Probably Benign Lesions Detected on Breast MR Imaging

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Clinics of North America

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 309-321

  Eby, Peter R ^a,b   DeMartini, Wendy B ^a,b   Gutierrez, Robert L ^a,b   Lehman, Constance D ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b SEATTLE CANCER CARE ALLIANCE   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast; Cancer; MR imaging; Probably benign

Indexed keywords

BENIGN TUMOR; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CALCIFICATION; BREAST CANCER; CANCER SCREENING; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; COST CONTROL; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HUMAN; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAMMOGRAPHY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PARTIAL MASTECTOMY; PROGNOSIS; REVIEW; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS;

BREAST; BREAST DISEASES; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MAMMOGRAPHY; TERMINOLOGY AS TOPIC;

EID: 77952999941     PISSN: 10649689     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.mric.2010.02.006     Document Type: Review

References (39)

1. Brenner R.J. Follow-up as an alternative to biopsy for probably benign mammographically detected abnormalities. Curr Opin Radiol 1991, 3(4):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(2):475-483.
3. Varas X., Leborgne J.H., Leborgne F., et al. Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002, 179(3):691-695.
4. Varas X., Leborgne F., Leborgne J.H. Nonpalpable, probably benign lesions: role of follow-up mammography. Radiology 1992, 184(2):409-414.
5. Sickles E.A. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology 1991, 179(2):463-468.
6. Helvie M.A., Pennes D.R., Rebner M., et al. Mammographic follow-up of low-suspicion lesions: compliance rate and diagnostic yield. Radiology 1991, 178(1):155-158.
7. Brenner R.J., Sickles E.A. Acceptability of periodic follow-up as an alternative to biopsy for mammographically detected lesions interpreted as probably benign. Radiology 1989, 171(3):645-646.
8. Hall F.M. Follow-up as an alternative to biopsy for mammographically detected lesions interpreted as probably benign. Radiology 1989, 173(1):284-285.
9. Monticciolo D.L., Caplan L.S. 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(2):106-110.
10. Rosen E.L., Baker J.A., Soo M.S. Malignant lesions initially subjected to short-term mammographic follow-up. Radiology 2002, 223(1):221-228.
11. D'Orsi C.J., Bassett L.W., Berg W.A., et al. Breast imaging reporting and data system: ACR BI-RADS 2003, American College of Radiology, Reston (VA). 4th edition.
12. Ikeda D.M., Baker D.R., Daniel B.L. Magnetic resonance imaging of breast cancer: clinical indications and breast MRI reporting system. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000, 12(6):975-983.
13. Ikeda D.M., Hylton N.M., 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(6):889-895.
14. Ikeda D.M. Progress report from the American College of Radiology breast MR imaging lexicon committee. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2001, 9(2):295-302. vi.
15. Kuhl C.K., Schrading S., Leutner C.C., 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.
16. Kuhl C.K., Schmutzler R.K., Leutner C.C., 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.
17. Liberman L., Morris E.A., Benton C.L., et al. Probably benign lesions at breast magnetic resonance imaging: preliminary experience in high-risk women. Cancer 2003, 98(2):377-388.
18. Sadowski E.A., 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.
19. Eby P.R., Demartini W.B., Peacock S., et al. Cancer yield of probably benign breast MR examinations. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007, 26(4):950-955.
20. Kriege M., Brekelmans C.T., 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.
21. Eby P.R., DeMartini W.B., Gutierrez R.L., et al. Characteristics of probably benign breast MRI lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009, 193(3):861-867.
22. Hartman A.R., Daniel B.L., Kurian A.W., et al. Breast magnetic resonance image screening and ductal lavage in women at high genetic risk for breast carcinoma. Cancer 2004, 100(3):479-489.
23. Hagen A.I., Kvistad K.A., Maehle L., et al. Sensitivity of MRI versus conventional screening in the diagnosis of BRCA-associated breast cancer in a national prospective series. Breast 2007, 16(4):367-374.
24. Kriege M., Brekelmans C.T., Boetes C., et al. Differences between first and subsequent rounds of the MRISC breast cancer screening program for women with a familial or genetic predisposition. Cancer 2006, 106(11):2318-2326.
25. Lehman C.D., Isaacs C., Schnall M.D., et al. Cancer yield of mammography, MR, and US in high-risk women: prospective multi-institution breast cancer screening study. Radiology 2007, 244(2):381-388.
26. Leach M.O., Boggis C.R., Dixon A.K., et al. Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS). Lancet 2005, 365(9473):1769-1778.
27. Lehman C.D., Blume J.D., Weatherall P., et al. Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer 2005, 103(9):1898-1905.
28. Sardanelli F., Podo F., D'Agnolo G., et al. Multicenter comparative multimodality surveillance of women at genetic-familial high risk for breast cancer (HIBCRIT study): interim results. Radiology 2007, 242(3):698-715.
29. Warner E., Plewes D.B., Hill K.A., 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.
30. Tilanus-Linthorst M.M., Obdeijn I.M., Bartels K.C., et al. First experiences in screening women at high risk for breast cancer with MR imaging. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2000, 63(1):53-60.
31. Podo F., Sardanelli F., Canese R., et al. The Italian multi-centre project on evaluation of MRI and other imaging modalities in early detection of breast cancer in subjects at high genetic risk. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2002, 21(3 Suppl):115-124.
32. Caplan L.S., Blackman D., Nadel M., et al. Coding mammograms using the classification " probably benign finding-short interval follow-up suggested" AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999, 172(2):339-342.
33. Geller B.M., Ichikawa L.E., Buist D.S., et al. Improving the concordance of mammography assessment and management recommendations. Radiology 2006, 241(1):67-75.
34. Yasmeen S., Romano P.S., Pettinger M., et al. Frequency and predictive value of a mammographic recommendation for short-interval follow-up. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003, 95(6):429-436.
35. Leung J.W., Sickles E.A. The probably benign assessment. Radiol Clin North Am 2007, 45(5):773-789. vi.
36. Kerlikowske K., Smith-Bindman R., Abraham L.A., et al. Breast cancer yield for screening mammographic examinations with recommendation for short-interval follow-up. Radiology 2005, 234(3):684-692.
37. American College of Radiology Accreditation Available at:, Accessed December 20, 2009. http://www.acr.org/accreditation.aspx.
38. Brenner R.J., Sickles E.A. Surveillance mammography and stereotactic core breast biopsy for probably benign lesions: a cost comparison analysis. Acad Radiol 1997, 4(6):419-425.
39. Liberman L., Mason G., Morris E.A., et al. Does size matter? Positive predictive value of MRI-detected breast lesions as a function of lesion size. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006, 186(2):426-430.