OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of the diagnostic value of magnetic resonance mammography and comparison with conventional mammography and ultrasonography in cases of women with suspicious breast lesions. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Sixty-nine women (age range 39-68 years) with 78 focal breast lesions were examined with mammography, ultrasonography and dynamic magnetic resonance mammography. The lesions were classified according to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon of the American College of Radiology for each diagnostic method. Histological reports were available after biopsy or surgical excision of the lesions. RESULTS: Pathological examination confirmed that 53 lesions were malignant and 25 benign. Conventional mammography estimated a total of 59/78 lesions as malignant with 44 true positive lesions, ultrasonography estimated a total of 50/78 lesions as malignant with 44 true positive lesions and magnetic resonance mammography estimated a total of 66/78 lesions as malignant with 52 true positive lesions. Sensitivity and specificity of magnetic resonance mammography in the diagnosis of malignancy was 98.1% and 44%, of conventional mammography 83% and 40% and of ultrasonography 83% and 76%. Negative predictive value for magnetic resonance mammography was 91.7%, for ultrasonography 67.9% and for mammography 52.6% for malignancies. CONCLUSION: Magnetic resonance mammography has the highest negative predictive value compared with mammography and ultrasound in cases of suspicious breast lesions. The combination of morphologic and enhancement criteria can improve the diagnostic capability of magnetic resonance mammography (MRM) in breast lesion characterization.
OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of the diagnostic value of magnetic resonance mammography and comparison with conventional mammography and ultrasonography in cases of women with suspicious breast lesions. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Sixty-nine women (age range 39-68 years) with 78 focal breast lesions were examined with mammography, ultrasonography and dynamic magnetic resonance mammography. The lesions were classified according to the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon of the American College of Radiology for each diagnostic method. Histological reports were available after biopsy or surgical excision of the lesions. RESULTS: Pathological examination confirmed that 53 lesions were malignant and 25 benign. Conventional mammography estimated a total of 59/78 lesions as malignant with 44 true positive lesions, ultrasonography estimated a total of 50/78 lesions as malignant with 44 true positive lesions and magnetic resonance mammography estimated a total of 66/78 lesions as malignant with 52 true positive lesions. Sensitivity and specificity of magnetic resonance mammography in the diagnosis of malignancy was 98.1% and 44%, of conventional mammography 83% and 40% and of ultrasonography 83% and 76%. Negative predictive value for magnetic resonance mammography was 91.7%, for ultrasonography 67.9% and for mammography 52.6% for malignancies. CONCLUSION: Magnetic resonance mammography has the highest negative predictive value compared with mammography and ultrasound in cases of suspicious breast lesions. The combination of morphologic and enhancement criteria can improve the diagnostic capability of magnetic resonance mammography (MRM) in breast lesion characterization.
Authors: M D Dorrius; R M Pijnappel; M C van der Weide Jansen; L Jansen; P Kappert; M Oudkerk; P E Sijens Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-11-11 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Matthias Dietzel; Pascal A T Baltzer; Tibor Vag; Aimee Herzog; Mieczyslaw Gajda; Oumar Camara; Werner A Kaiser Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2010-02-22 Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: Monique D Dorrius; Marijke C Jansen-van der Weide; Peter M A van Ooijen; Ruud M Pijnappel; Matthijs Oudkerk Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-03-15 Impact factor: 5.315