PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Constance D Lehman

Publications and source records attributed to Constance D Lehman.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Role of MRI in screening women at high risk for breast cancer.

Breast cancer is diagnosed in over one million women worldwide every year. Until breast cancer can be prevented, early detection offers the best chance for cure. Mammographic screening is an effective method for early detection in average-risk women. However, the sensitivity of mammography is decreased in women at high risk for breast cancer. Because of its high sensitivity, multiple investigators have studied the potential role of MRI in screening women at high risk. In the past few years, results from eight major clinical trials exploring breast MRI as a screening tool have been published. Combined, the studies included 4271 patients and found 144 breast cancers detected by MRI, for an overall cancer yield of 3%. The sensitivity of MRI ranged from 71% to 100% across the studies. Although its reported specificity was variable, the call-back rates and risk of benign biopsies were within acceptable limits. In general, patients who underwent breast MRI screening had a 10% risk of being called back, and a 5% risk of having a benign biopsy. This work reviews the literature and current practices and recommendations for MRI as a screening tool for high-risk women.

Breast Neoplasms↗
PubMed2006

Screening MRI for women at high risk for breast cancer.

Recognition of the limitations of mammography in screening women at high risk for breast cancer stimulated clinical trials to evaluate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as an adjunct to mammography. Based on the results of these trials, there is increased interest in offering screening MRI to high-risk women after discussion of the potential benefits and risks. The benefits include increased cancer detection with MRI and significantly more cancers detected prior to nodal metastases. The risks include false-positive exams, which lead to additional imaging and/or benign biopsies. This article will review the findings from published clinical trials and provide guidelines for implementation of an MRI screening program.

Biopsy↗
PubMed2006

Performance benchmarks for screening mammography.

PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate the range of performance outcomes of the radiologist in an audit of screening mammography by using a representative sample of U.S. radiologists to allow development of performance benchmarks for screening mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval was obtained, and study was HIPAA compliant. Informed consent was or was not obtained according to institutional review board guidelines. Data from 188 mammographic facilities and 807 radiologists obtained between 1996 and 2002 were analyzed from six registries from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC). Contributed data included demographic information, clinical findings, mammographic interpretation, and biopsy results. Measurements calculated were positive predictive values (PPVs) from screening mammography (PPV(1)), biopsy recommendation (PPV(2)), biopsy performed (PPV(3)), recall rate, cancer detection rate, mean cancer size, and cancer stage. Radiologist performance data are presented as 50th (median), 10th, 25th, 75th, and 90th percentiles and as graphic presentations by using smoothed curves. RESULTS: There were 2 580 151 screening mammographic studies from 1 117 390 women (age range, <30 to >/=80 years). The respective means and ranges of performance outcomes for the middle 50% of radiologists were as follows: recall rate, 9.8% and 6.4%-13.3%; PPV(1), 4.8% and 3.4%-6.2%; and PPV(2), 24.6% and 18.8%-32.0%. Mean cancer detection rate was 4.7 per 1000, and the median [corrected] mean size of invasive cancers was 13 mm. The range of performance outcomes for the middle 80% of radiologists also was presented. CONCLUSION: Community screening mammographic performance measurements of cancer outcomes for the majority of radiologists in the BCSC surpass performance recommendations. Recall rate for almost half of radiologists, however, is higher than the recommended rate.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Mammographic density correlation with Gail model breast cancer risk estimates and component risk factors.

