The Current Status of Breast MR Imaging Part I. Choice of Technique, Image Interpretation, Diagnostic Accuracy, and Transfer to Clinical Practice

References

• 1 Folkman J, Klagsbrun M. Angiogenic factors. Science 1987; 235: 442–447.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 2 Folkman J, Watson K, Ingbr D, Hanahan D. Induction of angiogenesis during the transition from hyperplasia to neoplasia. Nature 1989;339:58–61.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 3 Schneider BP, Miller KD. Angiogenesis of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:1782–1790.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 4 Pham CD, Roberts TP, van Bruggen N, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging detects suppression of tumor vascular permeability after administration of antibody to vascular endothelial growth factor. Cancer Invest 1998;16:225–230.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 5 Buadu LD, Murakami J, Murayama S, et al. Breast lesions: correlation of contrast medium enhancement patterns on MR images with histopathologic findings and tumor angiogenesis. Radiology 1996;200:639–649.
  Google Scholar
• 6 Aref M, Brechbiel M, Wiener EC. Identifying tumor vascular permeability heterogeneity with magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents. Invest Radiol 2002;37:178–192.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 7 Degani H, Gusis V, Weinstein D, Fields S, Strano S. Mapping pathophysiological features of breast tumors by MRI at high spatial resolution. Nat Med 1997;3:780–782.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 8 Cohen FM, Kuwatsuru R, Shames DM, et al. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging estimation of altered capillary permeability in experimental mammary carcinomas after X-irradiation. Invest Radiol 1994;29(11):970–977.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 9 Boné B, Wiberg MK, Parrado C, Falkmer U, Aspelin P, Gad A. Mechanism of contrast enhancement in breast lesions at MR imaging. Acta Radiol 1998;39(5):494–500.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 10 Frouge C, Guinebretiere JM, Contesso G, Di Paola R, Blery M. Correlation between contrast enhancement in dynamic magnetic resonance imaging of the breast and tumor angiogenesis. Invest Radiol 1994;29(12):1043–1049.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 11 Su MY, Cheung YC, Fruehauf JP, et al. Correlation of dynamic contrast enhancement MRI parameters with microvessel density and VEGF for assessment of angiogenesis in breast cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 2003;18:467–477.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 12 Lewin M, Bredow S, Sergeyev N, Marecos E, Bogdanov A Jr, Weissleder R. In vivo assessment of vascular endothelial growth factor-induced angiogenesis. Int J Cancer 1999;83(6):798–802.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 13 Hulka CA, Edmister WB, Smith BL, et al. Dynamic echo-planar imaging of the breast: experience in diagnosing breast carcinoma and correlation with tumor angiogenesis. Radiology 1997;205(3):837–842.
  Google Scholar
• 14 Buckley DL, Drew PJ, Mussurakis S, Monson JR, Horsman A. Microvessel density of invasive breast cancer assessed by dynamic Gd-DTPA enhanced MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 1997;7(3):461–446.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 15 Knopp MV, Weiss E, Sinn HP, et al. Pathophysiologic basis of contrast enhancement in breast tumors. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;10:260–266.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 16 Stomper PC, Winston JS, Herman S, Klippenstein DL, Arredondo MA, Blumenson LE. Angiogenesis and dynamic MR imaging gadolinium enhancement of malignant and benign breast lesions. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1997;45:39–46.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 17 Kuhl CK, Bieling H, Gieseke J, et al. Breast neoplasms: T2* susceptibility-contrast, first-pass perfusion MR imaging. Radiology 1997;202:87–95.
  Google Scholar
• 18 Kuhl CK, Bieling HB, Gieseke J, et al. Healthy premenopausal breast parenchyma in dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast: normal contrast medium enhancement and cyclical-phase dependency. Radiology 1997;203:137–144.
  Google Scholar
• 19 Müller-Schimpfle M, Ohmenhauser K, Stoll P, Dietz K, Claussen CD. Menstrual cycle and age: influence on parenchymal contrast medium enhancement in MR imaging of the breast. Radiology 1997;203:145–149.
  Google Scholar
• 20 Kuhl CK, Schild HH, Morakkabati N. Dynamic bilateral contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast: trade-off between spatial and temporal resolution. Radiology 2005;236(3):789–800.
  Google Scholar
• 21 Boetes C, Barentsz JO, Mus RD, et al. MR characterization of suspicious breast lesions with a gadolinium-enhanced TurboFLASH subtraction technique. Radiology 1994;193:777–781.
