乳腺癌钼靶X线与超声诊断的对比研究

目的 比较钼靶X线与超声对乳腺癌的诊断价值.方法 经手术及病理证实同时行钼靶X线与超声检查的乳腺癌病例40例.钼靶X线采用常规摄片方法摄片;超声探头频率10 MHz,分别在2种影像下对乳腺癌进行分析、诊断,比较二者诊断结果的差异.结果 40例乳腺癌患者中,包括浸润性导管癌29例,导管内癌5例,小叶癌4例,黏液腺癌1例,炎性乳癌1例,X线诊断正确34例,超声诊断正确29例(x2=13.83,P＜0.05).结论 对乳腺癌的检出,钼靶X线较超声有优势.     

乳腺浸润性导管癌的X线改变与病理分析

目的：研究浸润性导管癌的X线表现，分析其病理学基础，以提高乳腺癌手术前诊断水平。方法：23例住院病例，术后病理诊断为浸润性导管癌，回顾分析其乳腺钼靶X线表现，结合其病理学基础与生物学特性，总结其相关规律，发现提高钼靶X线诊断敏感度及特异性的方法。结果：23例浸润性导管癌中，钼靶X线表现：约70％为边缘模糊肿块。而同时出现2—5个恶性征象者有20例，占87％。结论：乳腺钼靶X线成像是目前诊断乳腺癌有效的手段。结合临床体查，特别是触诊，同时，熟悉及掌握各种乳腺癌钼靶X线的直接与间接征象，对提高乳腺癌术前正确诊断率非常重要。     

钼靶X线、超声及MRI在乳腺癌早期诊断中的应用

目的:通过分析钼靶X线、超声及MRI对乳腺癌早期的诊断要点,探讨3种影像学检查方法在乳腺癌早期诊断中的意义。方法:收集经手术病理证实的31例乳腺癌患者资料,以病理结果为诊断标准,对比分析钼靶X线、超声及MRI对早期乳腺癌诊断准确性的差异。结果:31例乳腺癌中钼靶X线诊断符合率为83.87%(26/31),超声为87.10%(27/31),两者联合诊断为93.55%(29/31)。行MRl检查的17例中,诊断符合率为94.12(16/17),而三者联合应用的诊断符合率达96.77%(30/31)。经统计学分析,超声与钼靶X线的诊断准确率差异无统计学意义,二者联合检查与单独应用超声或钼靶X线摄影相比差异有统计学意义。结论:早期乳腺癌在钼靶X线、超声及MRI检查中均可出现不典型表现,钼靶X线、超声及MRI是目前乳腺检查的主要手段,但各有不足,合理、联合应用,能明显提高乳腺癌的早期诊断准确率。     

乳腺癌61例X线表现及病理对照分析

目的探讨和分析乳腺癌的钼靶X线影像特点及其病理基础,提高乳腺癌的X线诊断水平。方法回顾性分析研究61例经乳腺钼靶X线摄影检查、手术及病理证实的乳腺癌患者的X线表现。结果①61例患者中,单纯肿块41例,肿块伴钙化13例,单纯钙化8例,结构扭曲5例,结构扭曲伴钙化4例,局灶性致密影5例,磨玻璃样改变1例,阴性1例。②有钙化者多见于浸润性导管癌和导管原位癌,有肿块者多见于浸润性导管癌、粘液腺癌和髓样癌,结构扭曲者和局部致密性影多见于浸润性导管癌。结论①乳腺癌常见的X线表现为单纯肿块、钙化伴肿块、单纯钙化和结构扭曲。②浸润性导管癌占乳腺癌的大部分,乳腺癌的病理基础不同,导致了不同类型的X线表现。③X线摄影对乳腺癌有很高的诊断价值,尤其对临床检查阴性的患者,但对致密性乳腺还是有一定的局限性。     

