Short-term Follow-up Recommendations after Preoperative Breast MR Assessment for Breast Cancer Diagnosis: Are We Lacking a Rational Basis?
2010; Radiological Society of North America; Volume: 257; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1148/radiol.10100175
ISSN1527-1315
Autores Tópico(s)Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
ResumoHomeRadiologyVol. 257, No. 1 PreviousNext Reviews and CommentaryEditorialsShort-term Follow-up Recommendations after Preoperative Breast MR Assessment for Breast Cancer Diagnosis: Are We Lacking a Rational Basis?R. James Brenner R. James Brenner Author AffiliationsFrom Bay Imaging Consultants, Carol Ann Read Breast Health Center, 3100 Summit St, Oakland, CA 94609.Address correspondence to the author (e-mail: [email protected]).R. James Brenner Published Online:Oct 1 2010https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10100175MoreSectionsFull textPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesCiteTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookXLinked In AbstractUnless clinical studies demonstrate previously unrecognized changes on serial MR imaging studies under such circumstances which likely are not based on the mechanisms of actions described earlier, the recommendation for short-term follow-up MR imaging after preoperative assessment should be reconsidered.References1 Brenner RJ, Sickles EA. Acceptability of periodic follow-up as an alternative to biopsy for mammographically detected lesions interpreted as probably benign. Radiology 1989;171(3):645–646. Link, Google Scholar2 Sickles EA. Management of probably benign breast lesions. Radiol Clin North Am 1995;33(6):1123–1130. Medline, Google Scholar3 Varas X, Leborgne JH, Leborgne F, Mezzera J, Jaumandreu S, Leborgne F. Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179(3):691–695. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar4 Vizcaíno I, Gadea L, Andreo L, et al.. Short-term follow-up results in 795 nonpalpable probably benign lesions detected at screening mammography. Radiology 2001;219(2):475–483. Link, Google Scholar5 Wallis MG, Lawrence G, Brenner RJ. Improving quality outcomes in a single-payer system: lessons learned from the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. J Am Coll Radiol 2008;5(6):737–743. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar6 Brenner RJ, Sickles EA. Surveillance mammography and stereotactic core breast biopsy for probably benign lesions: a cost comparison analysis. Acad Radiol 1997;4(6):419–425. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar7 Raza S, Chikarmane SA, Neilsen SS, Zorn LM, Birdwell RL. BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions: value of US in management—follow-up and outcome. Radiology 2008;248(3):773–781. Link, Google Scholar8 Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 2002;225(1):165–175. Link, Google Scholar9 Kaplan SS. Clinical utility of bilateral whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology 2001;221(3):641–649. Link, Google Scholar10 Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, et al.. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 2008;299(18):2151–2163. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar11 Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, et al.. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med 2004;351(5):427–437. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar12 Warner E, Plewes DB, Shumak RS, et al.. Comparison of breast magnetic resonance imaging, mammography, and ultrasound for surveillance of women at high risk for hereditary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001;19(15):3524–3531. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar13 Bluemke DA, Gatsonis CA, Chen MH, et al.. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast prior to biopsy. JAMA 2004;292(22):2735–2742. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar14 American College of Radiology. Breast imaging, reporting, and data system (BI-RADS) 4th ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2003. Google Scholar15 Kuhl CK, Schmutzler RK, Leutner CC, et al.. Breast MR imaging screening in 192 women proved or suspected to be carriers of a breast cancer susceptibility gene: preliminary results. Radiology 2000;215(1):267–279. Link, Google Scholar16 Veltman J, Mann R, Kok T, et al.. Breast tumor characteristics of BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers on MRI. Eur Radiol 2008;18(5):931–938. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar17 Eby PR, Demartini WB, Peacock S, Rosen EL, Lauro B, Lehman CD. Cancer yield of probably benign breast MR examinations. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007;26(4):950–955. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar18 Sadowski EA, Kelcz F. Frequency of malignancy in lesions classified as probably benign after dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI examination. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005;21(5):556–564. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar19 Liberman L, Morris EA, Benton CL, Abramson AF, Dershaw DD. Probably benign lesions at breast magnetic resonance imaging: preliminary experience in high-risk women. Cancer 2003;98(2):377–388. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar20 Eby PR, DeMartini WB, Gutierrez RL, Saini MH, Peacock S, Lehman CD. Characteristics of probably benign breast MRI lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193(3):861–867. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar21 Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al.. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin 2007;57(2):75–89. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar22 Houssami N, Ciatto S, Macaskill P, et al.. Accuracy and surgical impact of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging: systematic review and meta-analysis in detection of multifocal and multicentric cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008;26(19):3248–3258. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar23 Lehman CD, Gatsonis C, Kuhl CK, et al.. MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007;356(13):1295–1303. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar24 Hollingsworth AB, Stough RG, O’Dell CA, Brekke CE. Breast magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative locoregional staging. Am J Surg 2008;196(3):389–397. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar25 Tuli R, Christodouleas J, Roberts L, et al.. Prognostic indicators following ipsilateral tumor recurrence in patients treated with breast-conserving therapy. Am J Surg 2009;198(4):557–561. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar26 Kuhl CK, Bieling HB, Gieseke J, et al.. Healthy premenopausal breast parenchyma in dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast: normal contrast medium enhancement and cyclical-phase dependency. Radiology 1997;203(1):137–144. Link, Google Scholar27 Liberman L, Morris EA, Lee MJ, et al.. Breast lesions detected on MR imaging: features and positive predictive value. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179(1):171–178. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar28 Morakkabati N, Leutner CC, Schmiedel A, Schild HH, Kuhl CK. Breast MR imaging during or soon after radiation therapy. Radiology 2003;229(3):893–901. Link, Google Scholar29 Peters NH, Borel Rinkes IH, Zuithoff NP, Mali WP, Moons KG, Peeters PH. Meta-analysis of MR imaging in the diagnosis of breast lesions. Radiology 2008;246(1):116–124. Link, Google Scholar30 Lee JM, Kaplan JB, Murray MP, et al.. Imaging histologic discordance at MRI-guided 9-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189(4):852–859. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar31 Li J, Dershaw DD, Lee CH, Kaplan J, Morris EA. MRI follow-up after concordant, histologically benign diagnosis of breast lesions sampled by MRI-guided biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193(3):850–855. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar32 Hortobagyi GN. Treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1998;339(14):974–984. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar33 Sjöström J, Bergh J. How apoptosis is regulated, and what goes wrong in cancer. BMJ 2001;322(7301):1538–1539. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar34 Rosen LS. Inhibitors of the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 2002;16(5):1173–1187. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar35 Goldhirsch A, Ingle JN, Gelber RD, et al.. Thresholds for therapies: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2009. Ann Oncol 2009;20(8):1319–1329. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar36 Recht A, Come SE, Henderson IC, et al.. The sequencing of chemotherapy and radiation therapy after conservative surgery for early-stage breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1996;334(21):1356–1361. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar37 Ellerbroek NA. Sequencing of chemotherapy and radiation therapy in the treatment of early breast cancer: the devil is in the details. Radiology 1996;200(3):605–607. Link, Google Scholar38 Gilbert FJ, Warren RM, Kwan-Lim G, et al.. Cancers in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers and in women at high risk for breast cancer: MR imaging and mammographic features. Radiology 2009;252(2):358–368. Link, Google Scholar39 Fisher B, Anderson S, Bryant J, et al.. Twenty-year follow up of a randomized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002;347:1233–1241. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar40 Veronesi U, Cascinnelli N, Mariana L, et al.. Twenty-year follow up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002;347:1227–1232. Crossref, Medline, Google ScholarArticle HistoryReceived January 24, 2010; revision requested March 2; revision received March 27; accepted April 28; final version accepted May 11.Published online: Oct 2010Published in print: Oct 2010 FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByLow Compliance in a Health-Conscience Spending Era Likely Helps Obviates the Need for 6 month BI-RADS 3 Breast MRI Follow-up After 1 yearAndrewMosier, EshaGupta, DanaAtaya, KavitaBhatt, AliceRim2017 | The Breast Journal, Vol. 23, No. 5Aggressive Well Differentiated Invasive Ductal Carcinoma Twelve Years after Bilateral Mastectomies for Invasive Lobular CarcinomaFarhanKhan2017 | International Clinical Pathology Journal, Vol. 4, No. 6Background Parenchymal Enhancement at Breast MR Imaging and Breast Cancer RiskR.J.Brenner2012 | Breast Diseases: A Year Book Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 2Recommended Articles Performance Benchmarks for Screening Breast MR Imaging in Community PracticeRadiology2017Volume: 285Issue: 1pp. 44-52Mammographic Breast Density, Benign Breast Disease, and Subsequent Breast Cancer Risk in 3.9 Million Korean WomenRadiology2022Volume: 304Issue: 3pp. 534-541Evaluation of the Utility of Screening Mammography for High-Risk Women Undergoing Screening Breast MR ImagingRadiology2017Volume: 285Issue: 1pp. 36-43Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening for Breast Cancer: It Is Cost-effective!Radiology2020Volume: 297Issue: 1pp. 49-50Use of Screening Mammography to Detect Occult Malignancy in Autologous Breast Reconstructions: A 15-year ExperienceRadiology2018Volume: 289Issue: 1pp. 39-48See More RSNA Education Exhibits High Risk Breast Cancer Screening  Digital Posters2020Breast Health in the Elderly: Implications for ImagingDigital Posters2020Certifications, Audits, And National Benchmarks: Breaking Down The Basics For The New Mammography AttendingDigital Posters2021 RSNA Case Collection Multifocal breast cancerRSNA Case Collection2020Solitary breast plasmacytomaRSNA Case Collection2021Left breast hamartomaRSNA Case Collection2020 Vol. 257, No. 1 Metrics Altmetric Score PDF download
Referência(s)