  Google Scholar
• 22 Schorn C, Fischer U, Luftner-Nagel S, Grabbe E. Diagnostic potential of ultrafast contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast in hypervascularized lesions: are there advantages in comparison with standard dynamic MRI? J Comput Assist Tomogr 1999;23(1):118–122.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 23 Choyke PL, Dwyer AJ, Knopp MV. Functional tumor imaging with dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2003;17:509–520.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 24 Taylor JS, Tofts PS, Port R, et al. MR imaging of tumor microcirculation: promise for the new millennium. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;10:903–907.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 25 Tofts PS, Berkowitz B, Schnall MD. Quantitative analysis of dynamic Gd-DTPA enhancement in breast tumors using a permeability model. Magn Reson Med 1995;33:564–568.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 26 Tofts PS, Brix G, Buckley DL, et al. Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T(1)-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;10:223–232.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 27 Hochman MG, Orel SG, Powell CM, Schnall MD, Reynolds CA, White LN. Fibroadenomas: MR imaging appearances with radiologic-histopathologic correlation. Radiology 1997;204:123–129.
  Google Scholar
• 28 Nunes LW, Schnall MD, Orel SG. Update of breast MR imaging architectural interpretation model. Radiology 2001;219:484–494.
  Google Scholar
• 29 Kuhl CK, Leutner C, Mielcarek P, Gieseke J, Schild HH. Breast compression interferes with lesion enhancement in contrast-enhanced breast MRI [abstr]. Radiology 1997;205(P):538.
  Google Scholar
• 30 Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Haustein J, Pohl C, et al. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast: comparison of two different doses of gadopentetate dimeglumine. Radiology 1994;191:639–646.
  Google Scholar
• 31 Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology 2004;233(3):830–849.
  Google Scholar
• 32 Teifke A, Hlawatsch A, Beier T, et al. Undetected malignancies of the breast: dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging at 1.0 T. Radiology 2002;224:881–888.
  Google Scholar
• 33 Ikeda DM, Hylton NM, Kinkel K, et al. Development, standardization, and testing of a lexicon for reporting contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging studies. J Magn Reson Imaging 2001;13:889–895.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 34 Ikeda DM. Progress report from the American College of Radiology Breast MR Imaging Lexicon Committee. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2001;9:295–302.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 35 American College of Radiology. ACR breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS): breast imaging atlas. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2003.
  Google Scholar
• 36 Liberman L, Mason G, Morris EA, Dershaw DD. Does size matter? positive predictive value of MRI-detected breast lesions as a function of lesion size. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;186:426–430.
  Google Scholar
• 37 Kuhl CK, Mielcarek P, Klaschik S, et al. Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 1999;211:101–110.
  Google Scholar
• 38 Kuhl CK. MRI of breast tumors. Eur Radiol 2000;10:46–58.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 39 Nunes LW, Schnall MD, Siegelman ES, et al. Diagnostic performance characteristics of architectural features revealed by high spatial-resolution MR imaging of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;169:409–415.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 40 Schnall MD, Rosten S, Englander S, Orel SG, Nunes LW. A combined architectural and kinetic interpretation model for breast MR images. Acad Radiol 2001;8:591–597.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 41 Baum F, Fischer U, Vosshenrich R, Grabbe E. Classification of hypervascularized lesions in CE MR imaging of the breast. Eur Radiol 2002;12:1087–1092.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 42 Kinkel K, Helbich TH, Esserman LJ, et al. Dynamic high-spatial-resolution MR imaging of suspicious breast lesions: diagnostic criteria and interobserver variability. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;175:35–43.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 43 Leong CS, Daniel BL, Herfkens RJ, et al. Characterization of breast lesion morphology with delayed 3DSSMT: an adjunct to dynamic breast MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000;11:87–96.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 44 Kuhl CK, Mielcarek P, Klaschik S, Leutner C, Pakos E, Schild HH. Do T2-weighted TSE pulse sequences help with the differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions in dynamic breast MRI? J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;9:187–196.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 45 Qayyum A, Birdwell RL, Daniel BL, et al. MR imaging features of infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast: histopathologic correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;178:1227–1232.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 46 Szabo BK, Aspelin P, Wiberg MK, Bone B. Dynamic MR imaging of the breast. Analysis of kinetic and morphologic diagnostic criteria. Acta Radiol 2003;44:379–386.
