excerpta Medica Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available