BACKGROUND: The Gail model is a validated breast cancer risk assessment tool that is primarily based on nonmodifiable breast cancer risk factors. Conversely, mammographic breast density is strongly correlated with breast cancer risk and responds to risk-modifying interventions. The purpose of our study was to correlate mammographic density with breast cancer risk as calculated by the Gail model and to examine the relative association of each of the model covariates to mammographic density. METHODS: The study included 99 participants of the National Surgical Breast and Bowel Project P-1 trial, ages 36 to 74 years, all of whom had a mammogram and Gail model risk estimates done upon trial entry. Baseline mammograms were retrieved and digitized, and mammographic density was assessed by both subjective and computer-assisted objective measures. RESULTS: Mammographic density was 2-fold higher in women with a >15% lifetime risk of breast cancer compared with those with <15% risk, by all density assessment methods. This was equivalent to a 3% to 6% increase in density per 10% increase in risk. Gail model covariates that measured benign or premalignant breast tissue changes accounted for the majority (41%) of the relationship with increased mammographic density. Seven percent of density was not explained by risk factors included in the Gail model. CONCLUSIONS: The Gail model does not fully account for the association between breast density and calculated breast cancer risk. Because mammographic density is a modifiable marker, development of a breast cancer risk assessment tool that includes mammographic density could be beneficial for assessing individual risk.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

A new automated software system to evaluate breast MR examinations: improved specificity without decreased sensitivity.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the accuracy of breast MRI interpretations with and without a new software application (CADstream) that provides automated evaluations of breast MR examinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-three consecutive lesions seen only on MRI (nine malignant, 24 benign) were evaluated with and without the automated software system. Automated analyses of kinetic enhancement for each lesion were recorded at 50%, 80%, and 100% enhancement thresholds. Computer-assisted analyses included presence or absence of "significant" enhancement and classification of enhancement patterns into percent volumes of washout, plateau, and persistent enhancement. Fisher's exact tests were performed to compare the likelihood of malignancy based on the presence of software-defined significant enhancement at the three thresholds. Enhancement profiles of malignant versus benign lesions were compared using the Student's t test. RESULTS: All malignant lesions showed significant enhancement at all thresholds. Compared with the unassisted interpretations, the computer-assisted analyses yielded false-positive rates that were reduced by 25% at a 50% threshold (not significant [NS]), 33% at an 80% threshold (p = 0.05), and 50% at a 100% threshold for enhancement (p < 0.01). There were no significant differences between enhancement profiles of benign and malignant lesions, with all lesions showing a wide range of washout, plateau, and persistent patterns of enhancement. CONCLUSION: New automated software applied to interpret breast MR examinations accurately showed significant enhancement in all the malignant lesions while depicting 12 of 24 benign lesions as showing insignificant enhancement. If these results are validated by a larger study, the number of unnecessary biopsies of MR lesions could be reduced without a concomitant decrease in cancer detection.

Breast Neoplasms↗
PubMed2006

Testing the effect of computer-assisted detection on interpretive performance in screening mammography.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to test whether the use of computer-assisted detection (CAD) improves sensitivity at no cost to specificity for the detection of breast cancer and enables more accurate assessment of fatty breast tissue compared with dense breast tissue. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We created a stratified random sample of screening mammograms weighted with difficult cases split evenly among women with fatty breast tissue and those with dense breast tissue: 114 patients were cancer-free, 114 had cancer 1 year after screening, and 113 had cancer 13-24 months after screening. In test settings 6 months apart, 19 community radiologists interpreted 341 bilateral screening mammograms with and without CAD. We compared the sensitivity and specificity using regression models adjusting for repeated measures. RESULTS: CAD assistance did not affect overall sensitivity (cancer by 1 year: 63.2% without CAD and 62.0% with CAD; cancer in 13-24 months: 33.5% without CAD and 32.3% with CAD), but its effect differed for visible masses that were marked by CAD compared with those that were not marked by CAD (hereafter referred to as "unmarked"). CAD was associated with improved sensitivity for marked visible cancers and decreased sensitivity for unmarked visible masses; the sensitivities without and with CAD, respectively, were as follows: marked cancer by 1 year, 82.7% versus 83.1%; marked cancer in 13-24 months, 44.2% versus 57.9%; unmarked cancer by 1 year, 37.4% versus 30.1%; unmarked cancer in 13-24 months, 29.7% versus 23.0% (p < 0.03 for both interactions between assistance and CAD marking for cancer by 1 year and cancer in 13-24 months). CAD marked 77% (70/91) of the visible cancers by 1 year and 67.3% (37/55) of the visible cancers in 13-24 months. CAD marked more visible calcified lesions (86%) than masses and asymmetric densities (67%) (p < 0.05). Overall specificity was 72% without and 75% with CAD (p < 0.02). CAD had a greater effect on both specificity (p < 0.02) and sensitivity (p < 0.03) among radiologists who interpret more than 50 mammograms per week. The results were the same for fatty breast tissue and dense breast tissue. CONCLUSION: In this experiment, CAD increased interpretive specificity but did not affect sensitivity because visible noncalcified lesions that went unmarked by CAD were less likely to be assessed as abnormal by radiologists. Breast density did not affect CAD's performance.