  Google Scholar
• 47 Kuhl CK; Mielcarek P, Leutner C, Schild HH. Diagnostic criteria of ductal carcinoma in-situ (DCIS) in dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI: comparison with invasive breast cancer (IBC) and benign lesions [abstr]. In: Proceedings of the sixth meeting of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. Berkeley, Calif: International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 1998; 931.
  Google Scholar
• 48 Liberman L, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, Abramson AF, Tan LK. Ductal enhancement on MR imaging of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:519–525.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 49 Morakkabati-Spitz N, Leutner C, Schild H, Traeber F, Kuhl C. Diagnostic usefulness of segmental and linear enhancement in dynamic breast MRI. Eur Radiol 2005;15(9):2010–2017.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 50 Heywang-Köbrunner SH, Schlegel A, Beck R, et al. Contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast after limited surgery and radiation therapy. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1993;17(6):891–900.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 51 Heywang-Köbrunner SH, Viehweg P, Heinig A, Kuchler C. Contrast enhanced MRI of the breast: accuracy, value, controversies, solutions. Eur J Radiol 1997;24:94–108.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 52 Harms SE, Flamig DP, Hesley KL, et al. MR imaging of the breast with rotating delivery of excitation off resonance: clinical experience with pathologic correlation. Radiology 1993;187:493–501.
  Google Scholar
• 53 Gilles R, Guinebretiere JM, Lucidarme O, et al. Nonpalpable breast tumors: diagnosis with contrast-enhanced subtraction dynamic MR imaging. Radiology 1994;191(3):625–631.[Published correction appears in Radiology 1994;193(1):285.]
  Google Scholar
• 54 Gilles R, Guinebretiere JM, Shapeero LG, et al. Assessment of breast cancer recurrence with contrast-enhanced subtraction MR imaging: preliminary results in 26 patients. Radiology 1993;188(2):473–478.
  Google Scholar
• 55 Fischer U, Kopka L, Grabbe E. Breast carcinoma: effect of preoperative contrast-enhanced MR imaging on the therapeutic approach. Radiology 1999;213:881–888.
  Google Scholar
• 56 Yeh ED, Slanetz PJ, Edmister WB, Talele A, Monticciolo D, Kopans DB. Invasive lobular carcinoma: spectrum of enhancement and morphology on magnetic resonance imaging. Breast J 2003;9:13–18.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 57 Liberman L, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, Abramson AF, Tan LK. MR imaging of the ipsilateral breast in women with percutaneously proven breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180:901–910.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 58 Morris EA, Liberman L, Ballon DJ, et al. MRI of occult breast carcinoma in a high-risk population. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:619–626.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 59 Lee SG, Orel SG, Woo IJ, et al. MR imaging screening of the contralateral breast in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer: preliminary results. Radiology 2003;226:773–778.
  Google Scholar
• 60 Bedrosian I, Mick R, Orel SG, et al. Changes in the surgical management of patients with breast carcinoma based on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer 2003;98:468–473.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 61 Kuhl CK, Schmutzler RK, Leutner CC, et al. Breast MR imaging screening in 192 women proved or suspected to be carriers of a breast cancer susceptibility gene: preliminary results. Radiology 2000;215(1):267–279.
  Google Scholar
• 62 Warner E, Plewes DB, Shumak RS, et al. Comparison of breast magnetic resonance imaging, mammography, and ultrasound for surveillance of women at high risk for hereditary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:3524–3531.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 63 Stoutjesdijk MJ, Boetes C, Jager GJ, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging and mammography in women with a hereditary risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:1095–1102.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 64 Smyczek-Gargya B, Fersis N, Dittmann H, et al. PET with [18F]fluorothymidine for imaging of primary breast cancer: a pilot study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004;31:720–724.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 65 Samson DJ, Flamm CR, Pisano ED, Aronson N. Should FDG PET be used to decide whether a patient with an abnormal mammogram or breast finding at physical examination should undergo biopsy? Acad Radiol 2002;9:773–783.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 66 Avril N, Rose CA, Schelling M, et al. Breast imaging with positron emission tomography and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose: use and limitations. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:3495–3502.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 67 Quan ML, Sclafani L, Heerdt AS, Fey JV, Morris EA, Borgen PI. Magnetic resonance imaging detects unsuspected disease in patients with invasive lobular cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2003;10:1048–1053.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 68 Kneeshaw PJ, Turnbull LW, Smith A, Drew PJ. Dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging aids the surgical management of invasive lobular breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2003;29:32–37.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 69 Kneeshaw PJ, Turnbull LW, Drew PJ. Role of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and single-stage surgical resection of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast Br J Surg 2002;89:1296–1301.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 70 Weinstein SP, Orel SG, Heller R, et al. MR imaging of the breast in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176:399–406.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 71 Munot K, Dall B, Achuthan R, Parkin G, Lane S, Horgan K. Role of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and single-stage surgical resection of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. Br J Surg 2002;89:1296–1301.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 72 Fischer U, Kopka L, Grabbe E. Invasive mucinous carcinoma of the breast missed by contrast-enhancing MR imaging of the breast. Eur Radiol 1996;6:929–931.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 73 Bluemke DA, Gatsonis CA, Chen MH, et al. MR imaging prior to breast biopsy: results of the International Breast Magnetic Resonance Consortium (IBMC) trial. JAMA 2004;292:2735–2742.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 74 Fischer U, Westerhof JP, Brinck U, Korabiowska M, Schauer A, Grabbe E. Das duktale in-situ-karzinom in der dynamischen MR-mammographie bei 1,5 T. Rofo 1996;164:290–294.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 75 Westerhof JP, Fischer U, Moritz JD, Oestmann JW. MR imaging of mammographically detected clustered microcalcifications: is there any value? Radiology 1998;207:675–681.
