1932

Abstract

Given the increasing understanding of cancer as a heterogeneous group of diseases, detection methods should offer a sensitivity profile that ensures perfect sensitivity for biologically important cancers while screening out self-limiting pseudocancers. However, mammographic screening is biased toward detection of ductal carcinoma in situ and slowly growing cancers—and thus frequently fails to detect biologically aggressive cancers. This explains the persistently high rates of interval cancers and high rates of breast cancer mortality observed in spite of decades of mammographic screening. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), in contrast, has a sensitivity profile that matches clinical needs. Conventional MRI is not suitable for population-wide screening due to high cost, limited tolerability, and lack of availability. We introduced abbreviated MRI in 2014. Abbreviated MRI will change the way MRI is used in clinical medicine. This article describes the rationale to use MRI in general, and abbreviated MRI in particular, for breast cancer screening.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-med-121417-100403
2019-01-27
2024-04-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/med/70/1/annurev-med-121417-100403.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-med-121417-100403&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1.  Berger A 2002. Magnetic resonance imaging. Clin. Rev. BMJ 324: 35:5–15
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2.  Koo HR, Cho N, Song IC et al. 2012. Correlation of perfusion parameters on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI with prognostic factors and subtypes of breast cancers. J. Magn. Reson. Imag. 36:1145–51
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 3.  Gu YL, Pan SM, Ren J et al. 2017. Role of magnetic resonance imaging in detection of pathologic complete remission in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a meta-analysis. Clin. Breast Cancer 17:245–55
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 4. WHO (World Health Organ.). Cancer: early diagnosis and screening http://www.who.int/cancer/prevention/diagnosis-screening/screening/en/. Accessed June 11, 2018
  5. 5.  Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A 2018. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J. Clin. 68:7–30
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 6.  Siu AL; US Preventive Services Task Force. 2016. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 164:279–96
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 7.  Smith RA, Andrews KS, Brooks D et al. 2018. Cancer screening in the United States, 2018: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J. Clin. 67:100–21
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 8. Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. 2012. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet 380:1778–86
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 9.  Njor SH, Schwartz W, Blichert-Toft M et al. 2015. Decline in breast cancer mortality: How much is attributable to screening?. J. Med. Screen. 22:20–27
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 10.  Munoz D, Near AM, van Ravesteyn NT et al. 2014. Effects of screening and systemic adjuvant therapy on ER-specific US breast cancer mortality. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 106: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dju289
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  11. 11.  Myers ER, Moorman P, Gierisch JM et al. 2015. Benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: a systematic review. JAMA 314:1615–34
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 12.  Beau AB, Andersen PK, Vejborg I, Lynge E 2018. Limitations in the effect of screening on breast cancer mortality. J. Clin. Oncol. Sept. 4:JCO2018780270
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 13.  Tabar L, Chen TH, Yen AM 2018. Effect of mammography screening on mortality by histological grade. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 27:154–57
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 14.  Rakha EA, Reis-Filho JS, Baehner F 2010. Breast-cancer prognostic classification in the molecular era: the role of histological grade. Breast Cancer Res 12:207–19
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 15.  Luiten JD, Voogd AC, Luiten EJT et al. 2017. Trends in incidence and tumour grade in screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 166:307–14
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 16.  Smith RA, Duffy SW, Gabe R et al. 2004. The randomized trials of breast cancer screening: What have we learned?. Radiol. Clin. North Am. 42:793–806
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 17.  Brenton JD, Carey LA, Ahmed AA et al. 2005. Molecular classification and molecular forecasting of breast cancer: ready for clinical application?. J. Clin. Oncol. 23:297350–60
