OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were to assess the sensitivity and specificity of 3-T MRI compared with those of mammography and sonography in the evaluation of breast cancer and to evaluate the results in light of previously published data obtained with 1-T and 1.5-T systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted with data on 434 women (mean age, 53 years) who underwent MRI evaluation of the breasts (n = 868). Results obtained from 3-T MRI, mammographic, and sonographic examinations of all patients were compared. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were calculated, and statistics were analyzed with the chi-square test. RESULTS: The sensitivities of MRI, mammography, and sonography in the detection of malignancy were 100%, 81.8%, and 86.4%, and the specificities were 93.9%, 99%, and 98.1%. The specificity of MRI increased from 92.8% to 94.5% over the course of the study (2006-2007). Compared with mammography (p < 0.001) and sonography (p = 0.001), MRI depicted a significantly higher number of malignant tumors of the breast. There was no significant difference between mammography and sonography (p = 0.095). Results were compared with those in earlier reports in the literature. CONCLUSION: MRI at 3 T is more sensitive than mammography and sonography in the detection of breast cancer and the characterization of small lesions (reaching 4 mm) but has lower specificity. Compared with the results of 1-T and 1.5-T MRI in the literature, 3-T MRI has higher sensitivity in the detection of breast cancer with no significant difference in specificity.
OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were to assess the sensitivity and specificity of 3-T MRI compared with those of mammography and sonography in the evaluation of breast cancer and to evaluate the results in light of previously published data obtained with 1-T and 1.5-T systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted with data on 434 women (mean age, 53 years) who underwent MRI evaluation of the breasts (n = 868). Results obtained from 3-T MRI, mammographic, and sonographic examinations of all patients were compared. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were calculated, and statistics were analyzed with the chi-square test. RESULTS: The sensitivities of MRI, mammography, and sonography in the detection of malignancy were 100%, 81.8%, and 86.4%, and the specificities were 93.9%, 99%, and 98.1%. The specificity of MRI increased from 92.8% to 94.5% over the course of the study (2006-2007). Compared with mammography (p < 0.001) and sonography (p = 0.001), MRI depicted a significantly higher number of malignant tumors of the breast. There was no significant difference between mammography and sonography (p = 0.095). Results were compared with those in earlier reports in the literature. CONCLUSION: MRI at 3 T is more sensitive than mammography and sonography in the detection of breast cancer and the characterization of small lesions (reaching 4 mm) but has lower specificity. Compared with the results of 1-T and 1.5-T MRI in the literature, 3-T MRI has higher sensitivity in the detection of breast cancer with no significant difference in specificity.
Authors: K Pinker; W Bogner; P Baltzer; S Trattnig; S Gruber; O Abeyakoon; M Bernathova; O Zaric; P Dubsky; Z Bago-Horvath; M Weber; D Leithner; T H Helbich Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-12-05 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Ryan Brown; Pippa Storey; Christian Geppert; KellyAnne McGorty; Ana Paula Klautau Leite; James Babb; Daniel K Sodickson; Graham C Wiggins; Linda Moy Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-10-07 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: D Leithner; G J Wengert; T H Helbich; S Thakur; R E Ochoa-Albiztegui; E A Morris; K Pinker Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2017-12-09 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: K Pinker-Domenig; W Bogner; S Gruber; H Bickel; S Duffy; M Schernthaner; P Dubsky; U Pluschnig; M Rudas; S Trattnig; T H Helbich Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-09-14 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Lori R Arlinghaus; Xia Li; Mia Levy; David Smith; E Brian Welch; John C Gore; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: J Oncol Date: 2010-09-29 Impact factor: 4.375