Literature DB >> 11976850

Classification of hypervascularized lesions in CE MR imaging of the breast.

F Baum1, U Fischer, R Vosshenrich, E Grabbe.   

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to define and evaluate a classification category for contrast-enhanced (CE) MR imaging of the breast based on the BI-RADS mammographic categories of the American College of Radiology. Using five evaluation criteria for MR findings (initial signal increase, post-initial signal behavior, shape, border, and contrast material distribution within enhancing tumors) 522 patients (1031 breasts) were analyzed. Scores were given from 0 to 8 points and classified into five categories (group I: 0 points, negative; group II: 1-2 points, benign; group III: 3 points, probably benign; group IV: 4-5 points, suspicious abnormality; group V: 6-8 points, highly suspicious for malignancy) to 265 focal hypervascularized breast lesions in 244 breasts (patient group A). These findings were correlated with histology or follow-up. Additionally, this classification was correlated to the contrast medium uptake within the parenchyma of the remaining 787 breasts without any focal lesion (patient group B). Two hundred sixty-five hypervascularized lesions in 238 patients (244 breasts, patient group A) were classified into group I: 0%; group II: 27.3%; group III: 22.3%; group IV: 18.6%; and group V: 31.8%. Histology revealed 115 benign and 134 malignant tumors in these groups. Sixteen benign lesions were controlled by follow-up. Sensitivity for the detection of malignancy using the presented multifactorial MRM classification was 92%, and specificity was 92%. Excluding cases of ductal carcinoma in situ specificity increased to 95%. Seven hundred eighty-seven breasts without any focal hypervascularized lesion (patient group B) were classified into groups I or II. Follow-up ( n=771) or histology ( n=14) confirmed the diagnosis in 785 of these breasts. Histopathology revealed, however, malignant tumors in the remaining two cases. The classification of lesions based on a multifactorial analysis is very helpful in the interpretation of CE MRI of the breast. The evaluation of all diagnostic imaging modalities, however, is essential in determining the correct diagnosis and/or in deciding on the appropriate therapeutic procedure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11976850     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-001-1213-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  53 in total

1.  Primary and secondary breast lymphoma: prevalence, clinical signs and radiological features.

Authors:  A Surov; H-J Holzhausen; A Wienke; J Schmidt; C Thomssen; D Arnold; K Ruschke; R-P Spielmann
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Combination of low and high resolution sequences in two orientations for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast: more than a compromise.

Authors:  Toni W Vomweg; Andrea Teifke; R Peter Kunz; Christian Hintze; Alexander Hlawatsch; Annett Kern; Karl F Kreitner; Manfred Thelen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2004-07-29       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Assessing heterogeneity of lesion enhancement kinetics in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for breast cancer diagnosis.

Authors:  A Karahaliou; K Vassiou; N S Arikidis; S Skiadopoulos; T Kanavou; L Costaridou
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  A simple scoring system for breast MRI interpretation: does it compensate for reader experience?

Authors:  Maria Adele Marino; Paola Clauser; Ramona Woitek; Georg J Wengert; Panagiotis Kapetas; Maria Bernathova; Katja Pinker-Domenig; Thomas H Helbich; Klaus Preidler; Pascal A T Baltzer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-10-29       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Supine breast US: how to correlate breast lesions from prone MRI.

Authors:  Michele Telegrafo; Leonarda Rella; Amato A Stabile Ianora; Giuseppe Angelelli; Marco Moschetta
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-12-21       Impact factor: 3.039

6.  Is the "blooming sign" a promising additional tool to determine malignancy in MR mammography?

Authors:  D R Fischer; P Baltzer; A Malich; S Wurdinger; M G Freesmeyer; C Marx; W A Kaiser
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2003-09-27       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Clinical and diagnostic value of preoperative MR mammography and FDG-PET in suspicious breast lesions.

Authors:  C Walter; K Scheidhauer; A Scharl; U-J Goering; P Theissen; H Kugel; T Krahe; U Pietrzyk
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2003-01-23       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Inflammatory breast cancer: MR imaging findings.

Authors:  G Carbognin; C Calciolari; V Girardi; L Camera; G Pollini; R Pozzi Mucelli
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2009-12-16       Impact factor: 3.469

9.  Fischer's score criteria correlating with histopathological prognostic factors in invasive breast cancer.

Authors:  V Girardi; G Carbognin; L Camera; M Tonegutti; F Bonetti; E Manfrin; R Pozzi Mucelli
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2009-09-22       Impact factor: 3.469

10.  Diffusion-weighted imaging in breast lesion evaluation.

Authors:  P Belli; M Costantini; E Bufi; A Magistrelli; G La Torre; L Bonomo
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2009-11-09       Impact factor: 3.469

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.