年轻女性(≤40岁)乳腺癌的X线摄影与MRI对照研究

目的 分析年轻女性乳腺癌乳腺X线摄影(mammography,MG)及磁共振成像(magnetic resonance imaging,MRI)影像学特点,以期提高年轻女性乳腺癌病灶的检出和评估.方法 收集经手术病理证实的121例乳腺癌患者,均于术前接受乳腺MRI检查,年轻组(≤40岁)患者29例,中老年组(>40岁)患者92例,其中共81例患者行MG检查.比较2组病例的MG特点、MRI形态学、信号强度、ADC值及血流动力学特点,以及淋巴结转移与否.采用SPSS13.0统计软件,P值≤0.05为差异有统计学意义.结果 年轻女性表现为致密型乳腺23例(79.3%),浸润性导管癌24例(82.8%),病灶平均直径为3.6 cm,肿块型病灶中表现为非毛刺状边缘14例(73.7%),不均匀强化病灶21例(72.4%),病灶伴导管内成分(extensive intraductal component,EIC)16例(55.2%),18例病灶发生腋淋巴结转移病灶(62.1%).年轻女性与中老年女性癌灶出现钙化的几率无明显差异(P=0.159),乳腺X线摄影对年轻女性组患者病灶检出的敏感性(62.5%)低于中老年女性组(87.7%)(P=0.006).结论 MRI对于年轻女性致密型乳腺中乳腺癌病灶的检出及术前评估具有极其重要的作用.     

多模态MRI对致密型乳腺中乳腺癌的诊断价值

目的：探讨多模态 MRI 上致密型乳腺中乳腺癌的影像学特征。方法收集行乳腺 X 线及 MRI 检查的120例乳腺癌病例,均为单病灶,且经手术病理证实,根据乳腺 X 线摄影 BI-RADS 分类的标准,将乳腺分成致密型(68例)和非致密型(52例)2组,对照研究2种乳腺类型中乳腺癌的 MRI 形态学特征、表观扩散系数(ADC)值(b=1000 s/mm2)、时间-信号强度曲线(TIC)间的差异。采用 SPSS16.0统计软件,P 值<0.05为差异有统计学意义。结果致密型与非致密型2组乳腺中病灶边缘毛刺分别为64.7%(44/68)、30.8%(16/52),其差异有统计学意义(P =0.000);2组乳腺癌直径分别为(1.83±0.98)cm、(1.40±0.46)cm,其差异有统计学意义(P =0.005);2组病灶呈非肿块样强化的分别为72.1%(49/68)、34.6%(18/52),其差异有统计学意义(P =0.000);2组病灶的ADC 值(b=1000 s/mm2)分别为(0.89±0.12)×10-3 mm2/s,(0.95±0.10)×10-3 mm2/s,其差异有统计学意义(P =0.016)。结论相对非致密型乳腺,致密型乳腺中的乳腺癌在多模态 MRI 表现上具有一定的特征。     

MRI对X线上致密型乳腺中乳腺癌的诊断价值

目的:探讨致密型乳腺中乳腺癌MRI表现,以组织病理学为标准,与非致密型乳腺中乳腺癌作对照分析。方法:2009年3月至2010年3月来我院完成乳腺MRI及X线摄影检、病理组织学诊断为乳腺癌的连续180例病人纳入研究,年龄28～85岁,平均54.4岁;按X线摄影上纤维腺体组织密度分型标准将入组病例分为致密型和非致密型,并对两组的乳腺癌MRI表现进行对比分析,进一步归纳出致密型中乳腺癌的MRI特点。结果:致密型乳腺77例,其中浸润性导管癌66例、导管内癌(DCIS)8例及其他病理类型3例;非致密型乳腺103例,其中浸润性导管癌85例、导管内癌(DCIS)7例及其他病理类型11例。致密型乳腺中乳腺癌平均直径2.3cm,明显大于非致密型乳腺中乳腺癌的平均直径(1.9cm)(P=0.011);致密型乳腺中肿块样强化的乳腺癌边缘毛刺或模糊者约71.7%(43/60),较非致密型乳腺(54.0%,47/87)更易表现为边缘不光滑(P=0.031);致密型乳腺组浸润性导管癌病理分级高于非致密型乳腺组(P=0.009);致密型乳腺组患者平均年龄(47.2岁)较非致密型乳腺组(60.1岁)年轻(P<0.01)。结论:致密型乳腺中乳腺癌较非致密型乳腺中的病变范围更大,乳腺癌更易表现为边缘毛糙,且在病理学上乳腺癌的病理分级更高。     

