RoFo : Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin · 1997
[Doubtful mammographic findings: the value of negative MR mammography for tumor exclusion].
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Rieber A, Merkle E, Zeitler H, Adler S, Kreienberg R, Brambs H J, Tomczak R
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To determine whether the addition of MR mammography (MRM) is useful in excluding malignant lesions and how reliable negative MRM findings are.
METHODS: Amongst 694 MRM's, those originally regarded as normal were retrospectively reappraised. 239 female patients were involved. In all these patients there were clinical, sonographic and/or mammographic findings which were not entirely normal but there was no urgent indication for histological clarification. In 46 patients there were, however, histological examinations since the patients themselves insisted on it. In the remaining patients there was clinical, sonographic, mammographic and/or MRM follow-up after 12 to 18 months.
RESULTS: In 95.4% (200/239) a carcinoma could be excluded by means of MRM, in 7 patients a carcinoma in situ and in two patients an invasive carcinoma was demonstrated histologically which had not been demonstrated by MRM. Even in retrospect, no abnormality could be found.
CONCLUSION: Because of the only moderate sensitivity of MRM in the recognition of carcinoma in situ, doubtful lesions which can be localised, should be biopsied by a stereotactic method. In cases where evaluation is difficult on clinical, sonographic and mammographic findings, MRM is of value in excluding tumours, particularly in patients with increased carcinoma risk.
METHODS: Amongst 694 MRM's, those originally regarded as normal were retrospectively reappraised. 239 female patients were involved. In all these patients there were clinical, sonographic and/or mammographic findings which were not entirely normal but there was no urgent indication for histological clarification. In 46 patients there were, however, histological examinations since the patients themselves insisted on it. In the remaining patients there was clinical, sonographic, mammographic and/or MRM follow-up after 12 to 18 months.
RESULTS: In 95.4% (200/239) a carcinoma could be excluded by means of MRM, in 7 patients a carcinoma in situ and in two patients an invasive carcinoma was demonstrated histologically which had not been demonstrated by MRM. Even in retrospect, no abnormality could be found.
CONCLUSION: Because of the only moderate sensitivity of MRM in the recognition of carcinoma in situ, doubtful lesions which can be localised, should be biopsied by a stereotactic method. In cases where evaluation is difficult on clinical, sonographic and mammographic findings, MRM is of value in excluding tumours, particularly in patients with increased carcinoma risk.