Background
Background: Benign breast lesions are the most common diseases in adult women, which have been treated with minimally invasive therapies in recent years. Little is known about the feasibility of Microwave ablation (MWA) for benign breast lesion treatment. The primary aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the safety and efficiency of MWA as a potential therapeutic option for benign breast lesions in a single-center cohort study.
Methods
Women with possibly benign breast lesions based on an ultrasound (US) assessment who were scheduled to undergo MWA between November 2014 to July 2018 were included in the study. The patients underwent conventional US to measure the size of the lesion, Doppler US to assess the vascularity of the lesion, elastography to evaluate the stiffness of the mass, core needle biopsy of suspicious lesions, contrast-enhanced US to help determine the treatment plan and eventually MWA of the lesion. Lesions were followed at one, three, six, twelve and eighteen months after treatment to with the same imaging modalities.
Results
A total of 314 women aged 17 to 69 years old (mea
n
= 36.9 ± 9.9 years) with 725 benign breast lesions (mean of maximum diameter = 10.86 ± 5.40 mm) were included. The frequency of palpable mass, pain and nipple discharge significantly decreased after treatment. Complete ablation rate was 97.8%, immediately after ablation, which increased to 100% after supplementary ablation of the 15 cases with incomplete ablation. Blood flow classification and lesion’s volume also showed a significant decrease, while both volume reduction ratio and disappearance rate significantly increased following treatment. The elasticity score of the lesions showed fluctuations across different follow-up intervals. None of the patients experienced major complications and the 1% who had mild symptoms were successfully treated.
Conclusion
MWA treatment is shown to be safe and efficient and has the potential to be considered as an alternative first line treatment for benign breast lesions.
PurposeFor men suspected of having prostate cancer (PCa), the transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided systematic biopsy (SB) was performed. MRI/TRUS fusion guided-targeted biopsy (MRI-TB) could enhance PCa detection, allowing sampling of sites at higher risk which were not obvious with TRUS alone. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the detection rates of prostate cancer by MRI-TB or MRI-TB plus SB versus SB, mainly for diagnosis of high-risk PCa.MethodsA literature Search was performed on PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases. We searched from inception of the databases up to January 2021.ResultsA total of 5831 patients from 26 studies were included in the present meta-analysis. Compared to traditional TRUS-guided biopsy, MRI-TB had a significantly higher detection rate of clinically significant PCa (RR=1.27; 95%CI 1.15-1.40; p<0.001) and high-risk PCa (RR=1.41; 95% CI 1.22-1.64; p<0.001), while the detection rate of clinically insignificant PCa was lower (RR=0.65; 95%CI 0.55-0.77; p<0.001). MRI-TB and SB did not significantly differ in the detection of overall prostate cancer (RR=1.04; 95%CI 0.95-1.12; p=0.41). Compared with SB alone, we found that MRI-TB plus SB diagnosed more cases of overall, clinically significant and high-risk PCa (p<0.001).ConclusionCompared with systematic protocols, MRI-TB detects more clinically significant and high-risk PCa cases, and fewer clinically insignificant PCa cases. MRI-TB combined with SB enhances PCa detection in contrast with either alone but did not reduce the diagnosis rate of clinically insignificant PCa.Systematic Review Registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#searchadvanced, CRD42021218475.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.