4.5 Article

Characteristics of Probably Benign Breast MRI Lesions

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY
卷 193, 期 3, 页码 861-867

出版社

AMER ROENTGEN RAY SOC
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.08.2096

关键词

breast; breast neoplasms; MRI; probably benign

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to describe the characteristics of probably benign breast MRI lesions and determine how these characteristics could be used to define the MRI BI-RADS 3 category. MATERIALS AND METHODS. We prospectively collected morphology and kinetic data on lesions assessed as BI-RADS 3 in 2.569 consecutive breast MRI examinations from January 2003 through November 2006. The clinical indications for MRI, follow-up assessments, and pathology findings through May 2008 were collected front clinical records. Data were linked to the regional tumor registry to identify cases of malignancy in patients who did not follow-up at our institution. Frequency of BI-RADS 3 and cancer yield were calculated. Characteristics of probably benign lesions were analyzed for predictors of malignancy. RESULTS. Three hundred sixty-two lesions were assessed as BI-RADS 3 in 260 (10.1%) of 2,569 examinations in 236 patients. The 362 lesions included 168 (46%) foci. 132 (36%) nonmasslike enhancements, and 62 (17%) masses. Delayed kinetic information was available in 275 lesions. The Most Suspicious delayed kinetic enhancement was persistent in 164 (60%) of 275, plateau in 47 (17%) of 275, and washout in 64 (23%) of 275. The cancer yield in patients with a BI-RADS 3 assessment was two (0.85%) of 236; both were ductal carcinoma in situ lesions. There were no malignancies in the 69 foci with 100% persistent enhancement. CONCLUSION. The characteristics of BI-RADS 3 lesions were highly variable in our population, and the risk of malignancy was low (0.85%). Assigning foci with 100% persistent enhancement to the BI-RADS 2 category call decrease the frequency of BI-RADS 3 assessment and maintain a likelihood of malignancy in less than 2% of cases.

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

4.5
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