A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

The Value of Second-look Ultrasound and Mammography for Assessment and Biopsy of MRI-detected Breast Lesions. | LitMetric

The Value of Second-look Ultrasound and Mammography for Assessment and Biopsy of MRI-detected Breast Lesions.

Acad Radiol

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Würzburg, Oberdürrbacher Straße 6, 97080 Würzburg, Germany (S.T.S., J.G., S.A.C., J.F.H., T.A.B., J-P.G.); Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 600 Highland Ave, 53792 Madison, WI (L.M., J.F.H., J-P.G.). Electronic address:

Published: November 2024

Rationale And Objectives: Suspicious lesions detected in multiparametric breast MRI can be further analyzed with second-look ultrasound (SLUS) and/or mammography. This study aims to assess the value of second-look imaging in selecting the appropriate biopsy method for different lesion characteristics.

Materials And Methods: Between January 2021 and December 2023, 212 women underwent contrast-enhanced multiparametric breast MRI at 3 Tesla. A total of 241 suspicious lesions (108 malignancies, 44.8%) were further assessed with SLUS and second-look mammography. Subsequent image-guided biopsy of each lesion was performed using the most suitable modality. Size-dependent lesion detection rates in SLUS and mammography were compared by means of the McNemar test.

Results: Lesions referred to MRI-guided biopsy were predominantly ≤ 10 mm in size (52.8%). SLUS allowed for higher detection rates than mammography in mass lesions (55.6% [95% confidence interval 46.4-64.4%] versus 16.7% [10.6-24.3%]; p < 0.001) with a particularly high sensitivity for malignant mass lesions > 10 mm (88.5% [69.9-97.6%]). In contrast, the detection rate for malignant non-mass lesions was lower in SLUS than in second-look mammography (22.0% [11.5-36.0%] versus 38.0% [24.7-52.8%]; p < 0.001). The malignancy rates in ultrasound-, mammography-, and MRI-guided biopsies were 53.7%, 55.2%, and 35.0%, respectively.

Conclusion: SLUS is an excellent tool for further assessment and biopsy of suspicious mass lesions > 10 mm without associated calcifications. In contrast, supplemental ultrasound is of limited value in the evaluation and biopsy guidance of suspicious non-mass lesions compared to second-look mammography.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2024.10.037DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

second-look mammography
12
second-look ultrasound
8
suspicious lesions
8
multiparametric breast
8
breast mri
8
slus second-look
8
detection rates
8
non-mass lesions
8
mammography
7
lesions
7

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!