Breast↗
PubMed2005

Added cancer yield of MRI in screening the contralateral breast of women recently diagnosed with breast cancer: results from the International Breast Magnetic Resonance Consortium (IBMC) trial.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the added cancer yield of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) over mammography in the contralateral breast of patients with a recent diagnosis of breast cancer. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, international study of mammography and MRI in women with a recent diagnosis of unilateral breast cancer. Each subject received a mammogram, clinical breast exam (CBE), and MRI of the unaffected breast within a 90 day time period. Definitive diagnosis of suspicious findings was determined through biopsy and central pathology review. RESULTS: Of the 103 eligible women included in study analyses, MRI detected 4 cancers in the contralateral breast while mammography detected none. MRI resulted in 12% (95% CI, 6%-20%) of women recommended for biopsy and 10% of women undergoing additional biopsy. The added cancer yield of MRI was 4% (95% CI, 1%-10%) and the positive predictive value of an abnormal MRI was 33% (95% CI, 10%-65%). Forty percent (4/10) of the biopsies performed based on the MRI recommendation were positive for malignancy. CONCLUSION: In women with a recent breast cancer diagnosis, approximately 4% will have an otherwise occult invasive breast cancer detected in the opposite breast by MRI alone.

Biopsy↗
PubMed2005

Imaging in breast cancer: magnetic resonance imaging.

Over the past 5 years there has been a marked increase in the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast. Multiple research studies have confirmed improved cancer detection, diagnosis, and evaluation of response to therapy with breast MRI compared with mammography and ultrasound. As this exciting new technology advances, focused work in optimal scan protocols, appropriate clinical applications, and image interpretation are needed. Both the potential benefits and harms need to be evaluated to guide optimal use of this imaging modality in select patient populations.

Biopsy↗
PubMed2005

Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging.

BACKGROUND: The authors compared the performance of screening mammography versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in women at genetically high risk for breast cancer. METHODS: The authors conducted an international prospective study of screening mammography and MRI in asymptomatic, genetically high-risk women age >/= 25 years. Women with a history of breast cancer were eligible for a contralateral screening if they had been diagnosed within 5 years or a bilateral screening if they had been diagnosed > 5 years previously. All examinations (MRI, mammography, and clinical breast examination [CBE]) were performed within 90 days of each other. RESULTS: In total, 390 eligible women were enrolled by 13 sites, and 367 women completed all study examinations. Imaging evaluations recommended 38 biopsies, and 27 biopsies were performed, resulting in 4 cancers diagnosed for an overall 1.1% cancer yield (95% confidence interval [95%CI], 0.3-2.8%). MRI detected all four cancers, whereas mammography detected one cancer. The diagnostic yield of mammography was 0.3% (95%CI, 0.01-1.5%). The yield of cancer by MRI alone was 0.8% (95%CI, - 0.3-2.0%). The biopsy recommendation rates for MRI and mammography were 8.5% (95%CI, 5.8-11.8%) and 2.2% (95%CI, 0.1-4.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Screening MRI in high-risk women was capable of detecting mammographically and clinically occult breast cancer. Screening MRI resulted in 22 of 367 of women (6%) who had negative mammogram and negative CBE examinations undergoing biopsy, resulting in 3 additional cancers detected. MRI also resulted in 19 (5%) false-positive outcomes, which resulted in benign biopsies.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Screening for breast cancer.