  Google Scholar
• 76 Ikeda O, Nishimura R, Miyayama H, et al. Magnetic resonance evaluation of the presence of an extensive intraductal component in breast cancer. Acta Radiol 2004;45:721–725.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 77 Van Goethem M, Schelfout K, Kersschot E, et al. Enhancing area surrounding breast carcinoma on MR mammography: comparison with pathological examination. Eur Radiol 2004;14:1363–1370.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 78 Hartman AR, Daniel BL, Kurian AW, et al. Breast magnetic resonance image screening and ductal lavage in women at high genetic risk for breast carcinoma. Cancer 2004;100:479–489.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 79 Hwang ES, Kinkel K, Esserman LJ, Lu Y, Weidner N, Hylton NM. Magnetic resonance imaging in patients diagnosed with ductal carcinoma-in-situ: value in the diagnosis of residual disease, occult invasion, and multicentricity. Ann Surg Oncol 2003;10:381–388.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 80 Neubauer H, Li M, Kuehne-Heid R, Schneider A, Kaiser WA. High grade and non-high grade ductal carcinoma in situ on dynamic MR mammography: characteristic findings for signal increase and morphological pattern of enhancement. Br J Radiol 2003;76:3–12.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 81 Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Schild HH. MRI versus mammography for diagnosing pure ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): a prospective observational cohort study [abstr]. In: Radiological Society of North America Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting Program. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 2006; 303.
  Google Scholar
• 82 Menell JH, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, Abramson AF, Brogi E, Liberman L. Determination of the presence and extent of pure ductal carcinoma in situ by mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Breast J 2005;11(6):382–390.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 83 Esserman LJ, Kumar AS, Herrera AF, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging captures the biology of ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol 2006;24(28):4603–4610.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 84 Morrow M. The certainties and the uncertainties of ductal carcinoma in situ. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96(6):424–425.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 85 Orel SG, Schnall MD. MR imaging of the breast for the detection, diagnosis, and staging of breast cancer. Radiology 2001;220:13–30.
  Google Scholar
• 86 Orel SG. MR imaging of the breast. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2001;9:273–288.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 87 Kaiser WA, Zeitler E. MR imaging of the breast: fast imaging sequences with and without Gd-DTPA: preliminary observations. Radiology 1989;170(3 pt 1):681–686.
  Google Scholar
• 88 Liu PF, Debatin JF, Caduff RF, Kacl G, Garzoli E, Krestin GP. Improved diagnostic accuracy in dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of the breast by combined quantitative and qualitative analysis. Br J Radiol 1998;71(845):501–509.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 89 Schnall MD, Ikeda DM. Lesion diagnosis working group report. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;10(6):982–990.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 90 Sardanelli F, Iozzelli A, Fausto A, Carriero A, Kirchin MA. Gadobenate dimeglumine–enhanced MR imaging breast vascular maps: association between invasive cancer and ipsilateral increased vascularity. Radiology 2005;235:791–797.
  Google Scholar
• 91 Esserman L, Cowley H, Eberle C, et al. Improving the accuracy of mammography: volume and outcome relationships. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:369–375.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 92 Beam CA, Conant EF, Sickles EA. Factors affecting radiologist inconsistency in screening mammography. Acad Radiol 2002;9:531–540.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 93 Beam CA, Conant EF, Sickles EA. Association of volume and volume-independent factors with accuracy in screening mammogram interpretation. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:282–290.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 94 Nodine CF, Kundel HL, Mello-Thoms C, et al. How experience and training influence mammography expertise. Acad Radiol 1999;6:575–585.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 95 Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA) (as amended by MQSRA of 1998 and 2004) Title 42 USC §6a(2f) (1992).
