Characteristics of probably benign breast MRI lesions

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 193, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 861-867

  Eby, Peter R ^a,b   DeMartini, Wendy B ^a,b   Gutierrez, Robert L ^a,b   Saini, Monica H ^b,c   Peacock, Sue ^b   Lehman, Constance D ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b SEATTLE CANCER CARE ALLIANCE   (United States)

^c Department of Sciences and Conservation Studies   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast; Breast neoplasms; MRI; Probably benign

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST EXAMINATION; BREAST LESION; BREAST TUMOR; CONTROLLED STUDY; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL ASSESSMENT; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REGISTER;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST DISEASES; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CONTRAST MEDIA; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; FEMALE; GADOLINIUM DTPA; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REGISTRIES; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 69949099113     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.08.2096     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Brenner RJ. Follow-up as an alternative to biopsy for probably benign mammographically detected abnormalities. Curr Opin Radiol 1991; 3:588-592
2. Vizcaino I, Gadea L, Andreo L, et al. Short-term follow-up results in 795 nonpalpable probably benign lesions detected at screening mammography. Radiology 2001; 219:475-483 (Pubitemid 32336365)
3. Varas X, Leborgne JH, Leborgne F, Mezzera J, Jaumandreu S, Leborgne F. Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions. AJR 2002; 179:691-695 (Pubitemid 34919583)
4. Varas X, Leborgne F, Leborgne JH. Nonpalpable, probably benign lesions: role of follow-up mammography. Radiology 1992; 184:409-414
5. Sickles EA. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology 1991; 179:463-468
6. Helvie MA, Pennes DR, Rebner M, Adler DD. Mammographic follow-up of low-suspicion lesions: compliance rate and diagnostic yield. Radiology 1991; 178:155-158
7. Brenner RJ, Sickles EA. Acceptability of periodic follow-up as an alternative to biopsy for mammographically detected lesions interpreted as probably benign. Radiology 1989; 171:645-646
8. Hall FM. Follow-up as an alternative to biopsy for mammographically detected lesions interpreted as probably benign. (letter) Radiology 1989; 173:284-285
9. Monticciolo DL, Caplan LS. The American College of Radiology's BI-RADS 3 classification in a nationwide screening program: current assessment and comparison with earlier use. Breast J 2004; 10:106-110
10. Rosen EL, Baker JA, Soo MS. Malignant lesions initially subjected to short-term mammographic follow-up. Radiology 2002; 223:221-228
11. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS), 4th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2003
12. Ikeda DM, Baker DR, Daniel BL. Magnetic resonance imaging of breast cancer: clinical indications and breast MRI reporting system. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000; 12:975-983
13. Ikeda DM, Hylton NM, Kinkel K, et al. Development, standardization, and testing of a lexicon for reporting contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging studies. J Magn Reson Imaging 2001; 13:889-895 (Pubitemid 32479947)
14. Ikeda DM. Progress report from the American College of Radiology Breast MR Imaging Lexicon Committee. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2001; 9:295-302, vi
15. Eby PR, DeMartini WB, Peacock S, Rosen EL, Lauro B, Lehman CD. Cancer yield of probably benign breast MR examinations. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007; 26:950-955 (Pubitemid 47548155)
16. Sadowski EA, Kelcz F. Frequency of malignancy in lesions classified as probably benign after dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI examination. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005; 21:556-564 (Pubitemid 40586754)
17. Liberman L, Morris EA, Benton CL, Abramson AF, Dershaw DD. Probably benign lesions at breast magnetic resonance imaging: preliminary experience in high-risk women. Cancer 2003; 98:377-388 (Pubitemid 36828465)
18. Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, et al. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med 2004; 351:427-437 (Pubitemid 38988592)
19. Kuhl CK, Schmutzler RK, Leutner CC, et al. Breast MR imaging screening in 192 women proved or suspected to be carriers of a breast cancer susceptibility gene: preliminary results. Radiology 2000; 215:267-279
20. Liberman L, Mason G, Morris EA, Dershaw DD. Does size matter? Positive predictive value of MRI-detected breast lesions as a function of lesion size. AJR 2006; 186:426-430 (Pubitemid 46100312)
21. Kuhl CK, Kooijman H, Gieseke J, Schild HH. Effect of B1 inhomogeneity on breast MR imaging at 3.0 T. Radiology 2007; 244:929-930 (Pubitemid 47292110)