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 18.  Bertos NR, Park M 2011. Breast cancer—one term, many entities?. J. Clin. Investig. 121:3789–96
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 19.  Chen Y, Klingen TA, Wik E et al. 2014. Breast cancer stromal elastosis is associated with mammography screening detection, low Ki67 expression and favourable prognosis in a population-based study. Diagn. Pathol. 9:230
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 20.  Nyante SJ, Lee SS, Benefield TS et al. 2017. The association between mammographic calcifications and breast cancer prognostic factors in a population-based registry cohort. Cancer 123:219–27
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 21.  Henrot P, Leroux A, Barlier C et al. 2014. Breast microcalcifications: the lesions in anatomical pathology. Diagn. Interv. Imag. 95:141–52
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 22.  Alexander MC, Yankaskas BC, Biesemier KW 2006. Association of stellate mammographic pattern with survival in small invasive breast tumors. Am. J. Roentgenol. 187:29–37
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 23.  Liu S, Wu XD, Xu WJ et al. 2016. Is there a correlation between the presence of a spiculated mass on mammogram and luminal A subtype breast cancer?. Korean J. Radiol. 17:846–52
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 24.  Evans AJ, Pinder SE, James JJ et al. 2006. Is mammographic spiculation an independent, good prognostic factor in screening-detected invasive breast cancer?. Am. J. Roentgenol. 187:1377–80
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 25.  Lehtimäki T, Lundin M, Linder N et al. 2011. Long-term prognosis of breast cancer detected by mammography screening or other methods. Breast Cancer Res 13:R134
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 26.  Tabar L, Tony Chen HH, Amy Yen MF et al. 2004. Mammographic tumor features can predict long-term outcomes reliably in women with 1–14-mm invasive breast carcinoma. Cancer 101:1745–59
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 27.  Groenendijk RP, Bult P, Tewarie L et al. 2000. Screen-detected breast cancers have a lower mitotic activity index. Br. J. Cancer 82:381–84
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 28.  Pálka I, Kelemen G, Ormándi K et al. 2008. Tumor characteristics in screen-detected and symptomatic breast cancers. Pathol. Oncol. Res. 14:161–67
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29.  Sprague BL, Gangnon RE, Burt V et al. 2014. Prevalence of mammographically dense breasts in the United States. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 106: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dju255
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  30. 30.  Slanetz PJ, Freer PE, Birdwell RL 2015. Breast-density legislation—practical considerations. N. Engl. J. Med. 372:593–95
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 31.  Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ et al. 2007. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 356:227–36
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 32.  Kerlikowske K, Cook AJ, Buist DS et al. 2010. Breast cancer risk by breast density, menopause, and postmenopausal hormone therapy use. J. Clin. Oncol. 28:3830–37
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 33.  Welch HG, Prorok PC, O'Malley AJ et al. 2016. Breast-cancer tumor size, overdiagnosis, and mammography screening effectiveness. N. Engl. J. Med. 375:151438–47
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 34.  Luiten JD, Voogd AC, Luiten EJT et al. 2017. Trends in incidence and tumour grade in screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 166:307–14
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 35.  Puliti D, Duffy S, Miccinesi G et al. 2012. Overdiagnosis in mammographic screening for breast cancer in Europe: a literature review. J. Med. Screen. 19:Suppl. 142–56
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 36.  Perry N, Broeders C, de Wolf S et al. 2008. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition—summary document. Ann. Oncol. 19:614–22
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 37.  Heywang SH, Hahn D, Schmidt H et al. 1986. MR imaging of the breast using gadolinium-DTPA. J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr. 10:199–204
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 38.  Kaiser WA, Zeitler E 1989. MR imaging of the breast: fast imaging sequences with and without Gd-DTPA. Preliminary observations. Radiology 170:681–86
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 39.  Harms SE, Flamig DP, Hesley KL et al. 1993. MR imaging of the breast with rotating delivery of excitation off resonance: clinical experience with pathologic correlation. Radiology 187:493–501
