OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the accuracy of 3.0-T breast MRI interpretation using manual and fully automated kinetic analyses. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Manual MRI interpretation was done on an Advantage Workstation. Retrospectively, all examinations were processed with a computer-aided detection (CAD) system. CAD data sets were interpreted by two experienced breast radiologists and two residents. For each lesion automated analysis of enhancement kinetics was evaluated at 50% and 100% thresholds. Forty-nine malignant and 22 benign lesions were evaluated. RESULTS: Using threshold enhancement alone, the sensitivity and specificity of CAD were 97.9% and 86.4%, respectively, for the 50% threshold, and 97.9% and 90%, respectively, for the 100% threshold. Manual interpretation by two breast radiologists showed a sensitivity of 84.6% and a specificity of 68.8%. For the same two radiologists the mean sensitivity and specificity for CAD-based interpretation was 90.4% (not significant) and 81.3% (significant at p < 0.05), respectively. With one-way ANOVA no significant differences were found between the two breast radiologists and the two residents together, or between any two readers separately. CONCLUSION: CAD-based analysis improved the specificity compared with manual analysis of enhancement. Automated analysis at 50% and 100% thresholds showed a high sensitivity and specificity for readers with varying levels of experience.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the accuracy of 3.0-T breast MRI interpretation using manual and fully automated kinetic analyses. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Manual MRI interpretation was done on an Advantage Workstation. Retrospectively, all examinations were processed with a computer-aided detection (CAD) system. CAD data sets were interpreted by two experienced breast radiologists and two residents. For each lesion automated analysis of enhancement kinetics was evaluated at 50% and 100% thresholds. Forty-nine malignant and 22 benign lesions were evaluated. RESULTS: Using threshold enhancement alone, the sensitivity and specificity of CAD were 97.9% and 86.4%, respectively, for the 50% threshold, and 97.9% and 90%, respectively, for the 100% threshold. Manual interpretation by two breast radiologists showed a sensitivity of 84.6% and a specificity of 68.8%. For the same two radiologists the mean sensitivity and specificity for CAD-based interpretation was 90.4% (not significant) and 81.3% (significant at p < 0.05), respectively. With one-way ANOVA no significant differences were found between the two breast radiologists and the two residents together, or between any two readers separately. CONCLUSION: CAD-based analysis improved the specificity compared with manual analysis of enhancement. Automated analysis at 50% and 100% thresholds showed a high sensitivity and specificity for readers with varying levels of experience.
Authors: D M Ikeda; N M Hylton; K Kinkel; M G Hochman; C K Kuhl; W A Kaiser; J C Weinreb; S F Smazal; H Degani; P Viehweg; J Barclay; M D Schnall Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Eline E Deurloo; Johannes L Peterse; Emiel J Th Rutgers; Albert P E Besnard; Sara H Muller; Kenneth G A Gilhuijs Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Lina Arbash Meinel; Alan H Stolpen; Kevin S Berbaum; Laurie L Fajardo; Joseph M Reinhardt Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Nicky H G M Peters; Inne H M Borel Rinkes; Nicolaas P A Zuithoff; Willem P T M Mali; Karel G M Moons; Petra H M Peeters Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-11-16 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Teresa C Williams; Wendy B DeMartini; Savannah C Partridge; Sue Peacock; Constance D Lehman Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-05-16 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Eline E Deurloo; Sara H Muller; Johannes L Peterse; Albert P E Besnard; Kenneth G A Gilhuijs Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-01-13 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: C S Leong; B L Daniel; R J Herfkens; R L Birdwell; S S Jeffrey; D M Ikeda; A M Sawyer-Glover; G H Glover Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: K D Kurz; D Steinhaus; V Klar; M Cohnen; H J Wittsack; A Saleh; U Mödder; D Blondin Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2007-12-03 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: M H Yilmaz; F Kilic; G E Icten; F Aydogan; V Ozben; M Halac; D C Olgun; E Gazioglu; V Celik; C Uras; Z A Altug Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Constance D Lehman; Jeffrey D Blume; Wendy B DeMartini; Nola M Hylton; Benjamin Herman; Mitchell D Schnall Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Shannon C Agner; Mark A Rosen; Sarah Englander; John E Tomaszewski; