Management of Mammographic Architectural Distortion Based on Contrast-enhanced MRI and US Correlation

被引:3
|
作者
DiPrete, Olivia [1 ]
Wei, Catherine J. [2 ]
Phillips, Jordana [3 ]
Fishman, Michael D. C. [3 ]
Slanetz, Priscilla J. [3 ]
Lotfi, Parisa [4 ]
Dialani, Vandana [1 ]
Brook, Alexander [1 ]
机构
[1] Beth Israel Deaconess Med Ctr, Dept Radiol, Boston, MA 02215 USA
[2] Massachusetts Gen Brigham Salem Hosp, Dept Radiol, Salem, MA USA
[3] Boston Med Ctr, Dept Radiol, Boston, MA USA
[4] Danbury Radiol Associates, Dept Radiol, Danbury, CT USA
关键词
mammographic; architectural distortion; ultrasound; correlation; contrast-enhanced MRI; DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS; POSITIVE PREDICTIVE-VALUE; RADIAL SCARS; PATHOLOGICAL OUTCOMES; SONOGRAPHY; ALGORITHM; LESIONS; BIOPSY;
D O I
10.1093/jbi/wbad032
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Objective The objective was to evaluate outcomes of mammographic architectural distortion (AD) with and without MRI and US correlates. Methods A retrospective review of unexplained mammographic AD with subsequent MRI from January 1, 2007 to September 30, 2017 was performed using a reader-based study design. Mammographic, MRI, and US features and outcomes were documented. Truth was based on biopsy results or minimum two-year imaging follow-up. Measures of diagnostic accuracy were calculated. Results Fifty-six cases of AD were included: 29 (51.8%) detected on 2D mammogram and 27 (48.2%) detected on digital breast tomosynthesis. Of 35.7% (20/56) with MRI correlate, 40.0% (8/20) were enhancing masses, 55.0% (11/20) were non-mass enhancement (NME), and 5.0% (1/20) were nonenhancing AD. Of eight enhancing masses, 75.0% (6/8) were invasive cancers, and 25.0% (2/8) were high-risk lesions. Of 11 NME, 18.2% (2/11) were ductal carcinoma in situ, 36.4% (4/11) were high-risk lesions, and 45.4% (5/11) were benign. Of 64.3% (36/56) without MRI correlate, 94.4% (34/36) were benign by pathology or follow-up, one (2.8%, 1/36) was a 4-mm focus of invasive cancer with US correlate, and one (1/36, 2.8%) was a high-risk lesion. Of cases without MRI and US correlates, one (3.0%, 1/33) was a high-risk lesion and 97.0% (32/33) were benign. The negative predictive value of mammographic AD without MRI correlate was 97.2% (35/36) and without both MRI and US correlates was 100.0% (33/33). Conclusion Mammographic AD without MRI or US correlate was not cancer in our small cohort and follow-up could be considered, reducing interventions.
引用
收藏
页码:425 / 435
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Contrast-enhanced ultrasound-guided biopsy of suspicious breast lesions on contrast-enhanced mammography and contrast-enhanced MRI: a case series
    Pi-Yi Huang
    Meng-Yuan Tsai
    Jer-Shyung Huang
    Pei-Ying Lin
    Chen-Pin Chou
    Journal of Medical Ultrasonics, 2023, 50 : 521 - 529
  • [42] Prognostication of anaplastic astrocytoma patients: application of contrast leakage information of dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MRI and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI
    Hee Soo Kim
    Se Lee Kwon
    Seung Hong Choi
    Inpyeong Hwang
    Tae Min Kim
    Chul-Kee Park
    Sung-Hye Park
    Jae-Kyung Won
    Il Han Kim
    Soon Tae Lee
    European Radiology, 2020, 30 : 2171 - 2181
  • [43] Prognostication of anaplastic astrocytoma patients: application of contrast leakage information of dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MRI and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI
    Kim, Hee Soo
    Kwon, Se Lee
    Choi, Seung Hong
    Hwang, Inpyeong
    Kim, Tae Min
    Park, Chul-Kee
    Park, Sung-Hye
    Won, Jae-Kyung
    Kim, Il Han
    Lee, Soon Tae
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2020, 30 (04) : 2171 - 2181
  • [44] Comparison of lesion detection and characterisation in patients with neuroendocrine tumors using DOTATOC-PET in correlation with contrast-enhanced MRI and contrast-enhanced CT
    Giesel, Frederik
    Zechmann, Christian
    Afshar-Oromieh, Ali
    Wulfert, Sarah
    Haberkorn, Uwe
    Kratochwil, Clemens
    JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2011, 52
  • [45] Comparison of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI and Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced CT Biomarkers in Bladder Cancer
    Naish, J. H.
    McGrath, D. M.
    Bains, L. J.
    Passera, K.
    Roberts, C.
    Watson, Y.
    Cheung, S.
    Taylor, M. B.
    Logue, J. P.
    Buckley, D. L.
    Tessier, J.
    Young, H.
    Waterton, J. C.
    Parker, G. J. M.
    MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE, 2011, 66 (01) : 219 - 226
  • [46] Implementing the advantages of contrast-enhanced mammography and contrast-enhanced breast MRI in breast cancer staging
    Fallenberg, Eva M.
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2025, 35 (01) : 160 - 162
  • [47] Comparison of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography and contrast-enhanced MRI for the assessment of vascularization of hydroxyapatite orbital implants
    Xu Qi-hua
    Zhao Chen
    Zhu Jian-gang
    Zou Da-zhong
    Zheng Yong-qiang
    CLINICAL IMAGING, 2014, 38 (05) : 616 - 620
  • [48] BIRADS 4 breast lesions: comparison of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography and contrast-enhanced MRI
    Yasin R.
    El Ghany E.A.
    Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, 50 (1):
  • [49] Contrast-enhanced mammography in comparison with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: which modality is appropriate for whom?
    Kamal, Rasha
    Mansour, Sahar
    Farouk, Amr
    Hanafy, Mennatallah
    Elhatw, Ahmed
    Goma, Mohammed Mohammed
    EGYPTIAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE, 2021, 52 (01):
  • [50] Contrast-enhanced mammography in comparison with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: which modality is appropriate for whom?
    Rasha Kamal
    Sahar Mansour
    Amr Farouk
    Mennatallah Hanafy
    Ahmed Elhatw
    Mohammed Mohammed Goma
    Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, 52