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 40.  Kuhl C 2007. The current status of breast MR imaging—Part 1. Choice of technique, image interpretation, diagnostic accuracy, and transfer to clinical practice. Radiology 244:356–78
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 41.  Folkman J, Watson K, Ingber D et al. 1989. Induction of angiogenesis during the transition from hyperplasia to neoplasia. Nature 339:58–61
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 42.  Weidner N, Semple JP, Welch WR et al. 1991. Tumor angiogenesis and metastasis—correlation in invasive breast carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 324:1–8
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 43.  Sung JS, Stamler S, Brooks J et al. 2016. Breast cancers detected at screening MR imaging and mammography in patients at high risk: method of detection reflects tumor histopathologic results. Radiology 280:716–22
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 44.  Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Bieling HB et al. 2007. MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study. Lancet 370:485–92
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 45.  Kuhl CK, Strobel K, Bieling H et al. 2017. Supplemental breast MR imaging screening of women with average risk of breast cancer. Radiology 283:361–70
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 46.  Jansen SA, Paunesku T, Fan X et al. 2009. Ductal carcinoma in situ: X-ray fluorescence microscopy and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging reveals gadolinium uptake within neoplastic mammary ducts in a murine model. Radiology 253:399–406
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 47.  Lehman CD 2010. Magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of ductal carcinoma in situ. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 41:150–51
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 48.  Kuhl CK 2009. Why do purely intraductal cancers enhance on breast MR images?. Radiology 253:281–83
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 49.  Meyerson AF, Lessing JN, Itakura K et al. 2011. Outcome of long term active surveillance for estrogen receptor-positive ductal carcinoma in situ. Breast 20:529–33
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 50.  Francis A, Fallowfield L, Read D 2015. The LORIS trial: addressing overtreatment of ductal carcinoma in-situ. Clin. Oncol. 27:6–8
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 51.  Welcsh PL, King MC 2001. BRCA1 and BRCA2 and the genetics of breast and ovarian cancer. Hum. Mol. Genet. 10:705–13
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 52.  Jóhannsson OT, Idvall I, Anderson C et al. 1997. Tumour biological features of BRCA1-induced breast and ovarian cancer. Eur. J. Cancer 33:362–71
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 53.  Lakhani SR, Jacquemier J, Sloane JP et al. 1998. Multifactorial analysis of differences between sporadic breast cancers and cancers involving BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 90:1138–45
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 54.  Kuhl CK, Schmutzler RK, Leutner CC et al. 2000. Breast MR imaging screening in 192 women proved or suspected to be carriers of a breast cancer susceptibility gene: preliminary results. Radiology 215:267–79
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 55.  Morris EA, Liberman L, Ballon DJ et al. 2003. MRI of occult breast carcinoma in a high-risk population. Am. J. Roentgenol. 181:619–26
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 56.  Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C et al. 2004. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N. Engl. J. Med. 351:427–37
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 57.  Leach MO, Boggis CR, Dixon AK et al. 2005. Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS). Lancet 365:1769–78
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 58.  Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA et al. 2004. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA 292:1317–25
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 59.  Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC et al. 2005. Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 23:8469–76
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 60.  Kuhl C, Weigel S, Schrading S et al. 2010. Prospective multicenter cohort study to refine management recommendations for women at elevated familial risk of breast cancer: the EVA trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 28:1450–57
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 61.  Sardanelli F, Podo F, Santoro F et al. 2011. Multicenter surveillance of women at high genetic breast cancer risk using mammography, ultrasonography, and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (the High Breast Cancer Risk Italian 1 study): final results. Investig. Radiol. 46:94–105
