OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare MRI kinetic curve data acquired with three systems in the evaluation of malignant lesions of the breast. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The cases of 601 patients with 682 breast lesions (185 benign, 497 malignant) were selected for review. The malignant lesions were classified as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), and other. The dynamic MRI protocol consisted of one unenhanced and three to seven contrast-enhanced images acquired with one of three imaging protocols and systems. An experienced radiologist analyzed the shapes of the kinetic curves according to the BI-RADS lexicon. Several quantitative kinetic parameters were calculated, and the kinetic parameters of malignant lesions were compared across the three systems. RESULTS: Imaging protocol and system 1 were used to image 304 malignant lesions (185 IDC, 62 DCIS); imaging protocol and system 2, 107 lesions (72 IDC, 21 DCIS); and imaging protocol and system 3, 86 lesions (64 IDC, 17 DCIS). Compared with those visualized with imaging protocols and systems 1 and 2, IDC lesions visualized with imaging protocol and system 3 had significantly less initial enhancement, longer time to peak enhancement, and a slower washout rate (p < 0.004). Only 47% of IDC lesions imaged with imaging protocol and system 3 exhibited washout type curves, compared with 75% and 74% of those imaged with imaging protocols and systems 2 and 1, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of kinetic analysis was lowest for imaging protocol and system 3, but the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The kinetic curve data on malignant lesions acquired with one system showed significantly lower initial contrast uptake and a different curve shape in comparison with data acquired with the other two systems. Differences in k-space sampling, T1 weighting, and magnetization transfer effects may be explanations for the difference.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare MRI kinetic curve data acquired with three systems in the evaluation of malignant lesions of the breast. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The cases of 601 patients with 682 breast lesions (185 benign, 497 malignant) were selected for review. The malignant lesions were classified as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), and other. The dynamic MRI protocol consisted of one unenhanced and three to seven contrast-enhanced images acquired with one of three imaging protocols and systems. An experienced radiologist analyzed the shapes of the kinetic curves according to the BI-RADS lexicon. Several quantitative kinetic parameters were calculated, and the kinetic parameters of malignant lesions were compared across the three systems. RESULTS: Imaging protocol and system 1 were used to image 304 malignant lesions (185 IDC, 62 DCIS); imaging protocol and system 2, 107 lesions (72 IDC, 21 DCIS); and imaging protocol and system 3, 86 lesions (64 IDC, 17 DCIS). Compared with those visualized with imaging protocols and systems 1 and 2, IDC lesions visualized with imaging protocol and system 3 had significantly less initial enhancement, longer time to peak enhancement, and a slower washout rate (p < 0.004). Only 47% of IDC lesions imaged with imaging protocol and system 3 exhibited washout type curves, compared with 75% and 74% of those imaged with imaging protocols and systems 2 and 1, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of kinetic analysis was lowest for imaging protocol and system 3, but the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The kinetic curve data on malignant lesions acquired with one system showed significantly lower initial contrast uptake and a different curve shape in comparison with data acquired with the other two systems. Differences in k-space sampling, T1 weighting, and magnetization transfer effects may be explanations for the difference.
Authors: Sanaz A Jansen; Xiaobing Fan; Gregory S Karczmar; Hiroyuki Abe; Robert A Schmidt; Maryellen Giger; Gillian M Newstead Journal: Med Phys Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Luminita A Tudorica; Karen Y Oh; Nicole Roy; Mark D Kettler; Yiyi Chen; Stephanie L Hemmingson; Aneela Afzal; John W Grinstead; Gerhard Laub; Xin Li; Wei Huang Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-07-06 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Wei Huang; Luminita A Tudorica; Xin Li; Sunitha B Thakur; Yiyi Chen; Elizabeth A Morris; Ian J Tagge; Maayan E Korenblit; William D Rooney; Jason A Koutcher; Charles S Springer Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-08-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Vignesh A Arasu; Ryan C-Y Chen; David N Newitt; C Belinda Chang; Hilda Tso; Nola M Hylton; Bonnie N Joe Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2011-03-21 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Savannah C Partridge; Karen M Stone; Roberta M Strigel; Wendy B DeMartini; Sue Peacock; Constance D Lehman Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2014-07-04 Impact factor: 3.173