数字乳腺摄影的计算机辅助诊断在乳腺癌筛查中的应用

目的:探讨数字钼靶乳腺摄影及计算机辅助诊断(CAD)在乳腺癌筛查诊断中的价值。方法:2010年1月至2011年1月我院数字乳腺钼靶摄片并经手术证实的40例纳入研究,包括乳腺癌35例(其中原位癌6例)和乳腺腺体增生5例。术前分别在普通显示器上读片诊断和工作站上使用CAD软件读片诊断,然后比较分析。结果:使用普通医用显示器的乳腺癌诊断的敏感性为71.4%,准确性75%;使用CAD分析的乳腺癌诊断的敏感性为88.6%,准确性90%。应用CAD对微钙化检出的敏感性明显高于普通医用显示器(P=0.032)。结论:数字乳腺摄影结合CAD有助于乳腺癌筛查诊断。     

MRI和X线摄影鉴别乳腺良恶性病变的比较分析

目的 比较MRI和X线摄影鉴别乳腺良恶性病变的诊断价值.方法 综合分析52例(包括恶性24例及良性28例)经手术病理证实的乳腺疾病的MRI及X线摄影资料.根据乳腺癌MRI和X线的主要诊断指标和次要诊断指标,对病例进行诊断.将2种影像诊断结果与病理诊断结果对照,比较MRI、 X线的诊断价值.结果 高频X线摄影诊断的敏感性为81.5%,特异性86.1%,阳性预测值81.5%,阴性预测值86.1%.MRI的敏感性为92.6%,特异性91.7%,阳性预测值89.3%,阴性预测值94.3%.MRI诊断结果与病理的一致性程度很高(Kappa值=0.813,P＜0.0005),高于高频X线(Kappa值=0.649,P＜0.0005).结论 MRI对诊断乳腺癌有重要价值,其效果优于X线检查.     

数字乳腺摄影计算机辅助诊断对乳腺癌的检出价值

目的：探讨全数字化乳腺摄影（DM）计算机辅助诊断（CAD）在不同乳腺结构内检出乳腺癌的价值。方法：185例经病理证实的单乳单灶性乳腺癌及179例正常乳腺均行DM检查,根据BI-RADS将所有乳腺分为非致密组和致密组。将所有乳腺摄影图像采用CAD法进行诊断,计算CAD的诊断敏感性,记录CAD在病例组及正常组的平均每例假阳性标记数,并进行不同结构乳腺组间及病例组与正常组的比较。结果：CAD检出乳腺癌的敏感度为88．6％;在非致密组与致密组中检出乳腺癌的敏感度分别为97．4％和82．4％,两组比较,差异具有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。在病例组和正常组中cAD的假阳性标记数的中位数（最小值,最大值）分别为1（0,12）个和2（0,8）个,两组间的差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论：cAD检出乳腺癌的敏感性较高,乳腺密度可能影响DM对单纯肿块型乳腺癌的检出。     

超声与X线乳腺摄影检查多灶性及多中心性乳腺癌临床价值分析

目的探讨超声在多灶性及多中心性乳腺癌术前评估中的应用价值。方法对经手术病理证实多灶性及多中心性乳腺癌分别采用超声、X线乳腺摄影等影像学检查,并以BI-RADs评级≥4b定义为超声诊断阳性,比较超声检查与X线乳腺摄影的诊断效果(准确性、敏感性)。结果 100例多灶性、多中心性乳腺癌患者中2例为双侧,优势病灶共102个,优势病灶大小3.1~70.0mm,平均(21.88±13.02)mm;超声发现79个(77.45%),漏诊23个(22.55%)。超声、X线乳腺摄影检查对病灶判断的敏感性分别为87.00%、66.00%,经统计学分析发现超声检查敏感性明显高于X线乳腺摄影,且差异具有统计学意义(2=6.98,P0.05)。超声+X线乳腺摄影对多灶性、多中心性乳腺癌检出的敏感性为90.00%。结论结合:超声联合X线乳腺摄影更可明显提高术前诊断的正确率。     