CONTEXT: Breast cancer screening in community practices may be different from that in randomized controlled trials. New screening modalities are becoming available. OBJECTIVES: To review breast cancer screening, especially in the community and to examine evidence about new screening modalities. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: English-language articles of randomized controlled trials assessing effectiveness of breast cancer screening were reviewed, as well as meta-analyses, systematic reviews, studies of breast cancer screening in the community, and guidelines. Also, studies of newer screening modalities were assessed. DATA SYNTHESIS: All major US medical organizations recommend screening mammography for women aged 40 years and older. Screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality by about 20% to 35% in women aged 50 to 69 years and slightly less in women aged 40 to 49 years at 14 years of follow-up. Approximately 95% of women with abnormalities on screening mammograms do not have breast cancer with variability based on such factors as age of the woman and assessment category assigned by the radiologist. Studies comparing full-field digital mammography to screen film have not shown statistically significant differences in cancer detection while the impact on recall rates (percentage of screening mammograms considered to have positive results) was unclear. One study suggested that computer-aided detection increases cancer detection rates and recall rates while a second larger study did not find any significant differences. Screening clinical breast examination detects some cancers missed by mammography, but the sensitivity reported in the community is lower (28% to 36%) than in randomized trials (about 54%). Breast self-examination has not been shown to be effective in reducing breast cancer mortality, but it does increase the number of breast biopsies performed because of false-positives. Magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound are being studied for screening women at high risk for breast cancer but are not recommended for screening the general population. Sensitivity of magnetic resonance imaging in high-risk women has been found to be much higher than that of mammography but specificity is generally lower. Effect of the magnetic resonance imaging on breast cancer mortality is not known. A balanced discussion of possible benefits and harms of screening should be undertaken with each woman. CONCLUSIONS: In the community, mammography remains the main screening tool while the effectiveness of clinical breast examination and self-examination are less. New screening modalities are unlikely to replace mammography in the near future for screening the general population.

Breast Neoplasms↗
PubMed2005

Computer-aided detection applied to breast MRI: assessment of CAD-generated enhancement and tumor sizes in breast cancers before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: MRI has shown promise in assessing breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Computer-aided detection (CAD) for MRI can automatically display tumor enhancement parameters. This study was performed to determine the utility of CAD applied to breast MRI in this patient population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen patients with 16 newly diagnosed locally advanced breast cancers were evaluated with MRI before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. CAD assessments, including presence or absence of significant enhancement, enhancement profiles, and maximum sizes, were recorded. Pre-chemotherapy and post-chemotherapy enhancement profiles were compared. Sizes were compared to those measured by the radiologist and at final pathology. RESULTS: Prior to chemotherapy, all tumors demonstrated CAD-assessed significant enhancement. Following chemotherapy, 7/16 tumors showed no residual significant enhancement, but all had residual disease at pathology. In those patients with residual enhancement, comparison of the post-chemotherapy to pre-chemotherapy CAD enhancement profiles showed a significant decrease in percentage of washout enhancement (P = 0.0147) in patients with less than 5 mm of residual microscopic disease. Radiologist-measured tumor sizes demonstrated better correlation with sizes at pathology (r = 0.60) than did CAD-generated tumor sizes (r = 0.32). CONCLUSION: CAD may be helpful in assessing changes in MRI enhancement profiles of tumors following chemotherapy. However, CAD-assessed significant enhancement following chemotherapy can be falsely negative for residual malignancy, and CAD tumor sizes are less accurate than those measured by the radiologist in predicting size of residual malignancy. CAD may complement but should not replace the radiologist's assessment of tumors in this patient population.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Breast cancer yield for screening mammographic examinations with recommendation for short-interval follow-up.

