Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Feb;26(2):216-219.
doi: 10.1111/tbj.13530. Epub 2019 Sep 8.

Screening vs staging magnetic resonance imaging-guided core needle breast biopsies: Does MRI indication impact upgrade rate?

Brendin R Beaulieu-Jones  1   2   3 , Natalie Ring  2   4 , Tracy E Frazee  4 , Roberta M DiFlorio-Alexander  4 , Kari M Rosenkranz  3
Affiliations

Screening vs staging magnetic resonance imaging-guided core needle breast biopsies: Does MRI indication impact upgrade rate?

Brendin R Beaulieu-Jones et al. Breast J. 2020 Feb.

Abstract

Adjunct magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for both screening high-risk patients and staging for patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer leads to an increased number of biopsies and increased detection of atypical lesions. We assessed whether the malignancy upgrade frequency for high-risk atypia identified via MRI-guided biopsies varied based on indication: high-risk screening vs staging for malignancy. Among 399 MRI-guided biopsies, 46 (11.5%) high-risk lesions (ADH, ALH, and LCIS) were identified. Surgical excision was performed on 37% of 46%, and 24.3% were upgraded to invasive malignancy or DCIS. Of lesions identified by staging MRI, a slightly higher percentage, 28.5%, were upgraded (P = .36). Our data suggest that surgeons should carefully consider excisional biopsy for atypia identified on MRI regardless of indication.

Keywords: breast MRI; breast atypia; breast malignancy; diagnostic imaging.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. Lee CH, Dershaw DD, Kopans D, et al. Breast cancer screening with imaging: recommendations from the society of breast imaging and the ACR on the use of mammography, breast MRI, breast ultrasound, and other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer. J Am Coll Radiol. 2010;7:18-27.
    1. Peters NHGM, Borel Rinkes IHM, Zuithoff NPA, Mali WPTM, Moons KGM, Peeters PHM. Meta-analysis of MR imaging in the diagnosis of breast lesions. Radiology. 2008;246:116-124.
    1. Bennani-Baiti B, Bennani-Baiti N, Baltzer PA. Diagnostic performance of breast magnetic resonance imaging in non-calcified equivocal breast findings: results from a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0160346.
    1. 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;57:75-89.
    1. Weinfurtner RJ, Patel B, Laronga C, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-guided core needle breast biopsies resulting in high-risk histopathologic findings: upstage frequency and lesion characteristics. Clin Breast Cancer. 2015;15:234-239.

LinkOut - more resources