乳腺肿块周围钼靶X线征象对乳腺浸润性导管癌的诊断分析

乳腺浸润性导管癌(Infiltrating Ductal Carci-noma,IDC)约占乳腺癌的45%~80%[1],为乳腺癌最常见的病理类型。本文回顾性分析浸润性导管癌的钼靶X线表现,探讨肿块周围钼靶X线征象的病理基础,并将浸润性导管癌与其他乳腺肿块病变进行对比分析,探讨肿块周围异常钼靶X线征象的诊断及鉴别诊断价值。1资料与方法1·1一般资料2004年12月~2005年12月,进行乳腺钼靶X线检查,并经手术、病理证实的124例女性乳腺病变,按病理类型分为下列3组:①浸润性导管癌组,42例,年龄29~70岁,平均55·0岁。②其他恶性病变组,24例,年龄37~70岁,平均51·3岁,包括浸…     

乳腺浸润性导管癌的钼靶X线和MRI表现

目的 :分析乳腺浸润性导管癌的钼靶X线特征及MRI表现 ,以提高其诊断正确率。材料和方法 :回顾性分析了3 8例经病理证实的乳腺浸润性导管癌的钼靶X线表现及 5例MRI表现。结果 :钼靶X线阳性表现 3 5例 ( 92 .1% ) ,其中显示肿块影 2 4例 ( 63 .2 % ) ,毛刺影 18例 ( 4 7.4% ) ,针尖状钙化影 3 3例 ( 86.8% ) ;MRI阳性率 10 0 %。结论 :乳腺浸润性导管癌钼靶X线表现较具特征性 ,是首要影像学检查手段 ,MRI检查敏感性高 ,有助于临床制定合理的治疗方案。     

乳腺微小肿块钼靶X线与超声诊断的对比研究

目的评价钼靶X线与超声对乳腺微小肿块的诊断价值。方法经手术及病理证实同时行钼靶X线与超声检查的乳腺微小肿块患者74例。钼靶X线采用常规方法摄片;超声探头频率10MHz,分别在2种影像下对乳腺肿块进行分析、诊断,比较二者诊断结果差异。结果46例良性病变,包括纤维腺瘤30例,乳腺腺病10例,乳腺囊肿6例,X线诊断正确38例(38/46),超声诊断正确40例(40/46)(χ2=0.08,P(0.5)。28例恶性病变,包括浸润性导管癌20例,导管内癌4例,小叶癌4例,X线诊断正确24例(24/28),超声诊断正确20例(20/28)(χ2=3.75,P(0.05)。结论钼靶X线在良性微小肿块诊断中与超声无统计学差异,对乳腺恶性微小肿块的检出,钼靶X线较超声有优势。     

3.0T MRI联合X线检查触诊阴性含有钙化灶乳腺癌诊断应用

【摘要】目的：探讨3.0T MRI联合X线检查在触诊阴性含有钙化灶乳腺癌诊断中作用，总结并分析影像特征。方法：分析52例经术前X线定位并术后病理检查，将52例含钙化灶病例随机分为研究组（26例）及对照组（26例），研究组是在做手术定位前做X线及MRI两项检查，对照组是在做手术定位前只做X线检查，没做MRI检查，对比分析两组病例乳腺癌检出率。结果：52例中钙化分布呈线样4例、段样5例、团簇状12例、区域性30例及弥漫性1例；钙化形态呈无定形4例、粗糙不均质15例、细小多形27例及细线分支状6例；研究组病理浸润性导管癌9例、导管内癌3例、派杰氏病1例、囊性增生并囊肿7例、纤维腺病伴纤维腺瘤4例、乳腺炎1例、导管扩张并导管炎1例。对照组病理浸润性导管癌2例、导管内癌2例、叶状肿瘤1例、纤维腺病伴纤维腺瘤4例、囊性增生并囊肿12例、乳腺炎2例、导管扩张并导管炎3例，对比研究两组资料在检查出乳腺癌方面有显著差异性（P≤0.01）。结论:对于可疑形态钙化如在手术X线定位前行 MRI检查，在钙化区如发现异常强化灶再行X线定位手术活检将大大提高早期乳腺癌检出率也避免了钙化灶过度活检。本研究表明将X线及MRI两项检查结合起来，比单纯做X线检查在检出乳腺癌方面有显著差异性，因此，将X线及MRI两项检查结合起来是诊断触诊阴性而含有钙化灶早期乳腺癌的有效方法。     

钼靶摄影和高频超声对早期乳腺癌的诊断价值

目的探讨钼靶X线和超声检查对早期乳腺癌的诊断价值方法65例早期乳腺癌均经手术与病理证实,采用钼靶X线和高频超声对早期乳腺癌患者进行诊断结果对于早期乳腺癌的诊断,高频超声诊断符合率为64.6%(42/65),钼靶为46%(30/65)对于肿块影的显示:超声为62%(40/65),钼靶为20%(13/65)对于恶性钙化灶的显示:钼靶为40%(26/65),超声为20%(13/65)二者统计学上差别具有显著性(P<0.05)二者联合应用,对早期乳腺癌的诊断正确率为83%(54/65)结论对于早期乳腺癌的诊断,高频超声检查优于钼靶X线检查二者联合应用对于提高早期乳腺癌的阳性诊断符合率有一定实用价值     

乳腺癌保乳术前的动态增强MRI和X线摄影联合评估

目的:探讨动态增强MRI和钼靶X线摄影在乳腺癌行保乳术(BCS)的术前评估价值。方法:分析106例经手术和病理证实的乳腺癌患者的术前动态增强MRI及钼靶X线摄影资料,观测动态增强MRI和钼靶X线摄影片上乳腺癌病灶的数目、位置、大小、形态、侵犯范围和淋巴结转移情况,按乳腺癌保乳术所需条件与术后大体解剖标本及镜下病理相对照,分析单独和联合运用动态增强MRI与钼靶X线摄影对乳腺癌保乳术前的评估准确性。结果:动态增强MRI判断40例(37.8%)可行BCS,判定准确性为96.2%;钼靶X线摄影判断37例(34.9%)可行BCS,判定准确性为89.6%;动态增强MRI与钼靶X线摄影联合运用,判断41例(38.7%)可行BCS,判定准确性为97.2%。结论:联合运用动态增强MRI和钼靶X线摄影能为乳腺癌患者筛选是否适合BCS提供较全面和准确的信息。     

Breast cancer staging in a single session: whole-body PET/CT mammography

Our objective was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of an all-in-one protocol of whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT and integrated 18F-FDG PET/CT mammography with the diagnostic accuracy of a multimodality algorithm for initial breast cancer staging. METHODS: Forty women (mean age, 58.3 y; range, 30.8-78.4 y; SD, 12 y) with suspected breast cancer were included. For the primary tumor, we compared 18F-FDG PET/CT mammography versus MRI mammography; for axillary lymph node status, 18F-FDG PET/CT versus clinical investigation and ultrasound; and for distant metastases, 18F-FDG PET/CT versus a multimodality staging algorithm. Histopathology and clinical follow-up served as the standard of reference. The Fisher exact test evaluated the significance of differences (P < 0.05). Alterations in patient management caused by 18F-FDG PET/CT were documented. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in the detection rate of breast cancer lesions (18F-FDG PET/CT, 95%; MRI, 100%; P = 1). 18F-FDG PET/CT correctly classified lesion focality significantly more often than did MRI (18F-FDG PET/CT, 79%; MRI, 73%; P < 0.001). MRI correctly defined the T stage significantly more often than did 18F-FDG PET/CT (MRI, 77%; 18F-FDG PET/CT, 54%; P = 0.001). 18F-FDG PET/CT detected axillary lymph node metastases in 80% of cases; clinical investigation/ultrasound, in 70%. This difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.067). Distant metastases were detected with 18F-FDG PET/CT in 100% of cases, and the multimodality algorithm identified distant metastases in 70%. This difference was not statistically significant (P = 1). Three patients had extraaxillary lymph node metastases that were detected only by PET/CT (cervical, retroperitoneal, mediastinal/internal mammary group). 18F-FDG PET/CT changed patient management in 12.5% of cases. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that a whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT mammography protocol may be used for staging breast cancer in a single session. This initial assessment of the 18F-FDG PET/CT protocol indicates similar accuracy to MRI for the detection of breast cancer lesions. Although MRI seems to be more accurate when assessing the T stage of the tumor, 18F-FDG PET/CT seems able to more accurately define lesion focality. Although 18F-FDG PET/CT mammography was able to detect axillary lymph node metastases with a high sensitivity, this method cannot soon be expected to replace the combination of clinical examination, ultrasound, and sentinel lymph node biopsy for axillary assessment.     

