Literature DB >> 18383287

Differentiation between benign and malignant breast lesions detected by bilateral dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: a sensitivity and specificity study.

Sanaz A Jansen1, Xiaobing Fan, Gregory S Karczmar, Hiroyuki Abe, Robert A Schmidt, Gillian M Newstead.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to apply an empirical mathematical model (EMM) to kinetic data acquired under a clinical protocol to determine if the sensitivity and specificity can be improved compared with qualitative BI-RADS descriptors of kinetics. 3D DCE-MRI data from 100 patients with 34 benign and 79 malignant lesions were selected for review under an Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved protocol. The sensitivity and specificity of the delayed phase classification were 91% and 18%, respectively. The EMM was able to accurately fit these curves. There was a statistically significant difference between benign and malignant lesions for several model parameters: the uptake rate, initial slope, signal enhancement ratio, and curvature at the peak enhancement (at most P=0.04). These results demonstrated that EMM analysis provided at least the diagnostic accuracy of the kinetic classifiers described in the BI-RADS lexicon, and offered a few key advantages. It can be used to standardize data from institutions with different dynamic protocols and can provide a more objective classification with continuous variables so that thresholds can be set to achieve desired sensitivity and specificity. This suggests that the EMM may be useful for analysis of routine clinical data.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18383287      PMCID: PMC3121098          DOI: 10.1002/mrm.21530

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Magn Reson Med        ISSN: 0740-3194            Impact factor:   4.668


  32 in total

1.  The magnetization transfer characteristics of human breast tissues: an in vitro NMR study.

Authors:  C Callicott; J M Thomas; A W Goode
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 3.609

2.  Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions?

Authors:  C K Kuhl; P Mielcareck; S Klaschik; C Leutner; E Wardelmann; J Gieseke; H H Schild
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Dynamic bilateral contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast: trade-off between spatial and temporal resolution.

Authors:  Christiane K Kuhl; Hans H Schild; Nuschin Morakkabati
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Biologic significance of false-positive magnetic resonance imaging enhancement in the setting of ductal carcinoma in situ.

Authors:  Anjali S Kumar; Daniel F Chen; Alfred Au; Yunn-Yi Chen; Jessica Leung; Elisabeth R Garwood; Jessica Gibbs; Nola Hylton; Laura J Esserman
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 2.565

Review 5.  Mammography and breast cancer: the new era.

Authors:  L Tabár; P B Dean
Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 3.561

6.  Contrast-enhanced breast MRI in patients with suspicious microcalcifications on mammography: results of a multicenter trial.

Authors:  Massimo Bazzocchi; Chiara Zuiani; Pietro Panizza; Chiara Del Frate; Franca Soldano; Miriam Isola; Francesco Sardanelli; Gian Marco Giuseppetti; Giovanni Simonetti; Vincenzo Lattanzio; Alessandro Del Maschio
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Assess Tumor Histopathology and Angiogenesis in Breast Carcinoma.

Authors:  Laura Esserman; Nola Hylton; Tracy George; Noel Weidner
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 2.431

8.  Quantitative analysis of dynamic Gd-DTPA enhancement in breast tumors using a permeability model.

Authors:  P S Tofts; B Berkowitz; M D Schnall
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 4.668

9.  Breast tumors: comparative accuracy of MR imaging relative to mammography and US for demonstrating extent.

Authors:  C Boetes; R D Mus; R Holland; J O Barentsz; S P Strijk; T Wobbes; J H Hendriks; S H Ruys
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Reading protocol for dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images of the breast: sensitivity and specificity analysis.

Authors:  Ruth M L Warren; Linda Pointon; Deborah Thompson; Rebecca Hoff; Fiona J Gilbert; Anwar Padhani; Doug Easton; Sunil R Lakhani; Martin O Leach
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  25 in total

1.  Ultrafast Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Breast MRI: Kinetic Curve Assessment Using Empirical Mathematical Model Validated with Histological Microvessel Density.

Authors:  Naoko Mori; Hiroyuki Abe; Shunji Mugikura; Chiaki Takasawa; Satoko Sato; Minoru Miyashita; Yu Mori; Federico D Pineda; Gregory S Karczmar; Hajime Tamura; Shoki Takahashi; Kei Takase
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2018-09-28       Impact factor: 3.173

2.  A dynamic lesion model for differentiation of malignant and benign pathologies.

Authors:  Weiguo Cao; Zhengrong Liang; Yongfeng Gao; Marc J Pomeroy; Fangfang Han; Almas Abbasi; Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-02-10       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Fast Temporal Resolution Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI: Histogram Analysis Versus Visual Analysis for Differentiating Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions.

Authors:  Naoko Mori; Federico D Pineda; Keiko Tsuchiya; Shunji Mugikura; Shoki Takahashi; Gregory S Karczmar; Hiroyuki Abe
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2018-07-31       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Novel High Spatiotemporal Resolution Versus Standard-of-Care Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Breast MRI: Comparison of Image Quality.

Authors:  Courtney K Morrison; Leah C Henze Bancroft; Wendy B DeMartini; James H Holmes; Kang Wang; Ryan J Bosca; Frank R Korosec; Roberta M Strigel
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 6.016

5.  Comparison of conventional DCE-MRI and a novel golden-angle radial multicoil compressed sensing method for the evaluation of breast lesion conspicuity.

Authors:  Laura Heacock; Yiming Gao; Samantha L Heller; Amy N Melsaether; James S Babb; Tobias K Block; Ricardo Otazo; Sungheon G Kim; Linda Moy
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2016-11-17       Impact factor: 4.813

6.  Distinguishing benign and malignant breast tumors: preliminary comparison of kinetic modeling approaches using multi-institutional dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI data from the International Breast MR Consortium 6883 trial.

Authors:  Anna G Sorace; Savannah C Partridge; Xia Li; Jack Virostko; Stephanie L Barnes; Daniel S Hippe; Wei Huang; Thomas E Yankeelov
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2018-01-22

7.  Classification of breast lesions pre-contrast injection using water resonance lineshape analysis.

Authors:  Abbie M Wood; Milica Medved; Ian D Bacchus; Hania A Al-Hallaq; Akiko Shimauchi; Gillian M Newstead; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Srirama S Venkataraman; Marko K Ivancevic; Greg S Karczmar
Journal:  NMR Biomed       Date:  2012-11-20       Impact factor: 4.044

8.  Discrimination between benign and malignant breast lesions using volumetric quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging.

Authors:  Ziliang Cheng; Zhuo Wu; Guangzi Shi; Zhilong Yi; Mingwei Xie; Weike Zeng; Chao Song; Chushan Zheng; Jun Shen
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-09-19       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  The ACR BI-RADS experience: learning from history.

Authors:  Elizabeth S Burnside; Edward A Sickles; Lawrence W Bassett; Daniel L Rubin; Carol H Lee; Debra M Ikeda; Ellen B Mendelson; Pamela A Wilcox; Priscilla F Butler; Carl J D'Orsi
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 5.532

10.  Selection of diagnostic features on breast MRI to differentiate between malignant and benign lesions using computer-aided diagnosis: differences in lesions presenting as mass and non-mass-like enhancement.

Authors:  Dustin Newell; Ke Nie; Jeon-Hor Chen; Chieh-Chih Hsu; Hon J Yu; Orhan Nalcioglu; Min-Ying Su
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-09-30       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.