Prospective comparison of standard triple assessment and dynamic magnetic resonance imaging of the breast for the evaluation of symptomatic breast lesions.

Abstract

To compare the sensitivity and specificity of the traditional triple assessment of symptomatic breast lesions with contrast-enhanced dynamic magnetic resonance imaging. Although triple assessment is currently the gold standard for the assessment of symptomatic breast disease, its specificity is such that open biopsies are still required in many cases to be confident of the diagnosis. Contrast-enhanced dynamic magnetic resonance imaging of the breast represents an alternative diagnostic modality. Patients were recruited from the symptomatic breast clinics. If any of the diagnostic modalities suggested malignancy, the lesion was excised. The remaining patients were followed clinically and radiologically. Two hundred eighty-five patients with a mean age of 43 years (range 21 to 77) were recruited. Malignant lesions were excised in 131 patients and benign lesions in 55 patients. The 99 patients who did not undergo surgery were followed clinically and radiologically for a median of 20 months. The sensitivity of each modality was as follows: clinical examination 84%, mammography 87.6%, fine-needle aspiration cytology 79.1%, triple assessment 99.2%, and magnetic resonance imaging 99.2%. In addition, histologically confirmed multifocal disease was detected in 40 patients on magnetic resonance imaging but in only 9 (22.5%) on mammography. The specificity for the diagnosis of benign disease was as follows: clinical examination 83.1%, ultrasound 88.9%, mammography 86.4%, fine-needle aspiration cytology 97%, triple assessment 59.1%, and magnetic resonance imaging 90.9%. Contrast-enhanced dynamic magnetic resonance imaging of the breast is as sensitive and more specific than the combined traditional triple assessment for the diagnosis of malignant breast lesions.