ArticleUltrasonography (Seoul, Korea)2019
Additional lesions seen in magnetic resonance imaging of breast cancer patients: the role of second-look ultrasound and imaging-guided interventions.
Article in Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04083027 (Patterns of Non-mass Enhancement of Breast MRI Using the BI-RADS Lexicon Fifth Edition With Histopathologic Correlation), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Patterns of Non-mass Enhancement of Breast MRI Using the BI-RADS Lexicon Fifth Edition With Histopathologic Correlation
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dynamic contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging findings that affect the magnetic resonance-directed ultrasound correlation of non-mass enhancement lesions: a single-center retrospective study.The British journal of radiology · 2022Article
- Synchronous BI-RADS category 3 lesions detected by preoperative breast MRI in patients with breast cancer: may follow-up be adequate?European radiology · 2021Article
- [Diagnosis of breast diseases in a certified breast center].Der Radiologe · 2021Review
- BI-RADS category 3, 4, and 5 lesions identified at preoperative breast MRI in patients with breast cancer: implications for management.European radiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to investigate the final outcomes of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-identified additional lesions (MRALs) in breast cancer patients and the role of second-look ultrasound (SLUS) and imaging-guided interventions.
methodsWe analyzed breast cancer patients with MRALs on preoperative MRI between January and June 2012. MRALs were defined as additional lesions suspected on MRI but not suspected on mammograms or ultrasound. The malignancy rate of MRALs, MRI-based Breast Imaging Reporting and Database System (BI-RADS) category, positional relationship with the index cancer, MRI-concordant lesion visibility on SLUS, performance of imaging-guided interventions, and total mastectomy (TM) rates were evaluated for the confirmed lesions.
resultsAmong the 119 confirmed lesions, SLUS and imaging-guided interventions were performed in 94 (79.0%) and 82 cases (68.9%), respectively. The malignancy rate was 68.1% (81 of 119), and was significantly higher in BI-RADS 4C-5 lesions than in 4A-4B lesions (94.6% vs. 56.1%, P<0.01) and in ipsilateral same-quadrant lesions than in contralateral lesions (84.2% vs. 33.3%, P<0.01). The lesion visibility rate on SLUS was 90.4%. The malignancy rate was not significantly different according to lesion visibility on SLUS. The TM rate in the 98 cases with ipsilateral MRALs was 37.8%, while it was significantly lower in patients who underwent an imaging-guided intervention than in those who did not (27.9% vs. 54.1%, P=0.017).
conclusionMRALs show a high probability of malignancy, especially if they are ipsilateral. SLUS and imaging-guided interventions can eliminate many unnecessary TMs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.