Breast MR imaging with commercially available techniques: radiologic-pathologic correlation.

Fobben, Edward S.; Rubin, C.; Kalisher, Lester; Dembner, Alan G.; Seltzer, Murray H.; Santoro, Elizabeth

doi:10.1148/radiology.196.1.7784558

Cited by 98 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, many of these lesions were multicentric in presentation. Fobben et al detected similar numbers of cancers with mammography and MRI [9]. Heywang-Ko È brunner detected 27 of the 70 cancers in 525 ªproblem casesº only with MRI [3].…”

Section: Sensitivity Of Enhanced Mri For Detection Of Breast Cancermentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensitivity of enhanced MRI for the detection of breast cancer: new, multicentric, residual, and recurrent

Davis

McCarty

1997

Eur Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast brings the advantages of high resolution cross-sectional imaging to breast cancer diagnosis, treatment and research: improved cancer detection, staging, selection of therapy, evaluation of therapeutic response in vivo, detection of recurrence, and even the development of new therapies. Until now breast cancer treatment and research has been impeded by the limited means of evaluating the breast cancer in vivo: primarily clinical palpation and mammography of the breast tumor. A review of the initial studies shows that with the use of paramagnetic contrast agents, MRI has a sensitivity of 96 % for detecting breast cancers. MRI detects multicentric disease with a sensitivity of 98 %, superior to any other modality. The ability of MRI to detect recurrent local breast cancer in the conservatively treated breast is nearly 100 %. MRI is capable of monitoring tumor response to chemotherapy and actually guiding therapeutic interventions such as interstitial laser photocoagulation.

show abstract

Section: Sensitivity Of Enhanced Mri For Detection Of Breast Cancermentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensitivity of enhanced MRI for the detection of breast cancer: new, multicentric, residual, and recurrent

Davis

McCarty

1997

Eur Radiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…No report on item 11 and item 14 was found in six studies (Fenlon et al 1997;Fischer et al 1999;Alamo et al 2001;Goerres et al 2003;Sardanelli et al 2005;Woodhams et al 2010) and two studies (Fobben et al 1995;Stomper et al 1995) respectively. No report on item 12 was found in six studies (Fobben et al 1995;Fenlon et al 1997;Fischer et al 1999;Alamo et al 2001;Goerres et al 2003;Woodhams et al 2010) and results of "no" in seven studies (Kawashima et al 2001;Knopp et al 2003;Pediconi et al 2005;Sardanelli et al 2005;Kneeshaw et al 2006;Pediconi et al 2008;Martincich et al 2011). The methodological quality of the included trials is shown comprehensively in Table 3.…”

Section: Methodological Quality Of Studiesmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Because the dosage unit of contrast media can't be translated, that is to say, the absolute difference on dosage among these studies is unknown, 2 articles were rejected. 17 studies (Fobben et al, 1995;Stomper et al, 1995;Fenlon et al, 1997;Helbich et al, 1997;Fischer et al, 1999;Alamo et al, 2001;Kawashima et al, 2001;Goerres et al, 2003;Knopp et al, 2003;Pediconi et al, 2005;Sardanelli et al, 2005;Kneeshaw et al, 2006;Pediconi et al, 2007;Pediconi et al, 2008;Woodhams et al, 2010;Luciani et al, 2011;Martincich et al, 2011) with 1934 patients were included based on the inclusion criteria and the data integrity.…”

Section: Literature Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Four references (Knopp et al 2003;Pediconi et al 2005;Pediconi et al 2008;Martincich et al 2011) reported available data on these two agents. Three references (Sardanelli et al 2005;Pediconi et al 2007;Luciani et al 2011) only reported relevant data on gadobenate dimeglumine, and ten studies (Fobben et al 1995;Stomper et al 1995;Fenlon et al 1997;Helbich et Table 2…”

Section: Description Of Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of Gadobenate Dimeglumine and Gadopentetate Dimeglumine for Breast MRI Screening: a Meta-analysis

Yang¹,

Han²,

Ye³

et al. 2014

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has a sensitivity in the diagnosis of carcinoma of 86-96% 11,12 and some series of studies have shown sensitivity for DCIS detection using this method ranging from 20 to 95%. [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] Due to the wide variation observed in sensitivity rates, demonstrating the most common presentations of this condition in Brazilian patients derived from a screening program in a Teaching Hospital is justified.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: Evaluation of main presentations on magnetic resonance imaging compared with findings on mammogram and histology

Badan¹,

Júnior²,

Paito³

et al. 2016

Rev. Assoc. Med. Bras.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: evaluation of main presentations on magnetic resonance imaging compareD with finDings on mammogram anD histology rev Assoc MeD brAs 2016; 62 (5) Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the various morphologies and kinetic characteristics of the ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) on breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) exam, to establish which are the most prevalent and to determine the effectiveness of the method in the detection of DCIS.Method: A prospective observational study, starting in May 2014. We evaluated 25 consecutive patients with suspicious or highly suspicious microcalcifications on mammography screening, BI-RADS categories 4 and 5, who underwent breast MRI and then surgery with proven diagnosis of pure DCIS. Surgery was considered the gold standard for correlation between histologic findings and radiological findings obtained on MRI. Results:The most frequent morphological characteristic of DCIS on MRI was non-mass-like enhancement (NMLE), p<0.001, observed in 22/25 (88%) patients (95CI 72.5-100). Of these, segmental distribution was the most prevalent, represented by 9/22 (40.91%) cases (95CI 17.4-64.4), p=0.306, and a clumped internal enhancement pattern was most commonly characterized in DCIS, observed in 13/22 (50.09%) cases. Conclusion: DCIS has a wide variety of imaging features on MRI and being able to recognize these lesions is crucial. Its most common morphological presentation is non-mass-like enhancement, while segmental distribution and a clumped internal enhancement pattern are the most common presentations. Faced with the combined analysis of these findings, percutaneous core needle biopsy (core biopsy) or vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB) should be encouraged.

show abstract

Breast MR imaging with commercially available techniques: radiologic-pathologic correlation.

Abstract: Breast MR imaging is a slightly more sensitive modality than mammography but not a highly specific technique for evaluating breast lesions. It has utility in several clinical situations but should not be used as a substitute for biopsy or general screening.

Cited by 98 publications

References 0 publications

Sensitivity of enhanced MRI for the detection of breast cancer: new, multicentric, residual, and recurrent

Sensitivity of enhanced MRI for the detection of breast cancer: new, multicentric, residual, and recurrent

Comparison of Gadobenate Dimeglumine and Gadopentetate Dimeglumine for Breast MRI Screening: a Meta-analysis

Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: Evaluation of main presentations on magnetic resonance imaging compared with findings on mammogram and histology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About