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 62.  Riedl CC, Luft N, Bernhart C et al. 2015. Triple-modality screening trial for familial breast cancer underlines the importance of magnetic resonance imaging and questions the role of mammography and ultrasound regardless of patient mutation status, age, and breast density. J. Clin. Oncol. 33:1128–35
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 63.  Lo G, Scaranelo AM, Aboras H et al. 2017. Evaluation of the utility of screening mammography for high-risk women undergoing screening breast MR imaging. Radiology 285:36–43
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 64.  van Zelst JCM, Mus RDM, Woldringh G et al. 2017. Surveillance of women with the BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation by using biannual automated breast US, MR imaging, and mammography. Radiology 285:376–88
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 65.  Warner E, Causer PA, Wong JW et al. 2011. Improvement in DCIS detection rates by MRI over time in a high-risk breast screening study. Breast J 17:9–17
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 66.  Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W et al. 2007. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J. Clin. 57:75–89
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 67.  Plevritis SK, Kurian AW, Sigal BM et al. 2006. Cost-effectiveness of screening BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with breast magnetic resonance imaging. JAMA 295:2374–84
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 68.  Pataky R, Armstrong L, Chia S et al. 2013. Cost-effectiveness of MRI for breast cancer screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. BMC Cancer 13:339
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 69.  Cott Chubiz JE, Lee JM, Gilmore ME et al. 2013. Cost-effectiveness of alternating magnetic resonance imaging and digital mammography screening in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers. Cancer 119:1266–76
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 70.  Wernli KJ, DeMartini WB, Ichikawa L et al.; Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. 2014. Patterns of breast magnetic resonance imaging use in community practice. JAMA Intern. Med. 174:125–32
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 71.  Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Strobel K et al. 2014. Abbreviated breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): first post-contrast subtracted images and maximum-intensity projection—a novel approach to breast cancer screening with MRI. J. Clin. Oncol. 32:2304–10
    [Google Scholar]
  72. 72.  Kuhl CK 2017. Technical aspects of abbreviated breast magnetic resonance imaging: the original approach. Abbreviated MRI of the Breast C Comstock, CK Kuhl 35–47 New York: Thieme
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 73.  Mango VL, Morris EA, David Dershaw D et al. 2015. Abbreviated protocol for breast MRI: Are multiple sequences needed for cancer detection?. Eur. J. Radiol. 84:65–70
    [Google Scholar]
  74. 74.  Grimm LJ, Soo MS, Yoon S et al. 2015. Abbreviated screening protocol for breast MRI: a feasibility study. Acad. Radiol. 22:1157–62
    [Google Scholar]
  75. 75.  Harvey SC, Di Carlo PA, Lee B et al. 2016. An abbreviated protocol for high-risk screening breast MRI saves time and resources. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 13:374–80
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 76.  Heacock L, Melsaether AN, Heller SL et al. 2016. Evaluation of a known breast cancer using an abbreviated breast MRI protocol: correlation of imaging characteristics and pathology with lesion detection and conspicuity. Eur. J. Radiol. 85:815–23
    [Google Scholar]
  77. 77.  Moschetta M, Telegrafo M, Rella L et al. 2016. Abbreviated combined MR protocol: a new faster strategy for characterizing breast lesions. Clin. Breast Cancer 16:207–11
    [Google Scholar]
  78. 78.  Jain M, Jain A, Hyzy MD et al. 2017. FAST MRI breast screening revisited. J. Med. Imag. Radiat. Oncol. 61:24–28
    [Google Scholar]
  79. 79.  Machida Y, Shimauchi A, Kanemaki Y et al. 2017. Feasibility and potential limitations of abbreviated breast MRI: an observer study using an enriched cohort. Breast Cancer 24:411–19
    [Google Scholar]
  80. 80.  Chen SQ, Huang M, Shen YY et al. 2017. Application of abbreviated protocol of magnetic resonance imaging for breast cancer screening in dense breast tissue. Acad. Radiol. 24:316–20
    [Google Scholar]
  81. 81.  Strahle DA, Pathak DR, Sierra A et al. 2017. Systematic development of an abbreviated protocol for screening breast magnetic resonance imaging. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 162:283–95
    [Google Scholar]
