European Radiology

, Volume 27, Issue 12, pp 5196–5203 | Cite as

Post-clip placement MRI following second-look US-guided core biopsy for suspicious lesions identified on breast MRI

  • Sung Eun Song
  • Nariya Cho
  • Wonshik Han



To evaluate whether the post-clip placement MRI following second-look ultrasound (US)-guided core biopsy is useful to confirm the adequate sampling of suspicious lesions identified on breast MRI.


Between 2014 and 2016, 31 consecutive women with 34 suspicious lesions that had not been identified on previous mammography or US were detected using MRI. Among them, 26 women with 29 lesions (mean size 1.5 cm, range 0.5–5.8 cm) found by second-look US underwent US-guided biopsy, subsequent clip insertion and post-clip placement MRI. Five women with five lesions that were not found by second-look US underwent MRI-guided biopsy. The technical success rate and lesion characteristics were described.


The technical success rate was 96.6% (28/29). One failure case was a benign, 1.1-cm non-mass enhancement. Of the 28 success cases, 23 (82.1%) were masses and 5 (17.9%) were non-mass enhancements; 17 (60.7%) were benign, 4 (14.3%) were high-risk and 7 (25.0%) were malignant lesions. The technical success rate was 100% (28/28) for masses and 83.3% (5/6) for non-mass enhancements.


Post-clip placement MRI following US-guided biopsy is useful in confirming the adequate sampling of lesions identified on MRI. This method could be an alternative to MRI-guided biopsy for lesions visible on US.

Key points

Post-clip MRI is useful for confirming adequate sampling of US-guided biopsy.

Post-clip MRI following US-guided biopsy revealed a 96.6 % technical success rate.

One technical failure case was a benign, 1.1-cm non-mass enhancement.

The technical success rate of US-guided biopsy for non-mass enhancements was 83.3 %.


Breast cancer Magnetic resonance imaging Image-guided biopsy Ultrasonography Clips 


Compliance with ethical standards


The scientific guarantor of this publication is Nariya Cho.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.


This study has received funding by a grant (no. 04-2015-0240) from the Seoul National University Hospital Research Fund.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the institutional review board.

Ethical approval

Institutional review board approval was obtained.


• retrospective

• observational

• performed at one institution


  1. 1.
    Morris EA (2007) Diagnostic breast MR imaging: current status and future directions. Radiol Clin North Am 45:863–880CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Orel S (2008) Who should have breast magnetic resonance imaging evaluation? J Clin Oncol 10:703–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baltzer PA, Benndorf M, Dietzel M, Gajda M, Runnebaum IB, Kaiser WA (2010) False positive findings at contrast-enhanced breast MRI: a BI-RADS descriptor study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:1658–1663CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sardanelli F, Boetes C, Borisch B et al (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer 46:1296–1316CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Perlet C, Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Heinig A et al (2006) Magnetic resonance-guided, vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: result from a European multicenter study of 538 lesions. Cancer 106:982–990CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aracava MM, Chojniak R, Souza JA, Bitencourt AG, Marques EF (2014) Identification of occult breast lesions detected by magnetic resonance imaging with targeted ultrasound: a prospective study. Eur J Radiol 83:516–519CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mahoney MC, Newell MS (2013) Breast intervention: how I do it. Radiology 268:12–24CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Demartini WB, Eby PR, Peacock S, Lehman CD (2009) Utility of targeted sonography for breast lesions that were suspicious on MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:1128–1134CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cho N, Moon WK, Cha JH, Kim SM, Jang M, Chang JM et al (2009) Ultrasound-guided vacuum-assisted biopsy of microcalcifications detected at screening mammography. Acta Radiol 50:602–609CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hong MJ, Cha JH, Kim HH, Shin HJ, Chae EY, Shin JE et al (2015) Second-look ultrasonography for MRI-detected suspicious breast lesions in patients with breast cancer. Ultrasonography 34:125–132CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meissnitzer M, Dershaw DD, Lee CH, Morris EA (2009) Targeted ultrasound of the breast in women with abnormal MRI findings for whom biopsy has been recommended. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:1025–1029CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Spick C, Baltzer PA (2014) Diagnostic utility of second-look US for breast lesions identified at MR imaging: systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology 273:401–409CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Uematsu T, Takahashi K, Nishimura S et al (2016) Real-time virtual sonography examination and biopsy for suspicious breast lesions identified on MRI alone. Eur Radiol 26:1064–1072CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Park VY, Kim MJ, Kim EK et al (2013) Second-look US: how to find breast lesions with a suspicious MR imaging appearance. Radiographics 33:1361–1375CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Abe H, Schmidt RA, Shah RN et al (2010) MR-directed (“second-look”) ultrasound examination for breast lesions detected initially on MRI: MR and sonographic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:370–377CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Morris EA, Comstock CE, Lee CH et al (2013) ACR BI-RADS Magnetic resonance imaging. In: ACR BI-RADS® atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. American College of Radiology, RestonGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Telegrafo M, Rella L, Stabile Ianora AA et al (2016) Supine breast US: how to correlate breast lesions from prone MRI. Br J Radiol 89:20150497Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Uematsu T (2007) Commercially available titanium clip placement following a sonographically guided core needle biopsy of the breast. Breast J 13:624–626CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Youk JH, Kim EK, Kim MJ et al (2008) Sonographically guided 14-gauge core needle biopsy of breast masses: a review of 2,420 cases with long-term follow-up. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190:202–207CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Eby PR, Ochsner JE, DeMartini WB et al (2009) Frequency and upgrade rates of atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: 9- versus 11-gauge. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:229–234CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Heller SL, Elias K, Gupta A et al (2014) Outcome of high-risk lesions at MRI-guided 9-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:237–245CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologySeoul National University HospitalSeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyKorea University Anam Hospital, Korea University College of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Department of RadiologySeoul National University College of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea
  4. 4.Institute of Radiation MedicineSeoul National University Medical Research CentreSeoulRepublic of Korea
  5. 5.Department of SurgerySeoul National University HospitalSeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations