Stephanie Tina Sauer, Julius Geerling, Sara Aniki Christner, Tanja Schlaiß, Matthias Kiesel, Anne Cathrine Scherer-Quenzer, Lukas Müller, Julius Frederik Heidenreich, Thorsten Alexander Bley, Jan-Peter Grunz
{"title":"超声波和乳腺 X 线照相术对核磁共振成像检测到的乳腺病变进行评估和活检的价值。","authors":"Stephanie Tina Sauer, Julius Geerling, Sara Aniki Christner, Tanja Schlaiß, Matthias Kiesel, Anne Cathrine Scherer-Quenzer, Lukas Müller, Julius Frederik Heidenreich, Thorsten Alexander Bley, Jan-Peter Grunz","doi":"10.1016/j.acra.2024.10.037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale and objectives: </strong>Suspicious lesions detected in multiparametric breast MRI can be further analyzed with second-look ultrasound (SLUS) and/or mammography. This study aims to assess the value of second-look imaging in selecting the appropriate biopsy method for different lesion characteristics.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Between January 2021 and December 2023, 212 women underwent contrast-enhanced multiparametric breast MRI at 3 Tesla. A total of 241 suspicious lesions (108 malignancies, 44.8%) were further assessed with SLUS and second-look mammography. Subsequent image-guided biopsy of each lesion was performed using the most suitable modality. Size-dependent lesion detection rates in SLUS and mammography were compared by means of the McNemar test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Lesions referred to MRI-guided biopsy were predominantly ≤ 10 mm in size (52.8%). SLUS allowed for higher detection rates than mammography in mass lesions (55.6% [95% confidence interval 46.4-64.4%] versus 16.7% [10.6-24.3%]; p < 0.001) with a particularly high sensitivity for malignant mass lesions > 10 mm (88.5% [69.9-97.6%]). In contrast, the detection rate for malignant non-mass lesions was lower in SLUS than in second-look mammography (22.0% [11.5-36.0%] versus 38.0% [24.7-52.8%]; p < 0.001). The malignancy rates in ultrasound-, mammography-, and MRI-guided biopsies were 53.7%, 55.2%, and 35.0%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>SLUS is an excellent tool for further assessment and biopsy of suspicious mass lesions > 10 mm without associated calcifications. In contrast, supplemental ultrasound is of limited value in the evaluation and biopsy guidance of suspicious non-mass lesions compared to second-look mammography.</p>","PeriodicalId":50928,"journal":{"name":"Academic Radiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Value of Second-look Ultrasound and Mammography for Assessment and Biopsy of MRI-detected Breast Lesions.\",\"authors\":\"Stephanie Tina Sauer, Julius Geerling, Sara Aniki Christner, Tanja Schlaiß, Matthias Kiesel, Anne Cathrine Scherer-Quenzer, Lukas Müller, Julius Frederik Heidenreich, Thorsten Alexander Bley, Jan-Peter Grunz\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.acra.2024.10.037\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Rationale and objectives: </strong>Suspicious lesions detected in multiparametric breast MRI can be further analyzed with second-look ultrasound (SLUS) and/or mammography. This study aims to assess the value of second-look imaging in selecting the appropriate biopsy method for different lesion characteristics.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Between January 2021 and December 2023, 212 women underwent contrast-enhanced multiparametric breast MRI at 3 Tesla. A total of 241 suspicious lesions (108 malignancies, 44.8%) were further assessed with SLUS and second-look mammography. Subsequent image-guided biopsy of each lesion was performed using the most suitable modality. Size-dependent lesion detection rates in SLUS and mammography were compared by means of the McNemar test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Lesions referred to MRI-guided biopsy were predominantly ≤ 10 mm in size (52.8%). SLUS allowed for higher detection rates than mammography in mass lesions (55.6% [95% confidence interval 46.4-64.4%] versus 16.7% [10.6-24.3%]; p < 0.001) with a particularly high sensitivity for malignant mass lesions > 10 mm (88.5% [69.9-97.6%]). In contrast, the detection rate for malignant non-mass lesions was lower in SLUS than in second-look mammography (22.0% [11.5-36.0%] versus 38.0% [24.7-52.8%]; p < 0.001). The malignancy rates in ultrasound-, mammography-, and MRI-guided biopsies were 53.7%, 55.2%, and 35.0%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>SLUS is an excellent tool for further assessment and biopsy of suspicious mass lesions > 10 mm without associated calcifications. In contrast, supplemental ultrasound is of limited value in the evaluation and biopsy guidance of suspicious non-mass lesions compared to second-look mammography.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50928,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Academic Radiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Academic Radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2024.10.037\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2024.10.037","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Value of Second-look Ultrasound and Mammography for Assessment and Biopsy of MRI-detected Breast Lesions.
Rationale and objectives: Suspicious lesions detected in multiparametric breast MRI can be further analyzed with second-look ultrasound (SLUS) and/or mammography. This study aims to assess the value of second-look imaging in selecting the appropriate biopsy method for different lesion characteristics.
Materials and methods: Between January 2021 and December 2023, 212 women underwent contrast-enhanced multiparametric breast MRI at 3 Tesla. A total of 241 suspicious lesions (108 malignancies, 44.8%) were further assessed with SLUS and second-look mammography. Subsequent image-guided biopsy of each lesion was performed using the most suitable modality. Size-dependent lesion detection rates in SLUS and mammography were compared by means of the McNemar test.
Results: Lesions referred to MRI-guided biopsy were predominantly ≤ 10 mm in size (52.8%). SLUS allowed for higher detection rates than mammography in mass lesions (55.6% [95% confidence interval 46.4-64.4%] versus 16.7% [10.6-24.3%]; p < 0.001) with a particularly high sensitivity for malignant mass lesions > 10 mm (88.5% [69.9-97.6%]). In contrast, the detection rate for malignant non-mass lesions was lower in SLUS than in second-look mammography (22.0% [11.5-36.0%] versus 38.0% [24.7-52.8%]; p < 0.001). The malignancy rates in ultrasound-, mammography-, and MRI-guided biopsies were 53.7%, 55.2%, and 35.0%, respectively.
Conclusion: SLUS is an excellent tool for further assessment and biopsy of suspicious mass lesions > 10 mm without associated calcifications. In contrast, supplemental ultrasound is of limited value in the evaluation and biopsy guidance of suspicious non-mass lesions compared to second-look mammography.
期刊介绍:
Academic Radiology publishes original reports of clinical and laboratory investigations in diagnostic imaging, the diagnostic use of radioactive isotopes, computed tomography, positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, digital subtraction angiography, image-guided interventions and related techniques. It also includes brief technical reports describing original observations, techniques, and instrumental developments; state-of-the-art reports on clinical issues, new technology and other topics of current medical importance; meta-analyses; scientific studies and opinions on radiologic education; and letters to the Editor.