ArticleJournal of breast cancer2021
Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Guided Breast Biopsy in Korea: A 10-Year Follow-Up Experience.
Article in Journal of breast cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application value of MRI-guided wire localization to the non-palpable breast lesions only shown in Breast MRI.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- [MRI-Guided Breast Intervention: Biopsy and Needle Localization].Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2023Review
- Challenges in MRI-Guided Breast Biopsy and Some Suggested Strategies: Case Based Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided breast biopsy.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of 111 consecutive patients referred for MRI-guided breast biopsy after mammography and breast ultrasound between May 2009 and April 2019. After excluding 37 patients without follow-up images (> 2 years), 74 patients (74 lesions) were finally included. We reviewed the histologic results of MRI-guided biopsy and subsequent surgery, post-biopsy management, and breast cancer development during follow-up. We investigated the false-negative rate, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) underestimation, atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) underestimation rate, and technical failure rate of MRI-guided biopsy.
resultsAmong 74 scheduled MRI-guided biopsies, six were canceled because biopsy was deemed unnecessary, while three failed due to technical difficulties (technical failure rate: 3/68, 4.4%). MRI-guided biopsy was performed in 65 patients, of which 18 patients were diagnosed with malignant lesions, 46 with benign lesions, and one with ADH bordering on DCIS. Subsequent surgery (n = 27) showed DCIS underestimation in three cases (3/7, 43%), ADH underestimation in two cases (1/2, 50%), as well as seven concordant benign and 11 concordant malignant lesions. The overall false-negative rate was 4.3% (2/46). Thirty-eight out of 48 benign lesions were followed-up (median period, 5.8 years; interquartile range, 4.1 years) without subsequent surgery. Thirty-seven concordant benign lesions were stable (n = 27) or disappeared (n = 10); however, the size of one discordant benign lesion increased on follow-up MRI and it was diagnosed as DCIS after 1 year.
conclusionMRI-guided biopsy is an accurate method for exclusion of malignancy with a very low false-negative rate.
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.