Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2001
Three-dimensional MR imaging of mammographically detected suspicious microcalcifications.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Nakahara H, Namba K, Fukami A, Watanabe R, Maeda Y, Furusawa H, Matsu T, Akiyama F, Nakagawa H, Ifuku H, Nakahara M, Tamura S
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic value and clinical significance of three-dimensional MR imaging of the breast in patients with mammographically detected suspicious microcalcifications.
METHODS: Forty patients with suspicious microcalcifications on mammography were evaluated with three-dimensional MR imaging. MR findings were grouped mainly by distribution of abnormal enhancement (linear, focal-clumped, segmental-clumped, segmental-stippled and diffuse-stippled). These findings were compared with the mammography findings according to the criteria of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) and histopathologic data.
RESULTS: Twenty patients had proven malignancies, most frequently ductal carcinoma in situ. For all the cases, linear (100%) and segmental-clumped type (100%) enhancement on MR imaging showed a significantly higher risk for malignancy. Diffuse stippled type (7%) and no enhancement (0%) on MR imaging indicated the lowest possibility of malignancy. 3D-MR imaging showed a sensitivity of 90%, a specificity of 95% and an overall accuracy of 93% in this study.
CONCLUSIONS: Three-dimensional MR imaging of the breast can more accurately diagnose ductal carcinoma in situ. Combined with mammography, this procedure is useful for reducing the number of false-positive biopsies and helpful for deciding the better management of patients with mammographically detected suspicious microcalcifications.
METHODS: Forty patients with suspicious microcalcifications on mammography were evaluated with three-dimensional MR imaging. MR findings were grouped mainly by distribution of abnormal enhancement (linear, focal-clumped, segmental-clumped, segmental-stippled and diffuse-stippled). These findings were compared with the mammography findings according to the criteria of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) and histopathologic data.
RESULTS: Twenty patients had proven malignancies, most frequently ductal carcinoma in situ. For all the cases, linear (100%) and segmental-clumped type (100%) enhancement on MR imaging showed a significantly higher risk for malignancy. Diffuse stippled type (7%) and no enhancement (0%) on MR imaging indicated the lowest possibility of malignancy. 3D-MR imaging showed a sensitivity of 90%, a specificity of 95% and an overall accuracy of 93% in this study.
CONCLUSIONS: Three-dimensional MR imaging of the breast can more accurately diagnose ductal carcinoma in situ. Combined with mammography, this procedure is useful for reducing the number of false-positive biopsies and helpful for deciding the better management of patients with mammographically detected suspicious microcalcifications.