Scintimammography with 99mTc-MIBI versus dynamic MRI for non-invasive characterization of breast masses

Although mammography remains the technique of choice for the early detection of breast cancer, several imaging techniques, including scintimammography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), have recently been proposed as adjuncts for this purpose and included in many diagnostic protocols. This study was undertaken to assess the clinical accuracy of scintimammography with technetium-99m methoxyisobutylisonitrile (MIBI) and contrast-enhanced MRI in the detection of primary breast carcinoma in patients with equivocal mammographic findings. Forty-nine patients with a suspicious breast mass detected either by physical examination or by mammography and ultrasound (US) were studied. All patients underwent scintimammography and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI 1 week apart. The results of the two techniques were compared and correlated to the final diagnoses. Two independent readers reported the scans using a four-point confidence scale. The areas under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were obtained. Scintimammography showed an accuracy for tumour detection of 84%, with a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 88%. MRI showed an accuracy of 86%, with a sensitivity and specificity of 96% and 75%, respectively. Comparison of the two areas under the ROC curves showed no significant differences between MRI, 0.91+/-0.05 (mean+/-SD), and scintimammography, 0.88+/-0.05 (P=0.9). It is concluded that dynamic MRI and scintimammography possess comparable accuracy in the diagnosis of primary breast carcinoma in patients with equivocal mammographic or US findings.     

Identification of occult breast lesions detected by magnetic resonance imaging with targeted ultrasound: A prospective study

Objective

To verify the capacity of targeted ultrasound (US) to identify additional lesions detected on breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), but occult to initial mammography, US and clinical examinations.

Methods

This prospective study included 68 additional relevant breast lesions identified on MRI of 49 patients. As an inclusion criterion, breast US and mammography were required and performed up to six months before MRI. These lesions were then subjected to targeted “second-look” US up to 2 weeks after MRI, performed by one or two radiologists with expertise on breast imaging. Lesions were evaluated according to the established Breast Imaging Report and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon.

Results

Targeted US identified 46/68 (67.6%) lesions revealed by MRI. No significant associations were observed between US identification and the type of lesion, dimensions, morphological characteristics and enhancement pattern according to MRI findings. Targeted US identified 100% of BI-RADS category 5 lesions, 90% of category 4 lesions, and just over 50% of category 3 lesions (p < 0.05). There was significant agreement (p < 0.001) between MRI and US BI-RADS classification for all three categories.

Conclusion

Targeted US can identify a large proportion of the lesions detected by breast MRI, especially those at high risk of malignancy, when performed by a professional with experience in both breast US and MRI.     

3.0T MRI成像技术与CR钼靶X线成像技术在乳腺癌诊断中的应用价值对照

目的:探讨3.0 T MRI与CR钼靶X线对乳腺癌诊断的价值。方法:收集46例乳腺病变患者,术前均行MRI、CR钼靶检查,均经手术病理证实。结果:46例患者中(57个病灶),乳腺癌30例(34个病灶),乳腺良性病变16例(23个病灶)。钼靶诊断乳腺癌的敏感度、特异度、准确度分别为70.59%,82.61%,75.44%;MRI诊断乳腺癌的敏感度、特异度、准确度分别为94.12%,78.26%,87.72%。结论:3.0 T MRI诊断乳腺癌的敏感度、准确度均高于CR钼靶检查,而特异度低于钼靶。     

Diagnostic imaging of lobular carcinoma of the breast: mammographic, ultrasonographic and MR findings