微小乳腺癌的全数字化乳腺摄影诊断分析

目的 探讨微小乳腺癌的X线特征.方法 回顾性分析行全数字化乳腺摄影(FFDM)检查并经手术病理证实的41例微小乳腺癌的X线特征、病理类型及癌灶大小与淋巴结转移之间的关系.结果 41例微小乳腺癌发生于左侧乳腺22例(53.66%),右侧乳腺19例(46.34%).X线表现:肿块23例(56.10%),单纯钙化7例(17.07%),结构扭曲5例(12.20%),非对称性致密影6例(14.63%).病理学结果:浸润性导管癌34例,黏液癌1例,非特异性导管癌2例,浸润性导管内癌1例,单纯癌1例,鳞癌1例,小管癌1例.微小乳腺癌同侧淋巴结转移率(4.9%)明显低于同期大乳腺癌组(27.3%)(χ2=6.620 3,P<0.05).结论 微小乳腺癌淋巴结转移率低,全数字化乳腺摄影对诊断微小乳腺癌有重要价值.     

青年人乳腺癌的数字乳腺X线表现及病理特点

目的 探讨青年人乳腺癌的数字乳腺X线与病理表现特点.方法 回顾性对比分析105例青年乳腺癌患者和300例中老年乳腺癌患者的数字X线表现及病理结果.结果 青年组与中老年组乳腺癌均以Ⅱ级浸润性导管癌为主,外上象限好发.青年组60.95％乳腺癌为肿块型,以＜3 cm的肿块为主,36.19％呈非对称致密影,2.86％为单纯钙化;20.95％乳腺癌呈浸润性生长,21.90％可见毛刺,32.38％可见分叶,22.86％结构扭曲,毛刺发生率低于中老年组(x2 =8.331,P=0.004),两组间分叶发生率无明显差别(x2=2.255,P=0.133).青年组72.38％乳腺癌可见钙化,以细小多形性钙化、成簇分布为主.肿块型与非肿块型钙化形态及分布差异均有统计学意义(x2=17.513,P=0.002;x2=17.965,P=0.000).乳腺癌雌激素受体(ER)与孕激素受体(PR)、人类表皮生长因子受体-2(HER-2)表达有相关性(r=0.940,P=0.000;r =0.261,P=0.007),ER阳性率低于中老年组,Her-2阳性率高于中老年组.两组间Ⅱ级浸润性导管癌ER、PR阳性率均高于Ⅲ级浸润性导管癌.青年组Ki-67增殖指数3％～90％,≤5％4例,5％ ～30％ 27例,≥30％ 74例,Ki-67增殖指数大于30％的病例数百分比高于中老年组.两组分子分型均以Luminal B型为主,青年组HER-2过表达型及三阴型乳腺癌发病率均高于中老年组,淋巴结转移率高于中老年组.结论 青年人乳腺癌特点为肿块直径多＜3 cm,钙化发生率高,组织学分级以Ⅱ级浸润性导管癌为主,病理分子分型以Luminal B型为主,数字乳腺X线摄影检查仍是青年人乳腺癌较佳的检查方法.     

广角DBT与MRI在致密型乳腺恶性肿瘤的影像学特征及诊断

目的 对比广角数字乳腺断层摄影(DBT)与MRI在致密型乳腺恶性肿瘤的影像学特征及诊断效能。方法分析我院行DBT及MRI检查的126例致密型乳腺(不均匀致密类+高度致密类)患者的影像学资料。观察病灶的影像学特征，以病理结果绘制ROC曲线，分析两种检查方法的诊断效能。结果 126例(126个病灶)致密型乳腺患者中不均匀致密c类93例(73.8%),高度致密d类33例(26.2%),乳腺癌病灶71个(56.4%),良性病灶55个(43.6%);2位阅片医师分别应用DBT和MRI对乳腺癌诊断准确性Kappa值为0.792,两者检查可靠度较好。广角DBT对致密型乳腺良恶性病变诊断的敏感度(84.5%)、特异度(89.1%)、准确率(86.5%),致密型乳腺良恶性病变在动态增强乳腺MRI诊断的敏感度(93.0%)、特异度(87.3%)、准确率(90.5%);ROC曲线显示DBT、MRI的AUC分别为0.893、0.870,二者比较差异无统计学意义(Z=0.924,P>0.05)。结论 广角DBT具有与MR相近的诊断致密型乳腺肿块的效能，对于致密型乳腺癌是一种可靠简便快捷的常规检查手段。     