  82. 82.  Petrillo A, Fusco R, Sansone M et al. 2017. Abbreviated breast dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging for lesion detection and characterization: the experience of an Italian oncologic center. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 164:401–10
    [Google Scholar]
  83. 83.  Chen SQ, Huang M, Shen YY, Liu CL, Xu CX 2017. Abbreviated MRI protocols for detecting breast cancer in women with dense breasts. Korean J. Radiol. 18:470–75
    [Google Scholar]
  84. 84.  Panigrahi B, Mullen L, Falomo E et al. 2017. An abbreviated protocol for high-risk screening breast magnetic resonance imaging: impact on performance metrics and BI-RADS assessment. Acad. Radiol. 24:1132–38
    [Google Scholar]
  85. 85.  Oldrini G, Fedida B, Poujol J et al. 2017. Abbreviated breast magnetic resonance protocol: value of high-resolution temporal dynamic sequence to improve lesion characterization. Eur. J. Radiol. 95:177–85
    [Google Scholar]
  86. 86.  Romeo V, Cuocolo R, Liuzzi R et al. 2017. Preliminary results of a simplified breast MRI protocol to characterize breast lesions: comparison with a full diagnostic protocol and a review of the current literature. Acad. Radiol. 24:1387–94
    [Google Scholar]
  87. 87.  Choi BH, Choi N, Kim MY et al. 2018. Usefulness of abbreviated breast MRI screening for women with a history of breast cancer surgery. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 167:495–502
    [Google Scholar]
  88. 88.  Oldrini G, Derraz I, Salleron J et al. 2018. Impact of an abbreviated protocol for breast MRI in diagnostic accuracy. Diagn. Interv. Radiol. 24:12–16
    [Google Scholar]
  89. 89.  Dogan BE, Scoggins ME, Son JB et al. 2018. American College of Radiology–compliant short protocol breast MRI for high-risk breast cancer screening: a prospective feasibility study. Am. J. Roentgenol. 210:214–21
    [Google Scholar]
  90. 90.  Kuhl CK 2017. Abbreviated breast MRI for screening women with dense breast: the EA1141 trial. Br. J. Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20170441
    [Crossref]
  91. 91.  Esserman LJ; WISDOM Study and Athena Investigators. 2017. The WISDOM Study: breaking the deadlock in the breast cancer screening debate. NPJ Breast Cancer 3:34
    [Google Scholar]
  92. 92. MyPEBS. 2018. Randomized, comparison of risk-stratified versus standard breast cancer screening in european women aged 40–74 CORDIS (Comm. Res. Dev. Inf. Serv.) Proj. ID 755394. Updated Jan. 23, 2018; accessed June 4, 2018. https://www.cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/212694_en.html
  93. 93.  Schrading S, Kuhl CK 2008. Mammographic, US, and MR imaging phenotypes of familial breast cancer. Radiology 246:58–70
    [Google Scholar]
  94. 94.  Ross AB, Chan BY, Yi PH et al. 2018. Diagnostic accuracy of an abbreviated MRI protocol for detecting radiographically occult hip and pelvis fractures in the elderly. Skeletal Radiol In press. https://doi/org/10.1007/s00256-018-3004-7
  95. 95.  Kuhl CK, Bruhn R, Krämer N et al. 2017. Abbreviated biparametric prostate MR imaging in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen. Radiology 285:493–505
    [Google Scholar]
  96. 96.  Ueno Y, Tamada T, Takahashi S 2018. Detection of clinically significant prostate cancer by using abbreviated biparametric prostate MR imaging. Radiology 286:1093–94
    [Google Scholar]
  97. 97.  Lee JY, Huo EJ, Weinstein S et al. 2017. Evaluation of an abbreviated screening MRI protocol for patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma. Abdom. Radiol. 43:71627–33
    [Google Scholar]
  98. 98.  Cunha GM, Villela-Nogueira CA, Bergman A et al. 2018. Abbreviated mpMRI protocol for diffuse liver disease: a practical approach for evaluation and follow-up of NAFLD. Abdom. Radiol. 43:92340–50
    [Google Scholar]
  99. 99.  Tillman BG, Gorman JD, Hru JM et al. 2018. Diagnostic per-lesion performance of a simulated gadoxetate disodium-enhanced abbreviated MRI protocol for hepatocellular carcinoma screening. Clin. Radiol. 73:485–93
    [Google Scholar]
  100. 100.  Ahmad R, Hu HH, Krishnamurthy R et al. 2018. Reducing sedation for pediatric body MRI using abbreviated imaging protocols. Pediatr. Radiol. 48:37–49
    [Google Scholar]
  101. 101.  Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ et al. 2014. Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up. Lancet 384:2027–35
    [Google Scholar]
  102. 102.  Draisma G, Boer R, Otto SJ et al. 2003. Lead times and overdetection due to prostate-specific antigen screening: estimates from the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 95:868–78
    [Google Scholar]
  103. 103.  Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S et al. 2015. Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 313:390–97
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-med-121417-100403
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-med-121417-100403
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error