PURPOSE: To evaluate the most frequent mammographic, US and MR findings of invasive lobular carcinoma and the role of MRI in defining multifocality and/or multicentricity of this tumor histotype. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We studied 45 lobular carcinomas (39 patients) were selected from 421 breast cancers. Core biopsy with a 14 G needle was performed in 39 cases, under US guidance in 36/39 and under mammographic guidance in 3/39 cases. Surgical biopsy was performed in 2 cases and the diagnosis could be made only after mastectomy in 5 cases. All patients were examined with mammography and US and (10-13 MHz) and 8 also with MRI. RESULTS: 28/46 palpable lesions (60.9%). Core biopsy correctly diagnosed 38/39 lesions (97.4%). The most frequent mammographic findings was that of a nodular opacity without microcalcifications (34.8%), followed by a mass with spiculated borders (30.4%). Microcalcifications were seen in one case only (2.2%). Mammography detected no abnormalities in 15.2% of cases, but US showed a lesion in 2 of these cases. The most frequent US pattern was that of a hypoechoic lesion (43.5%), followed by posterior US beam attenuation. No US signs of abnormality were seen 15.2%. MRI correctly detected 13 lesions. Contrast enhancement was greater than 70% at one minute in 10 cases and greater than 40% in one case; two lesions exhibited atypical slow contrast enhancement, peaking at 5 minutes. MRI detected 5 lesions missed at both mammography and US and showed multifocal (3 and 2) lesions where the other techniques had detected one lesion only. DISCUSSION: At mammography and US invasive lobular carcinoma exhibits no different features than ductal carcinoma but is difficult to identify especially in its early stages. US is a useful tool especially to characterize mammography-detected lesions but in our experience it also demonstrated 2 lesions missed at mammography. MRI is a precious examination to define the multifocal, multicentric or bilateral character of invasive lobular carcinoma. CONCLUSIONS: Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast is often very difficult to diagnose. Thus, we suggest the use of integrated diagnostic imaging with mammography, US and, in some cases, MRI for earlier diagnosis and to identify further tumor localizations.     

MRI of the breast: state of the art

Contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast is probably the most sensitive method to detect breast pathology. It is best used to improve the sensitivity of mammography and sonography in selected patient groups with high breast cancer prevalence, where conventional methods are known to be less sensitive. Despite the high sensitivity of MRI, 5–12 % of invasive carcinomas are not recognized during MRI, because of lack of the typical criteria of carcinoma. MRI is probably inferior to mammography in detecting ductal in-situ carcinoma or very small carcinomas (< 3 mm), because the neo-angiogenesis induced by these small carcinomas is too faint to be detected by contrast-enhanced MRI. These tumours cannot be excluded by a normal MRI examination. MRI is non-specific as the distinction of benign and malignant breast lesions is unreliable. Only in selected cases (fat- or blood-containing lesions) may it improve the specificity of mammography and sonography. Mostly image-guided core biopsy is by far the most specific and least expensive method to establish a definitive diagnosis. For lesions exclusively detected by contrast-enhanced MRI, simple and reliable localisation devices are urgently needed. Presently accepted indications for MRI of the breast are: patients with silicone implants after mastectomy or augmentation mammoplasty (detection of recurrence/prothesis rupture/silicon leakage); patients whose breasts are difficult to evaluate by combined mammography and sonography, who have had breast conservation therapy (local recurrence), or who have proven carcinoma in one breast (multifocality/-centricity or contralateral breast carcinoma) or proven axillary lymph node metastases from an unknown primary tumor, especially when these are hormone receptor positive; patients with extensive postoperative scarring. In the future, genetically defined high breast cancer risk may become an indication. Received 7 October 1997; Revision received 14 November 1997; Accepted 17 November 1997     

数字钼靶X线摄影、彩色多普勒超声成像及查体对乳腺肿块性病变的诊断价值

目的 探讨联合数字钼靶X线摄影、彩色多普勒超声成像及查体对乳腺肿块性病变的诊断价值.方法 回顾性分析92例经手术、病理证实的乳腺肿块性病变患者的临床、数字钼靶X线摄影及彩色多普勒超声成像资料,患者均为女性,年龄18～80岁,平均49.8岁,良性43例,恶性49例.数字钼靶X线主要观察病变的部位、形状、边缘、有无钙化及患侧腋窝淋巴结,彩色多普勒超声观察并记录肿块的二维声像图特征、肿块内部及周边血流.查体主要观察乳腺的皮肤、乳头及通过触诊了解病变的边缘、质地及活动度等.结果 数字钼靶X线摄影诊断乳腺恶性病变的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值、阴性预测值及准确性分别为85.71%、79.07%、82.35%、82.93%及82.61%;彩色多普勒超声为79.59%、83.72%、84.78%、78.26%及81.52%;查体为71.42%、76%、74%、77.78%、70.21%及73.91%;三者联合诊断为91.84%、93.02%、93.75%、93.3%及90.91%.三者联合诊断的准确性明显高于单独诊断(P＜0.05),但三者单独诊断两两比较差别无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论数字钼靶X线摄影、彩色多普勒超声检查,结合查体后联合诊断,可以提高乳腺肿块性病变的诊断准确性.     

