Search

Breast MR imaging is the most sensitive imaging method for the detection of breast cancer and detects more aggressive malignancies than mammography and ultrasound examination. Despite these advantages, breast MR imaging has low use rates for breast cancer screening. Abbreviated breast MR imaging, in which a limited number of breast imaging sequences are obtained, has been proposed as a way to solve cost and patient tolerance issues while preserving the high cancer detection rate of breast MR imaging. This review discusses abbreviated breast MR imaging, including protocols, multicenter clinical trial results, clinical workflow implementation challenges, and future directions., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors state no relevant conflict of interest or financial disclosures., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Rationale and Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate breast lesion outcomes in patients after canceled MRI-guided breast biopsy due to lesion nonvisualization., Materials and Methods: Electronic medical records (January 2007-December 2014) were searched for patients with canceled magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided breast biopsies due to lesion nonvisualization. A total of 1403 MRI-detected lesions were scheduled for MRI-guided biopsy and 89 were canceled because of nonvisualization. Imaging studies and medical records were reviewed for patient demographics, lesion characteristics, and subsequent malignancy. Patients without adequate MRI follow-up imaging were excluded. Statistical analysis was employed to determine if patient demographics or lesion characteristics were predictive of lesion resolution or lesion biopsy after subsequent follow-up., Results: Eighty-nine (6.3% [89/1403]; 95% confidence interval, 5.2%-7.7%) biopsies in 89 women were canceled because of nonvisualization. Follow-up MRIs greater than 5.5 months were available for 60.7% (54/89) of women. In 74.1% (40/54) of these patients, the lesions completely resolved on follow-up. In 25.9% (14/54) of the patients, the lesion persisted on follow-up; 42.9% (6/14) of these patients underwent biopsy. One case (1.9% [1/54]) yielded ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion at the 6-month follow-up. No patient demographics or lesion features were associated with lesion resolution or lesion biopsy., Conclusions: The majority of canceled MRI-guided biopsy lesions resolved on later follow-up; however, because of the small possibility of a missed malignancy, follow-up MRI imaging at 6 months is recommended., (Copyright © 2018 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study was performed to determine the frequency, predictors, and outcomes of ultrasound (US) correlates for non-mass enhancement., Methods: From January 2005 to December 2011, a retrospective review of 5837 consecutive breast magnetic resonance imaging examinations at our institution identified 918 non-mass enhancing lesions for which follow-up or biopsy was recommended. Retrospective review of the images identified 879 of 918 lesions (96%) meeting criteria for non-mass enhancement. Patient demographics, pathologic results, and the presence of an adjacent landmark were recorded. Targeted US examinations were recommended for 331 of 879 cases (38%), and 284 of 331 women (86%) underwent US evaluations., Results: The US correlate rate for non-mass enhancement was 23% (64 of 284). An adjacent landmark was significantly associated with a US correlate (P < .001). Biopsy was recommended for 43 of 64 correlates (67%). Ultrasound-guided biopsy was performed on 39 of 43 (91%); 7 of 39 (18%) were malignant. No correlate was seen for 220 of 284 lesions (77%). At magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy, 14 of 117 (12%) were malignancies. For all biopsied non-mass enhancements, the malignancy rate was 18% (55 of 308) and was significantly more prevalent in the setting of a known index cancer (P < .001), older age (P < .001), the presence of a landmark (P = .002), and larger lesion size (P = .019)., Conclusions: Non-mass enhancement with an adjacent landmark is more likely to have a US correlate compared to non-mass enhancement without an adjacent landmark. Non-mass enhancement in the setting of a known index cancer, older age, a landmark, and larger lesion size is more likely to be malignant. However, no statistical difference was detected in the rate of malignancy between non-mass enhancement with (18%) or without (12%) a correlate. Absence of a correlate does not obviate the need to biopsy suspicious non-mass enhancement., (© 2017 by the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.)

Breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is the only breast imaging modality that consistently encompasses extramammary structures in the thorax and upper abdomen. Incidental extramammary findings on breast MR images of patients with a history of breast cancer or other malignancies are significantly more likely to be malignant and may affect staging and treatment. An understanding of the frequency, distribution, and context of extramammary findings on breast MR images and a familiarity with common and uncommon sites of breast cancer metastasis inform the differential diagnosis and prompt the appropriate diagnostic next step, to differentiate benign from malignant findings. High-yield organ systems on breast MR images, as reflected by a high positive predictive value for malignancy, are correlated with known distant sites of breast cancer metastasis in the bone, lung, liver, and lymph nodes. Staging is considered when disease involves the skin and chest wall. Unusual sites of breast cancer metastasis from invasive lobular carcinoma are discussed, including the gastrointestinal tract, peritoneum, and adrenal glands. Nonmalignant clinically important findings involving the cardiovascular and gastrointestinal systems are reviewed, and potential pitfalls in diagnosis and interpretation are highlighted. A consistently systematic diagnostic approach is emphasized for identifying extramammary abnormalities on breast MR images. All things considered, the radiologist should be able to improve diagnostic sensitivity and specificity while interpreting extramammary findings on breast MR images. © RSNA, 2017.

Breast MRI is more sensitive than mammography in detecting breast cancer. However, MRI as a screening tool is limited to high-risk patients due to cost, low specificity and insufficient evidence for its use in intermediate-risk populations. Nonetheless, in the past decade, there has been a dramatic increase in the use of breast-screening MRI in the community setting. In this review, we set to describe the current literature on the use of screening MRI in high- and intermediate-risk populations. We will also describe novel applications of breast MRI including abbreviated breast MRI protocols, background parenchymal enhancement and diffusion-weighted imaging.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of MRI of the breast in cases in which mammographic or sonographic findings are inconclusive., Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed images from 115 MRI examinations of the breast performed from 1999 to 2005 for the indication of problem-solving for inconclusive findings on a mammogram. Forty-eight of the 115 women (41.8%) were at high risk. We discerned whether sonography or MRI was used as an adjunctive tool and correlated the findings with those in the pathology database., Results: The equivocal findings most frequently leading to MRI were asymmetry and architectural distortion. No suspicious MRI correlate was found in 100 of 115 cases (87%). These cases were found stable at follow-up mammography or MRI after a mean of 34 months. Fifteen enhancing masses (13%) that corresponded to the mammographic abnormality were seen on MR images. All masses identified at MRI were accurately localized for biopsy, and six malignant lesions were identified. Four of six malignant tumors were seen in one mammographic view only; two were seen on second-look ultrasound images. MRI had a sensitivity of 100% and compared with mammography had significantly higher specificity (91.7% vs 80.7%, p = 0.029), positive predictive value (40% vs 8.7%, p = 0.032), and overall accuracy (92.2% vs 78.3%, p = 0.0052). Eighteen incidental lesions (15.7%) were detected at MRI, and all were subsequently found benign., Conclusion: We found breast MRI to be a useful adjunctive tool when findings at conventional imaging were equivocal. Strict patient selection criteria should be used because of the high frequency of incidental lesions seen on MR images.