4.7 Article

High-risk lesions diagnosed at MRI-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: can underestimation be predicted?

Journal

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
Volume 21, Issue 3, Pages 582-589

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-010-1949-6

Keywords

Vacuum-assisted breast biopsy; Breast MRI; MRI-guided breast biopsy; High-risk breast lesions; Underestimation

Funding

  1. Patricia and Allan Friedland of the Finkler-Friedland Family Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To evaluate the frequency of diagnosis of high-risk lesions at MRI-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (MRgVABB) and to determine whether underestimation may be predicted. Retrospective review of the medical records of 161 patients who underwent MRgVABB was performed. The underestimation rate was defined as an upgrade of a high-risk lesion at MRgVABB to malignancy at surgery. Clinical data, MRI features of the biopsied lesions, and histological diagnosis of cases with and those without underestimation were compared. Of 161 MRgVABB, histology revealed 31 (19%) high-risk lesions. Of 26 excised high-risk lesions, 13 (50%) were upgraded to malignancy. The underestimation rates of lobular neoplasia, atypical apocrine metaplasia, atypical ductal hyperplasia, and flat epithelial atypia were 50% (4/8), 100% (5/5), 50% (3/6) and 50% (1/2) respectively. There was no underestimation in the cases of benign papilloma without atypia (0/3), and radial scar (0/2). No statistically significant differences (p > 0.1) between the cases with and those without underestimation were seen in patient age, indications for breast MRI, size of lesion on MRI, morphological and kinetic features of biopsied lesions. Imaging and clinical features cannot be used reliably to predict underestimation at MRgVABB. All high-risk lesions diagnosed at MRgVABB require surgical excision.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available