PURPOSE: To compare cancer yield for screening examinations with recommendation for short-interval follow-up after diagnostic imaging work-up versus after screening mammography only. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 1996 to December 1999, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System assessments and recommendations were collected prospectively for 1,171,792 screening examinations in 758,015 women aged 40-89 years at seven mammography registries in Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Registries obtained waiver of signed consent or collected signed consent in accordance with institutional review boards at each location. Diagnosis of invasive cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ within 24 months of screening examination and tumor stage and size for invasive cancer were determined through linkage to pathology database or tumor registry. chi2 test was used to determine significant differences between groups. RESULTS: Overall, 5.2% of first and 1.7% of subsequent screens included recommendation for short-interval follow-up, which was similar to likelihood of recommendation for diagnostic evaluation (first screens, 4.6%; subsequent, 2.6%). Most recommendations for short-interval follow-up were based on screening mammography alone (86.2% of first screens, 77.5% of subsequent). Yield of cancer for screening examinations with probably benign finding (PBF) and recommendation for short-interval follow-up based on screening mammography alone tended to be lower than in those with PBF and recommendation for short-interval follow-up after additional work-up (first screens: 0.54% vs 0.96%, P=.10; subsequent: 1.50% vs 1.73%, P=.26). Proportion of stage II and higher disease tended to be higher for examinations with PBF and recommendation for short-interval follow-up based on screening mammography alone compared with those recommended for short-interval follow-up after additional work-up (first screens: 34.7% vs 24.4%, P=.43; subsequent: 27.5% vs 19.2%, P=.13). CONCLUSION: Many first screening examinations include recommendation for short-interval follow-up based on screening mammography alone. Cancer yield for these examinations is low and is lower than that with diagnostic work-up prior to short-interval follow-up recommendation. Absence of diagnostic work-up prior to short-interval follow-up recommendation may result in periodic surveillance of a high proportion of benign lesions.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

The incremental contribution of clinical breast examination to invasive cancer detection in a mammography screening program.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the potential added contribution of clinical breast examination (CBE) to invasive breast cancer detection in a mammography screening program, by categories of age and breast density. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We prospectively followed 61,688 women aged 40 years or older who had undergone at least one screening examination with mammography and CBE between January 1, 1996, and December 31, 2000, for 1 year after their mammogram for invasive cancer. We computed the incremental sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of CBE over mammography alone for combinations of age and breast density (predominantly fatty or dense). RESULTS: Mammography sensitivity was 78% and combined mammography-CBE sensitivity was 82%, thus CBE detected an additional 4% of invasive cancers. CBE detected a minority of invasive cancers compared with mammography for all age groups and all breast densities. Sensitivity increased from adding CBE to screening mammography for all ages, from 6.8% in women ages 50-59 with dense breasts to 1.8% in women ages 60-69 years with fatty breasts. CBE generally added incrementally more to sensitivity among women with dense breasts. Specificity and positive predictive value declined when CBE was used in conjunction with mammography, and this decrement was more pronounced in women with dense breasts. CONCLUSION: CBE had modest incremental benefit to invasive cancer detection over mammography alone in a screening program, but also led to greater risk of false-positive results. These risks and benefits were greater in women with dense breasts. The balance of risks and benefits must be weighed carefully when evaluating the inclusion of CBE in a screening examination.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Clinical experience with MRI-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to evaluate a new commercially available method of MRI-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy using an open coil and a closed 1.5-T scanner. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive MRI-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsies of 38 lesions in 28 women performed between May and September 2003 at two practice sites in the United States were retrospectively reviewed. Lesion characteristics including size, morphology, and enhancement were recorded. Times to perform each procedure, defined as the time from the start of the first localizing scan to the final scan after biopsy, were recorded. Histologic results for all lesions were obtained, and surgical, imaging, or clinical follow-up was performed. RESULTS: Enhancing masses and foci ranged from 2.5 to 19 mm. Nonmasslike enhancements ranged from 6 to 70 mm. All 38 biopsies (100%) were technically successful, and no complications were associated with any of the biopsy procedures. The average time to perform the 19 single-site MRI-guided procedures was 38 min (range, 23-57 min). The 11 multiple-site biopsies performed in a single breast averaged 59 min (range, 51-68 min), and eight bilateral biopsies averaged 64 min (range, 46-80 min). Histologic results from vacuum-assisted breast biopsy revealed malignancy in 14 lesions (37%), atypical ductal hyperplasia in two lesions (5%), and benign findings in 22 lesions (58%). One of two lesions with atypical ductal hyperplasia was upgraded to ductal carcinoma in situ after surgery, for an overall cancer yield of 40% (15/38). CONCLUSION: This new method of MRI-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy is a safe, effective, and time-efficient means of MRI-guided tissue sampling.