Accuracy of tumour size assessment in the preoperative staging of breast cancer: comparison of digital mammography, tomosynthesis, ultrasound and MRI

Purpose

Accurate measurement of breast tumour size is fundamental for treatment planning. We compared the accuracy of digital mammography (DM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the preoperative evaluation of breast cancer size.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively reviewed 149 breast cancers in 110 patients who underwent DM, DBT, US and MRI between January 2010 and December 2011, before definitive surgery. The lesions were measured by two radiologists, without knowledge of the final histological examination, considered the gold standard. For each imaging modality, the maximum tumour size was measured to the nearest millimetre; the measurements were considered concordant if they were within ±5 mm. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was calculated for each imaging modality.

Results

The median pathological tumour size was 22.3 mm. MRI and DBT had a level of concordance with pathology of 70% and 66%, respectively, which was higher than that of DM (54%). DBT and MRI measurements had a better correlation with pathological tumour size (R:0.89 and R:0.92, respectively) compared to DM (R:0.83) and US (R:0.77).

Conclusions

DBT and MRI are superior to DM and US in the preoperative assessment of breast tumour size. DBT seems to improve the accuracy of DM, although MRI remains the most accurate imaging modality for breast cancer extension.     

MRI评价乳腺癌腋窝淋巴结转移的价值

目的：探讨 MRI评估乳腺癌腋窝淋巴结转移的应用价值。方法对60例乳腺癌患者进行术前 MRI检查,评价乳腺内肿瘤最大径、瘤体最大信号增强率(SERmax )及同侧腋窝淋巴结的大小、形态、边缘、信号强度和强化方式,并与术后同侧腋窝淋巴结状态进行对照分析。结果60例乳腺癌患者 MRI显示28例同侧腋窝淋巴结有转移,病理证实22例腋窝淋巴结有转移。MRI 检出腋窝淋巴结转移的灵敏度、特异度、准确率为90.91%、78.95%、83.33%。57例同时行超声检查,超声检查诊断淋巴结转移的灵敏度、特异度、准确率分别为59.09%、94.29%、80.70%。腋窝淋巴结转移组淋巴结大小(1.20±0.59)cm,无转移组淋巴结大小(0.85±0.24)cm,2组间腋窝淋巴结大小差异有统计学意义(t=3.258,P=0.001<0.05)。腋窝淋巴结无转移与有转移组间乳腺内肿瘤 SERmax值差异有统计学意义(t=4.167,P=0.000<0.05),转移组 SERmax值大于无转移组。转移性淋巴结多表现为形态不规则,边缘不规整,信号强度及强化不均匀。结论乳腺 MRI能在检出乳腺癌的同时全面评价腋窝淋巴结,是术前评估腋窝淋巴结状态的有效检查方法。     

乳腺X线摄影、超声、MRI对乳腺非肿块强化病灶诊断价值的对照研究

目的：比较乳腺 X 线摄影、超声及 MRI 对乳腺 MRI 非肿块强化(NME)病灶的诊断效能。方法回顾性分析116例(123个病灶)患者乳腺 MRI NME 病灶的乳腺 X 线摄影、超声及 MRI 的影像学表现。结果病理结果恶性99例,良性24例,乳腺X 线摄影、超声及 MRI 的敏感度分别为72.73%、65.66%、84.85%,特异度分别为66.67%、79.17%、79.17%,准确度分别为71.54%、68.29%、83.74%,阳性预测值分别为90.00%、92.86%、94.88%,阴性预测值分别为37.21%、35.85%、55.88%。MRI 对 NME 病灶的敏感度、特异度、准确度、阳性预测值及阴性预测值均明显高于乳腺 X 线摄影和超声(P <0.05)。且 MRI 与 MRI+乳腺 X 线摄影及 MRI+乳腺 X 线摄影+超声结果相近,差别无统计学意义。结论MRI 对于乳腺 NME 病灶有较高的诊断价值,应作为首选检查方法。