Breast MR biopsy: Pathological and radiological correlation
- 527 Downloads
To identify pathological features for sample analysis of magnetic resonance imaging-guided vaccum-assisted breast biopsy (MRIgVaBB) to optimize radio pathological correlation and identify discordant benign result.
Material and methods
Databases of two centres were queried to identify MRIgVaBB performed between January 2009 and February 2013. A cohort of 197 women (mean age: 54.5 years (24-77)) with 208 lesions was identified. We retrospectively analyzed all prebiopsy MRI examinations according to the new BI-RADS lexicon, and all biopsy samples to describe the lesion of interest, its interface with the surrounding breast tissue and other associated features.
The malignancy rate was 26.0 % (54/208) with an underestimation rate of 15.67 % (5/32). A visible interface at pathology between a biopsied lesion and the surrounding breast tissue was more frequently identified in mass enhancement compared to NME or focus (p = 0.0003). Regional NME was correlated with a high degree of fibrosis (p = 0.001) and the presence of PASH (p = 0.0007). Linear or segmental NME was correlated with the presence of periductal mastitis (p = 0.0003).
The description of a visible interface between the target lesion and the surrounding tissue is crucial to confirm the correct targeting of an MR mass or a NME.
• Pathological interface correlated with magnetic resonance mass and focal non-mass enhancement (NME).
• Linear or segmental NME correlated with mastitis or ductal carcinoma in situ.
• Fibrosis and pseudoangiomatous stromal hyperplasia (PASH) are correlated with regional NME.
KeywordsMagnetic Resonance Imaging Pathology Biopsy Neoplasms Breast
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Isabelle Thomassin-Naggara.
Isabelle Thomassin-Naggara declares a relationship with two companies: General Electric (Honoraries for speaking, travel congress payment) and Olea Medical (Consulting). These relationships have no influence on the design or any result of this article. The other authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. One of the authors has significant statistical expertise. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was not required for this study because our institutional ethics committees approved the study and granted a waiver of informed consent. Methodology: retrospective, observational, multicenter study.
- 14.Morris EA, Cornstock CE, Lee CH (2013) ACR BI-RADS Magnetic Resonance Imaging. In: ACR BI-RADS Atlas, Breast Imaging REporting and Data System, 5th ed. American College of Radiology, RestonGoogle Scholar
- 15.Lakhani SR, Schnitt SJ, Hoon Tan P, van de Vijver MJ (2011) WHO classification of Tumours of the breast. SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
- 19.Thomassin-Naggara I, Trop I, Chopier J, et al. (2011) Nonmasslike enhancement at breast MR imaging: the added value of mammography and US for lesion categorizationGoogle Scholar