Fat-suppressed three-dimensional MR imaging of the breast.

Harms, Steven E.; Flamig, Duane P.; Hesley, Kerri L.; Evans, W. Phil; Cheek, J. Harold; Peters, G.; Knox, Sally M.; Savino, Daniel A.; Netto, George J.; Wells, R. B.

doi:10.1148/radiographics.13.2.8460218

Cited by 74 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Harms et al [12] claimed that all types of breast cancer enhance, that enhancement of the tumor is always stronger compared with normal breast tissue, and that lack of enhancement indicates a benign lesion or normal tissue. Even pre-invasive lesions, such as DCIS and lob ular carcinoma in situ, showed stronger enhancement than normal glandular tissues in their series [12]. A c cording to Heywang-Köbrunner the absence of contrast enhancement excludes malignancy with a high probabil ity, but due to possible errors MR imaging is not used for differentiation of microcalcifications [13].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

False-negative MR imaging of malignant breast tumors

et al. 1997

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In this study we analyze MR-negative ma lignant lesions of the breast. A total of 204 patients with palpable and/or mammographie lesions were studied. The MR technique consisted of the turbo FLASH and MP-RAGE subtraction techniques. All patients underwent surgical biopsy and/or mastecto my and all specimens were examined by the correla tive radiologic-histologic mapping technique, A total of 208 lesions were evaluated; 145 turned out to be malignant and 63 proved to be benign. Six malignant lesions were misinterpreted as benign on MR imag ing; thus, suspicious contrast enhancement was pre sent in 96 % of the lesions detected by mammogra phy, US, or clinical examination. Especially 4 of the 17 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) lesions were mis interpreted (23.5 %). Despite optimal technique, 6 malignant lesions were not identified by MR imaging. The highest prevalence of these MR occult lesions was in the group of DCIS. Although MR imaging has an important role in the evaluation of breast le sions and, primarily, in ruling out malignancy, one should be aware of the fact that false-negative MR findings do occur.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Harms et al [12] reported on 57 patients with 42 ma lignancies, including all cases of DCIS, all showing sig nificantly more enhancement than the normal tissue; however, the subtype of DCIS was not mentioned.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

False-negative MR imaging of malignant breast tumors

et al. 1997

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, the demonstration by MR imaging of additional, undetected disease foci in 38% of breasts closely approximates the reported prevalence of "subclinical" disease that is reported in rigorous pathological analyses. RODEO imaging can equally detect invasive carcinoma as well as ductal carcinoma in situ [24][25][26][27][28][29]. The remarkable ability of MR imaging to detect tumor margins and extent of disease indicates its potential for successful imaging control during ILP [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29].…”

Section: Mr Imagingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The RODEO pulse sequence has accurately identified the cancers and margins in all cases [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25].…”

Section: Mr Imagingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Magnetic Resonance-Guided Interstitial Laser Photocoagulation for the Treatment of Breast Cancer

Harms¹

1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports. 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204. Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188). Washington, DC 20503.

show abstract

“…If the lesion is free silicone, the clinical management may range from follow-up to removal. IfMRI indicates tumor, the clinical management is biopsy and treatment (6)(7)(8).…”

Section: Silicone Implant Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%