  Google Scholar
• 96 Expertengruppe S3 Leitlinie der Deutschen Krebsgesellschaft. Nationale S3-leitlinie zu diagnostik, therapie und nachsorge des mammakarzinoms der frau. Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft Juli 2004.
  Google Scholar
• 97 U.S. General Accounting Office. Mammography: capacity generally exists to deliver services—report to the chairman, special committee on aging, U.S. Senate, GAO-02-532. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office, 2002.
  Google Scholar
• 98 Heywang-Köbrunner SH, Huynh AT, Viehweg P, Hanke W, Requardt H, Paprosch I. Prototype breast coil for MR guided needle localization. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1994;18:876–881.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 99 Fischer U, Vosshenrich R, Keating D, et al. MR-guided biopsy of suspect breast lesions with a stereotaxic add-on device for surface coils. Radiology 1994;192:272–273.
  Google Scholar
• 100 Orel SG, Schnall MD, Newman RW, Powell CM, Torosian MH, Rosario EF. MR imaging–guided localization and biopsy of breast lesions: initial experience. Radiology 1994;193(1):97–102.
  Google Scholar
• 101 Kuhl CK, Elevelt A, Leutner C, Gieseke J, Pakos E, Schild HH. Interventional breast MR imaging: clinical use of a stereotactic localization and biopsy device. Radiology 1997;204(3):667–675.
  Google Scholar
• 102 Kuhl CK, Morakkabati N, Leutner CC, Schmiedel A, Wardelmann E, Schild HH. MR imaging–guided large-core (14-gauge) needle biopsy of small lesions visible at breast MR imaging alone. Radiology 2001;220(1):31–39.
  Google Scholar
• 103 Fischer U, Kopka L, Grabbe E. Magnetic resonance guided localization and biopsy of suspicious breast lesions. Top Magn Reson Imaging 1998;9:44–59.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 104 Kuhl CK. Interventional breast MRI: needle localisation and core biopsies. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2002;21:65–68.
  Google Scholar
• 105 Lampe D, Hefler L, Alberich T, et al. The clinical value of preoperative wire localization of breast lesions by magnetic resonance imaging: a multicenter study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2002;75:175–179.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 106 Perlet C, Heinig A, Prat X, et al. Multicenter study for the evaluation of a dedicated biopsy device for MR-guided vacuum biopsy of the breast. Eur Radiol 2002;12:1463–1470.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 107 Perlet C, Schneider P, Amaya B, et al. MR-guided vacuum biopsy of 206 contrast-enhancing breast lesions. Rofo 2002;174:88–95.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 108 Prat X, Sittek H, Grosse A, et al. European quadricentric evaluation of a breast MR biopsy and localization device: technical improvements based on phase-I evaluation. Eur Radiol 2002;12:1720–1727.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 109 Lehman CD, Eby PR, Chen X, Dee KE, Thursten B, McCloskey J. MR imaging-guided breast biopsy using a coaxial technique with a 14-gauge stainless steel core biopsy needle and a titanium sheath. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:183–185.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 110 Hrung JM, Langlotz CP, Orel SG, Fox KR, Schnall MD, Schwartz JS. Cost-effectiveness of MR imaging and core-needle biopsy in the preoperative work-up of suspicious breast lesions. Radiology 1999;213:39–49.
  Google Scholar
• 111 Liberman L, Bracero N, Morris E, Thornton C, Dershaw DD. MRI-guided 9-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: initial clinical experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;185:183–193.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 112 Lehman CD, Deperi ER, Peacock S, McDonough MD, Demartini WB, Shook J. Clinical experience with MRI-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:1782–1787.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 113 Daniel BL, Freeman LJ, Pyzoha JM, et al. An MRI-compatible semiautomated vacuum-assisted breast biopsy system: initial feasibility study. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005;21:637–644.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 114 Berg WA. Image-guided breast biopsy and management of high-risk lesions. Radiol Clin North Am 2004;42:935–946, vii.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 115 LaTrenta LR, Menell JH, Morris EA, Abramson AF, Dershaw DD, Liberman L. Breast lesions detected with MR imaging: utility and histopathologic importance of identification with US. Radiology 2003;227:856–861.
  Google Scholar