New suspicious lesions on breast MRI in neoadjuvant therapy not malignant
CAPTION
A, Contrast-enhanced axial T1-weighted fat-saturated image from baseline MRI before initiation of neoadjuvant therapy shows irregular mass (arrow) in upper inner right breast corresponding to biopsy-proven carcinoma. B, Contrast-enhanced axial T1-weighted fat-saturated image from follow-up MRI performed 3 months after initiation of neoadjuvant therapy shows decrease in size of right breast cancer (arrow). C, Contrast-enhanced axial T1-weighted fat-saturated image 3 months after initiation of neoadjuvant therapy shows new mass (arrow) in upper outer left breast that was assessed as BI-RADS 4. Pathologic examination from MRI-guided core biopsy of new suspicious mass revealed benign usual ductal hyperplasia. No atypia or malignancy was identified.
CREDIT
American Roentgen Ray Society (ARRS), American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR)
Leesburg, VA, - According to ARRS' American Journal of Roentgenology(AJR), new suspicious findings occurred in 5.5% of breast MRI examinations performed to monitor response to neoadjuvant therapy; none of these new lesions were malignant.
"Our findings suggest that new lesions that arise in the setting of neoadjuvant therapy are highly unlikely to represent a new site of malignancy, particularly if the index malignancy shows treatment response," wrote Donna A. Eckstein and colleagues in the department of radiology and biomedical imaging at the University of California, San Francisco.
Based on a presentation at the ARRS 2019 Annual Meeting, Honolulu, HI, the researchers' retrospective review pinpointed all breast MRI examinations performed to assess response to neoadjuvant therapy between 2010 and 2018. Cases with new suspicious lesions assessed as BI-RADS 4 or 5 and found after the initiation of neoadjuvant treatment were included. Meanwhile, exclusion criteria were cases with no pretreatment MRI, cases in which the suspicious lesion was present on the baseline MRI but remained suspicious, and cases with insufficient follow-up. Pathologic examination determined malignant outcomes, whereas benignity was established by pathologic examination, follow-up imaging, or both.
https://www.ajronline.org/doi/10.2214/AJR.20.22979
Disclaimer: This website is primarily for healthcare professionals. The content here does not replace medical advice and should not be used as medical, diagnostic, endorsement, treatment, or prescription advice. Medical science evolves rapidly, and we strive to keep our information current. If you find any discrepancies, please contact us at corrections@medicaldialogues.in. Read our Correction Policy here. Nothing here should be used as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We do not endorse any healthcare advice that contradicts a physician's guidance. Use of this site is subject to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Advertisement Policy. For more details, read our Full Disclaimer here.
NOTE: Join us in combating medical misinformation. If you encounter a questionable health, medical, or medical education claim, email us at factcheck@medicaldialogues.in for evaluation.