4.6 Article

Indeterminate or suspicious breast lesions detected initially with MR imaging: Value of MRI-directed breast ultrasound

期刊

ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY
卷 15, 期 5, 页码 618-625

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2007.10.016

关键词

breast cancer; MR imaging; ultrasonography

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rationale and Objectives. To retrospectively determine the value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-directed breast ultrasonography (US) in the evaluation of indeterminate or suspicious lesions identified on contrast-enhanced, breast MRI. Materials and Methods. A total of 395 patients presenting for breast MRI during a 4-year period was retrospectively reviewed. Seventy-one patients were recommended for MRI-directed US for further characterization of indeterminate or suspicious breast lesions detected on MRI. Fifty-five patients (all female; age 31-80 years) had US. Their MRI and US were reviewed and tested for correlations with histologic results or long term follow-up. Logistic regression analyses were used to test for associations between MRI lesion characteristics and US detection rate. Results. US identified 46 of 97 (47%) lesions depicted at MRI from 55 patients (47 [85%] of these patients had histories of breast malignancies). Twelve cancers were found from the 97 lesions (12%). Biopsy was avoidable in 10 lesions (10%). The detection rate with US was slightly higher with mass (55% [23/42]) lesions described in MRI than non-mass lesions or lymph nodes (42% [23/55]). There was a significant positive association (odd ratio = 1.23: 95% CI 1.05-1.43, P = .01) between US detection rate and MRI mass lesion size. There was no statistical significance between US detection rate and the presence of malignancies; 42% (5/12) of MRI malignant lesions were not visualized with US. Conclusions. MRI-directed US reduced the number of biopsies required for indeterminate or suspicious MRI lesions. Nevertheless, the lesions which were biopsied had a low rate of malignancy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据