Frequency of malignancy seen in probably benign lesions at contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging: Findings from ACRIN 6667

Radiology

Volumn 255, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 731-737

  Weinstein, Susan P ^a   Hanna, Lucy G ^b   Gatsonis, Constantine ^b   Schnall, Mitchell D ^a   Rosen, Mark A ^a   Lehman, Constance D ^c  

^a HOSPITAL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; BREAST HYPERPLASIA; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; EXCISION; FAMILY HISTORY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MASTECTOMY; MENARCHE; MENOPAUSE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PARITY; PATIENT SELECTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RACE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; CONTRAST MEDIA; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT SELECTION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 77952701273     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10081712     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. American College of Radiology. BI-RADS breast imaging and reporting system: breast imaging atlas. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2003.
2. Sickles EA. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3, 184 consecutive cases. Radiology 1991;179(2):463-468.
3. Varas X, Leborgne F, Leborgne JH. Nonpalpable, probably benign lesions: role of follow-up mammography. Radiology 1992;184(2):409-414.
4. Varas X, Leborgne JH, Leborgne F, Mezzera J, Jaumandreu S, Leborgne F. Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179(3):691-695.
5. Vizcaíno 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(2):475-483.
6. Helvie MA, Pennes DR, Rebner M, Adler DD. Mammographic follow-up of low-suspicion lesions: compliance rate and diagnostic yield. Radiology 1991; 178 (1):155-158.
7. Orel SG, Schnall MD. MR imaging of the breast for the detection, diagnosis, and staging of breast cancer. Radiology 2001;220(1):13-30. (Pubitemid 32577955)
8. Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin 2007;57(2):75-89. (Pubitemid 46535708)
9. Warner E, Plewes DB, Shumak RS, et al. Comparison of breast magnetic resonance imaging, mammography, and ultrasound for surveillance of women at high risk for hereditary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001;19(15):3524-3531.
10. Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA, et al. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA 2004;292(11):1317-1325. (Pubitemid 39223222)
11. Lehman CD, Blume JD, Weatherall P, et al. Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer 2005;103(9):1898-1905.
12. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, et al. Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23(33):8469-8476. (Pubitemid 46260243)
13. 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(5):427-437.
14. Lehman CD, Gatsonis C, Kuhl CK, et al. MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007;356(13):1295-1303. (Pubitemid 46513295)
15. Rosen EL, Baker JA, Soo MS. Malignant lesions initially subjected to short-term mammographic follow-up. Radiology 2002;223(1):221-228.
16. Majid AS, de Paredes ES, Doherty RD, Sharma NR, Salvador X. Missed breast carcinoma: pitfalls and pearls. RadioGraphics 2003;23(4):881-895. (Pubitemid 37414761)
17. 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(5):556-564. (Pubitemid 40586754)
18. Liberman L, Morris EA, Benton CL, Abramson AF, Dershaw DD. Probably benign lesions at breast magnetic resonance imaging: preliminary experience in highrisk women. Cancer 2003;98(2):377-388. (Pubitemid 36828465)
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(1):267-279.
20. 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(4):950-955. (Pubitemid 47548155)
21. Taplin SH, Ichikawa LE, Kerlikowske K, et al. Concordance of breast imaging report ing and data system assessments and management recommendations in screening mammography. Radiology 2002;222(2):529-535.