Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, University of Virginia Health System, 1215 Lee St, Charlottesville, VA 22903.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2023 Feb;220(2):202-211. doi: 10.2214/AJR.22.28055. Epub 2022 Aug 24.
Suspicious lesions detected on contrast-enhanced breast MRI often undergo targeted ultrasound evaluation to determine whether they are amenable to ultrasound-guided biopsy. The purpose of this study is to assess the utility of MRI-directed contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) performed for biopsy planning for suspicious MRI-detected breast lesions and to compare its use with that of MRI-directed ultrasound. This retrospective study included 120 patients (median age, 50.3 years) who underwent MRI-directed CEM from September 2014 to July 2020 for biopsy planning for a total of 140 suspicious breast MRI lesions; 109 lesions were also evaluated by MRI-directed ultrasound at the same visit. The reference standard was histopathology or at least 2 years of imaging follow-up for benign lesions. Rates of detecting a correlate for the MRI lesion, among all lesions and among malignant lesions, were compared between MRI-directed CEM, MRI-directed ultrasound, and combined MRI-directed CEM and ultrasound (i.e., with the correlate detected on either modality), by use of the McNemar test. The frequencies with which imaging modalities were used for biopsy guidance after MRI-directed imaging were determined. Twenty-three of 109 lesions were malignant. The lesion detection rate was higher for MRI-directed CEM than for MRI-directed ultrasound (69.7% [76/109] vs 45.9% [50/109]; < .001) and higher for combined MRI-directed CEM and ultrasound (77.1% [84/109]) than for either MRI-directed CEM ( = .008) or MRI-directed ultrasound ( < .001). The rate of detection of malignant lesions was not significantly different between MRI-directed CEM and MRI-directed ultrasound (95.7% [22/23] vs 78.3% [18/23]; = .13). A total of 31.2% (34/109) of lesions were seen on MRI-directed CEM only, and 7.3% (8/109) were seen on MRI-directed ultrasound only. A total of 17.4% (4/23) of malignant lesions were seen on MRI-directed CEM only, and none were seen on MRI-directed ultrasound only. Among lesions recommended for biopsy, stereotactic- or tomosynthesis-guided biopsy was recommended for 25.2% (26/103), ultrasound-guided biopsy for 35.9% (37/103), and MRI-guided biopsy for 38.8% (40/103). MRI-directed CEM detects a higher fraction of suspicious MRI lesions than does MRI-directed ultrasound. Combined MRI-directed CEM and ultrasound detects a higher fraction than either method does individually. MRI-directed CEM may be a useful alternate or complementary tool to MRI-directed ultrasound in biopsy planning for suspicious MRI lesions, facilitating the use of biopsy guidance methods other than MRI guidance.
在对比增强乳腺 MRI 上检测到的可疑病变通常需要进行靶向超声评估,以确定其是否适合超声引导活检。本研究的目的是评估 MRI 引导对比增强乳房 X 线摄影术(CEM)在可疑 MRI 检测到的乳腺病变活检计划中的应用,并比较其与 MRI 引导超声的应用。这项回顾性研究纳入了 120 名患者(中位年龄 50.3 岁),他们在 2014 年 9 月至 2020 年 7 月期间因可疑乳腺 MRI 病变接受了 MRI 引导 CEM 检查,用于总共 140 个可疑乳腺 MRI 病变的活检计划;在同一就诊时,109 个病变还接受了 MRI 引导超声检查。参考标准是组织病理学检查,或对良性病变进行至少 2 年的影像学随访。使用 McNemar 检验比较 MRI 引导 CEM、MRI 引导超声和 MRI 引导 CEM 和超声联合(即两种方式均能检测到 MRI 病变的相关性)在所有病变和恶性病变中检测到 MRI 病变相关性的检出率。确定 MRI 引导成像后用于活检引导的影像学方法的使用频率。109 个病变中有 23 个为恶性。MRI 引导 CEM 的病变检出率高于 MRI 引导超声(69.7%[76/109]比 45.9%[50/109];<.001),也高于 MRI 引导 CEM 和超声联合(77.1%[84/109])比 MRI 引导 CEM(=0.008)或 MRI 引导超声(<.001)。MRI 引导 CEM 和 MRI 引导超声检测恶性病变的检出率无显著差异(95.7%[22/23]比 78.3%[18/23];=0.13)。MRI 引导 CEM 仅可见 31.2%(34/109)的病变,MRI 引导超声仅可见 7.3%(8/109)的病变。MRI 引导 CEM 仅可见 17.4%(4/23)的恶性病变,而 MRI 引导超声未见。在推荐活检的病变中,立体定向或断层合成引导活检推荐率为 25.2%(26/103),超声引导活检为 35.9%(37/103),MRI 引导活检为 38.8%(40/103)。MRI 引导 CEM 比 MRI 引导超声检测到更多的可疑 MRI 病变。MRI 引导 CEM 和超声联合检测到的病变比任何一种方法单独检测到的病变都多。MRI 引导 CEM 可能是 MRI 引导可疑 MRI 病变活检计划中 MRI 引导超声的有用替代或补充工具,有助于使用除 MRI 引导以外的活检引导方法。