超声、钼靶X线联合MRI在乳腺癌术前评价中的应用

目的 探讨超声、钼靶X线联合MRI在乳腺癌术前评价中的作用.资料与方法 经超声、钼靶X线和MRI检查后拟诊为乳腺癌的58例患者,均经手术或穿刺病理证实,比较三种检查方法对癌灶检出率、癌灶大小符合率、淋巴结转移情况及手术方式的影响.结果 钼靶X线对癌灶的检出率及对浸润性导管癌(IDC)和浸润性小叶癌(LDC)的检出率最低(P＜0.05);超声、钼靶X线和MRI联合对癌灶的检出率和对导管内原位癌(DCIS)的检出率均高于超声(P＜ 0.05),对转移淋巴结的检出率高于钼靶X线、MRI(P＜0.05);癌灶影像学测值与病理测值的符合度:MRI最高,超声次之,钼靶X线最低(P=0.000).对手术方案的影响:拟行保乳术25例,最终实施16例,超声、钼靶X线、MRI和术中病理分别使2例(2/25,8.0％)、1例(1/25,4.0％)、5例(5/25,20.0％)、1例( 1/25,4.0％)改行根治术.结论 超声、钼靶X线联合MRI可进一步确诊乳腺癌,并对手术方案的确立提供更详细准确的依据.     

Detection of Contralateral Breast Cancer Using Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Women with Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer: Comparison with Combined Mammography and Whole-Breast Ultrasound

ObjectiveTo compare the screening performance of diffusion-weighted (DW) MRI and combined mammography and ultrasound (US) in detecting clinically occult contralateral breast cancer in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer.Materials and MethodsBetween January 2017 and July 2018, 1148 women (mean age ± standard deviation, 53.2 ± 10.8 years) with unilateral breast cancer and no clinical abnormalities in the contralateral breast underwent 3T MRI, digital mammography, and radiologist-performed whole-breast US. In this retrospective study, three radiologists independently and blindly reviewed all DW MR images (b = 1000 s/mm² and apparent diffusion coefficient map) of the contralateral breast and assigned a Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category. For combined mammography and US evaluation, prospectively assessed results were used. Using histopathology or 1-year follow-up as the reference standard, cancer detection rate and the patient percentage with cancers detected among all women recommended for tissue diagnosis (positive predictive value; PPV₂) were compared.ResultsOf the 30 cases of clinically occult contralateral cancers (13 invasive and 17 ductal carcinoma in situ [DCIS]), DW MRI detected 23 (76.7%) cases (11 invasive and 12 DCIS), whereas combined mammography and US detected 12 (40.0%, five invasive and seven DCIS) cases. All cancers detected by combined mammography and US, except two DCIS cases, were detected by DW MRI. The cancer detection rate of DW MRI (2.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.3%, 3.0%) was higher than that of combined mammography and US (1.0%; 95% CI: 0.5%, 1.8%; p = 0.009). DW MRI showed higher PPV₂ (42.1%; 95% CI: 26.3%, 59.2%) than combined mammography and US (18.5%; 95% CI: 9.9%, 30.0%; p = 0.001).ConclusionIn women with newly diagnosed breast cancer, DW MRI detected significantly more contralateral breast cancers with fewer biopsy recommendations than combined mammography and US.     

Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer

PURPOSE: To prospectively assess accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, ultrasonography (US), and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in preoperative assessment of local extent of breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval and informed patient consent were obtained. Results of bilateral mammography, US, and contrast-enhanced MR imaging were analyzed from 111 consecutive women with known or suspected invasive breast cancer. Results were correlated with histopathologic findings. RESULTS: Analysis included 177 malignant foci in 121 cancerous breasts, of which 89 (50%) foci were palpable. Median size of 139 invasive foci was 18 mm (range, 2-107 mm). Mammographic sensitivity decreased from 100% in fatty breasts to 45% in extremely dense breasts. Mammographic sensitivity was highest for invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) in 89 of 110 (81%) cases versus 10 of 29 (34%) cases of invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) (P < .001) and 21 of 38 (55%) cases of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (P < .01). US showed higher sensitivity than did mammography for IDC, depicting 104 of 110 (94%) cases, and for ILC, depicting 25 of 29 (86%) cases (P < .01 for each). US showed higher sensitivity for invasive cancer than DCIS (18 of 38 [47%], P < .001). MR showed higher sensitivity than did mammography for all tumor types (P < .01) and higher sensitivity than did US for DCIS (P < .001), depicting 105 of 110 (95%) cases of IDC, 28 of 29 (96%) cases of ILC, and 34 of 38 (89%) cases of DCIS. In anticipation of conservation or no surgery after mammography and clinical examination in 96 breasts, additional tumor (which altered surgical approach) was present in 30. Additional tumor was depicted in 17 of 96 (18%) breasts at US and in 29 of 96 (30%) at MR, though extent was now overestimated in 12 of 96 (12%) at US and 20 of 96 (21%) at MR imaging. After combined mammography, clinical examination, and US, MR depicted additional tumor in another 12 of 96 (12%) breasts and led to overestimation of extent in another six (6%); US showed no detection benefit after MR imaging. Bilateral cancer was present in 10 of 111 (9%) patients; contralateral tumor was depicted mammographically in six and with both US and MR in an additional three. One contralateral cancer was demonstrated only clinically. CONCLUSION: In nonfatty breasts, US and MR imaging were more sensitive than mammography for invasive cancer, but both MR imaging and US involved risk of overestimation of tumor extent. Combined mammography, clinical examination, and MR imaging were more sensitive than any other individual test or combination of tests.     

超声评价乳腺癌新辅助化疗后的病理反应性

目的 探讨超声术前评价新辅助化疗后乳腺癌残存病变病理反应状态的价值.资料与方法 60例新辅助化疗结束后行术前超声检查的乳腺癌患者,参考Miller&Payne反应性分级将患者的病理反应性分为5级,5级为病理完全缓解,其余为浸润癌残余,4级和5级为组织学显著反应,并以此作为“金标准”,评估超声检查结果的敏感性、特异性、准确性、阳性预测值及阴性预测值.结果 术前超声测量残余癌最大直径与病理测得残余癌最大直径呈显著正相关(r=-0.7797,P＜0.01).超声对化疗后浸润癌残余判断的敏感性为92.3％,特异性为50.0％,准确性为86.7％,阳性预测值为92.3％,阴性预测值为50.0％;超声对化疗后组织学显著反应判断的敏感性为86.7％,特异性为84.4％,准确性为85.0％,阳性预测值为81.2％,阴性预测值为86.4％. 结论 超声对于乳腺癌新辅助化疗后浸润癌残余和组织学显著反应的评价有较高的敏感性和准确性,有助于新辅助化疗后术前无创性评价乳腺癌的病理反应性.     

脊椎多发性骨髓瘤与溶骨性转移瘤的 CT 鉴别诊断

目的：探讨脊椎多发性骨髓瘤(VMM)与溶骨性转移瘤 CT 征象差别。方法回顾性分析32例 VMM 与52例脊椎溶骨性转移瘤患者的 CT 表现,对不同的征象进行记录和统计学分析。结果32例 VMM 累及220个脊椎,52例转移瘤累及167个脊椎。椎体内多发小圆型骨质破坏 VMM 发生率42.66%(93/218),高于脊椎转移瘤0.00%(0/165)(χ2=92.963,P =0.000)。不规则型骨质破坏 VMM 发生率23.39%(51/218),低于脊椎转移瘤45.45%(75/165)(χ2=20.704,P =0.000)。嵴状突起型骨质破坏VMM 发生率16.06%(35/218),高于脊椎转移瘤9.10%(15/165)(χ2=4.013,P =0.045)。碎片型骨质破坏 VMM 发生率8.7%(19/218),低于脊椎转移瘤27.27%(45/165)(χ2=23.238,P =0.000)。单侧椎弓根受累 VMM 发生率6.82%(15/220),低于脊椎转移瘤17.96%(30/167)(χ2=11.477,P =0.001)。结论VMM 与脊椎溶骨性转移瘤二者的 CT 征象具有一定特征,结合临床特点可作出鉴别诊断。     

Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced digital mammography in breast cancer detection in comparison to tomosynthesis,synthetic 2D mammography and tomosynthesis combined with ultrasound in women with dense breast

Objective:To assess the diagnostic efficacy of contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) in breast cancer detection in comparison to synthetic two-dimensional mammography (s2D MG), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) alone and DBT supplemented with ultrasound examination in females with dense breast with histopathology as the gold-standard.Methods:It was a prospective study, where consecutive females presenting to symptomatic breast clinic between April 2019 and June 2020 were evaluated with DBT. Females who were found to have heterogeneously dense (ACR type C) or extremely dense (ACR type D) breast composition detected on s2D MG were further evaluated with high-resolution breast ultrasound and thereafter with CEDM, but before the core biopsy or surgical excision, were included in the study. s2D MG was derived from post-processing reconstruction of DBT data set. Females with pregnancy, renal insufficiency or prior allergic reaction to iodinated contrast agent were excluded from the study. Image interpretation was done by two experienced breast radiologists and both were blinded to histological diagnosis.Results:This study included 166 breast lesions in130 patients with mean age of 45 ± 12 years (age range 24–72 years). There were 87 (52.4%) malignant and 79 (47.6%) benign lesions. The sensitivity of CEDM was 96.5%, significantly higher than synthetic 2D MG (75.6%, p < 0.0001), DBT alone (82.8%, p < 0.0001) and DBT + ultrasound (88.5%, p = 0.0057); specificity of CEDM was 81%, significantly higher than s2D MG (63.3%, p = 0.0002) and comparable to DBT alone (84.4%, p = 0.3586) and DBT + ultrasound (79.7%, p = 0.4135). In receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, the area under the curve was of 0.896 for CEDM, 0.841 for DBT + ultrasound, 0.769 for DBT alone and 0.729 for s2D MG.Conclusion:CEDM is an accurate diagnostic technique for cancer detection in dense breast. CEDM allowed a significantly higher number of breast cancer detection than the s2D MG, DBT alone and DBT supplemented with ultrasonography in females with dense breast.Advances in knowledge:CEDM is a promising novel technology with higher sensitivity and negative predictive value for breast cancer detection in females with dense breast in comparison to DBT alone or DBT supplemented with ultrasound.     

全数字化乳腺摄影诊断同时性双侧原发性乳腺癌的价值

目的:评价全数字化乳腺摄影诊断同时性双侧原发性乳腺癌的价值.材料和方法:回顾性分析2005-11～2008-12同时性双侧原发性乳腺癌21例,使用GE公司全数字化平板乳腺X线机,经临床及病理证实,符合同时性双侧乳腺癌的诊断标准.结果:第一原发癌以Ⅱa期为主,浸润性导管癌12例,导管原位癌5例,浸润性小叶癌2例,浸润性筛状癌1例,混合细胞癌1例;5例以微钙化为主要表现,13例肿块,局部密度增浓1例,2例未见异常;第二原发癌以0期为主,浸润性导管癌7例,导管原位癌12例,浸润性小叶癌1例,混合细胞癌1例;11例以微钙化为主要表现,肿块3例,结构不良4例,局部密度增浓1例,2例未见异常.结论:FFDM检查和仔细的外科查体相结合是对已经确诊一侧乳腺癌的患者随访的一种有效方法.     

Stereotactic and sonographic large-core biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions: results of the Radiologic Diagnostic Oncology Group V study

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of stereotactically and sonographically guided core biopsy (CB) for the diagnosis of nonpalpable breast lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two institutions enrolled 2,403 women who underwent imaging-guided fine needle aspiration followed by imaging-guided large-CB of nonpalpable breast abnormalities. All mammograms were reviewed for study eligibility by one of two breast imaging radiologists. The protocol for image-guided biopsy, using either ultrasound (USCB) or stereotactic (SCB) guidance, was standardized at all institutions and all biopsy specimens were over-read by one of three expert pathologists. Patients with atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), atypical lobular hyperplasia, or lobular neoplasia on CB underwent surgical excision. Those with negative CB but suspicious ("discordant") pre-biopsy mammography also underwent surgical excision. Patients having a negative CB that was concordant with the pre-biopsy mammography suspicion were assigned to follow-up mammography at 6, 12, and 24 months following CB. RESULTS: A gold standard diagnosis based on definitive histopathologic diagnosis, mammography follow-up, or an imputed gold standard diagnosis was established for 1,681 patients. Of 310 cases with a gold standard diagnosis of invasive breast carcinoma, 261 (84.2%) were invasive carcinoma, 31 (10%) were ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), four (1.3%) were ADH, one (0.3%) was a non-breast cancer, and 13 (4.2%) were benign on CB. For 138 cases with a gold standard diagnosis of DCIS, 113 (81.9%) were DCIS, 20 (14.5%) were ADH, and five (3.6%) were benign on CB. For 57 cases (13 masses, 44 calcifications) with an initial CB diagnosis of ADH, atypical lobular hyperplasia or lobular neoplasia, 20 (35.1%) had a gold standard diagnosis of DCIS (4 masses, 16 calcifications) and four (7.0%) had a gold standard diagnosis of invasive cancer (4 calcifications). Of 144 cases (22 masses, 122 calcifications) with an initial CB diagnosis of DCIS, 31 (21.5%) had a gold standard diagnosis of invasive cancer (10 masses, 21 calcifications). The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for CB by either imaging guidance method in this trial were .91, 1.00, and .98, respectively. The sensitivity, predictive value negative, and accuracy of CB for diagnosing masses (.96, .99, and .99, respectively) were significantly greater (P < .001) than for calcifications (.84, .94, and .96, respectively). The sensitivity (.89) of SCB for diagnosing all lesions was significantly lower (P = 0.029) than that of USCB (.97) because of the preponderance of calcifications biopsied by SCB versus USCB. There was no difference between USCB and SCB in sensitivity, predictive value negative, or accuracy for the diagnosis of masses (97.3, 98.9, and 99.2, respectively for USCB; 95.6, 98.5, and 98.9 respectively for SCB). CONCLUSION: Percutaneous, imaged-guided core breast biopsy is an accurate diagnostic alternative to surgical biopsy in women with mammographically detected suspicious breast lesions.     

Breast lesions detected with MR imaging: utility and histopathologic importance of identification with US

PURPOSE: To determine the utility and histopathologic importance of ultrasonographic (US) depiction of breast lesions detected with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective review was performed of 654 consecutive breast MR examinations performed from November 1999 to February 2001. This yielded 64 patients with 93 suspicious, nonpalpable, mammographically occult lesions evident on MR images and recommended for biopsy, for which directed US assessment was performed. Images, pathologic records, and medical records of these patients were reviewed for imaging findings, patient demographics, and histopathologic findings from subsequent biopsy. Statistical analysis was performed with the Fisher exact test. RESULTS: The median size of MR abnormalities was 0.9 cm (range, 0.3-5.0 cm). The pattern of enhancement was a focal mass in 76 (82%) lesions and nonmass in 17 (18%). A US correlate was identified in 21 (23%) lesions detected with MR--19 (25%) of 76 focal mass and two (11%) of 17 nonmass lesions. Carcinoma was found in nine (43%) of these lesions, of which seven (78%) were invasive carcinoma and two (22%) were ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Among the lesions without a US correlate, 10 (14%) yielded carcinoma, of which five (50%) were invasive carcinoma and five (50%) were DCIS. The frequency of cancer was significantly higher for lesions that were detected with MR imaging and had a US correlate than for those that did not have a US correlate (43% vs 14%, P =.01). Overall, 19 (20%) lesions detected with MR imaging and examined with US yielded carcinoma at biopsy, and nine (47%) malignant lesions were seen on US images. US depicted seven (58%) of 12 invasive cancers and two (29%) of seven instances of DCIS. CONCLUSION: The likelihood of carcinoma was significantly higher among lesions with a US correlate (43% carcinoma) than lesions without a US correlate (14% carcinoma).