Biopsy↗
PubMed2004

Combined use of MRI and PET to monitor response and assess residual disease for locally advanced breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the hypothesis that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) are complementary and valuable in monitoring response and assessing residual disease of locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. We sought to determine if the combination of the two modalities was more accurate than either alone and could provide better guidance in patient management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen lesions in 15 women with LABC were evaluated with MRI, PET, and clinical breast examination (CBE) before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The pre- and posttherapy maximal tumor sizes on MRI and CBE and standard uptake values (SUVs) on PET served as the measurements for clinical response classification and residual disease assessment. Pathologic assessment provided the reference for macroscopic and microscopic pathologic tumor response and residual disease. RESULTS: PET correctly predicted lack of pathologic response in five of six cases (83%); CBE predicted correctly in one of six (17%) cases, and MRI predicted correctly in zero of six cases. When PET predicted response, MRI defined the extent of macroscopic pathologic residual disease accurately in 9 of 10 cases (90%). When posttherapy MRI showed complete response (CR) in eight cases, macroscopic pathologic complete response (mCR) was observed in all eight cases (100%). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that combined use of MRI and PET is complementary and offers advantages over CBE. PET was more accurate in predicting pathologic nonresponse. Complete response by MRI correlated well with macroscopic pathologic complete response.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2004

MR-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: accuracy of targeting and success in sampling in a phantom model.

An 11-gauge MR-compatible system was designed for use in magnetic resonance vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. The system uses a detachable needle with minimal artifact to allow imaging after placement and before biopsy to confirm lesion location. A phantom study involving 16 biopsies of lesions smaller than 10 mm was conducted to assess the performance of this system. Fifteen (94%) of 16 biopsies resulted in successful lesion sampling. Eighty-five percent of all core samples contained specimen materials targeted lesion material. Further research to evaluate the efficiency, accuracy, and safety of this system in a patient population is recommended.

Biopsy, Needle↗
PubMed2004

MRI-guided breast biopsy: clinical experience with 14-gauge stainless steel core biopsy needle.

OBJECTIVE: Core needle biopsy has proven advantages for wire localization and excision; however, MRI-guided core biopsy has been limited by less satisfactory sampling efficiency and less availability of MRI-compatible biopsy needles. We evaluated the feasibility and diagnostic yield of MRI-guided biopsy using 14-gauge stainless steel core biopsy needles and MRI-compatible coaxial sheaths in a closed 1.5-T scanner. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-five consecutive breast biopsies performed in 29 women between March 2001 and August 2002 were retrospectively reviewed. For each procedure, an MRI-compatible sheath was placed under MRI guidance using a dedicated breast coil and biopsy guidance system. With the patient out of the magnet, a 14-gauge steel core biopsy needle was used to obtain multiple samples. Lesion characteristics, including size, morphology, and enhancement, were recorded. Histology of all the lesions was obtained; and surgical, imaging, or clinical follow-up was performed. RESULTS: Targeted masses and enhancing foci ranged from 3 to 17 mm. Regional enhancement ranged from 14 to 70 mm. Thirty-four of the 35 biopsies were technically successful. Histology revealed malignancy in eight lesions (23%), atypical ductal hyperplasia in five lesions (14%), and benign entities in 21 lesions (60%). Surgery confirmed all eight core biopsies with malignant findings. Two of five lesions with atypical ductal hyperplasia were upgraded to malignancy after surgery. CONCLUSION: This new method of MRI-guided breast biopsy with a 14-gauge stainless steel core biopsy needle and a closed 1.5-T MRI scanner is feasible, safe, and effective and produces satisfactory diagnostic yield. This method offers an alternative to MRI-guided wire localization and to MRI-guided core biopsy with nonferrous needles.

Adult↗