ArticleEuropean radiology2020
BI-RADS category 3, 4, and 5 lesions identified at preoperative breast MRI in patients with breast cancer: implications for management.
Article in European radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Characteristics and Pathologic Results of Foci on Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2025Pooled it
- Additional diagnostic value of lesion visibility on diffusion-weighted imaging for differentiating BI-RADS category 4 MRI-detected breast lesions.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Nomogram for reducing unnecessary biopsies of breast lesions based on MRI and clinical features: a multi-center retrospective cohort study.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2025Article
- Predicting malignancy in breast lesions: enhancing accuracy with fine-tuned convolutional neural network models.BMC medical imaging · 2024Article
- Third-look contrast-enhanced ultrasonography plus needle biopsy for differential diagnosis of magnetic resonance imaging-only detected breast lesions.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2024Review
- The Japanese breast cancer society clinical practice guidelines for breast cancer screening and diagnosis, 2022 edition.Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) · 2024Article
- Preoperative breast MRI in women with dense breasts: can we keep up with a rapidly changing scenario?European radiology · 2023Article
- Review
- [GMIA-Breast Oncoplastic and Reconstruction Society consensus on operative standards of breast cancer surgery].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2023Article
- [Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS): Advantages and Limitations].Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2023Review
- Additional Workups Recommended During Preoperative Breast MRI: Methods to Gain Efficiency and Limit Confusion.Annals of surgical oncology · 2022Article
- BI-RADS 3 Assessment on MRI: A Lesion-Based Review for Breast Radiologists.Journal of breast imagingReview
- Gramado consensus on imaging evaluation of the response to neoadjuvant systemic therapy for breast cancer.Radiologia brasileiraReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate outcomes and retrospectively evaluate characteristics of additional lesions initially assessed as BI-RADS category 3, 4, and 5 at preoperative MRI to determine appropriate follow-up management.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 429 lesions other than primary cancer initially assessed as BI-RADS category 3, 4, and 5 at preoperative MRI in 391 patients with breast cancer from March 2012 to December 2013. We investigated their malignancy rate and outcome according to BI-RADS category assessments. We also analyzed clinical and imaging characteristics of each lesion. Pathological results and imaging follow-up of at least 2 years were used as reference standards.
resultsOf 429 lesions in 391 patients (mean 48.1 years ± 9.4), the malignancy rate of BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions was 1.4% (3/213), 17.8% (38/214), and 50% (1/2), respectively. Of BI-RADS 3 lesions or BI-RADS 4 or 5 lesions that were followed up after benign-concordant biopsy (n = 114), two contralateral masses (2/306, 0.7%) were diagnosed as malignancy at 13.3 and 33.2 months after initial detection, within a median follow-up of 63.3 months. None of the NME or foci or lesions followed up after benign-concordant biopsy had a delayed diagnosis of malignancy. Of the 391 patients, 97.4% (381/391) received at least one type of adjuvant therapy.
conclusionThe incidence of delayed cancer diagnosis among additionally detected lesions other than primary cancer is very low and short-term follow-up is unnecessary. Contralateral masses which were not confirmed by biopsy may need annual follow-up. KEY POINTS: • 1.4% (3/213) of BI-RADS 3 lesions were malignant including 2 delayed diagnoses after 13.2 months and 33.2 months, and 17.8% (38/214) of BI-RADS 4 lesions and 50% (1/2) of BI-RADS 5 lesions were malignant. • The incidence of delayed diagnosis from additional MRI-detected lesions was very low (0.7%, 2/306) during follow-up, which were all T1N0 contralateral cancer. • Annual follow-up might be adequate for preoperative MRI-detected BI-RADS 3 lesions and BI-RADS 4 lesions followed up after benign-concordant biopsy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32006168What 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.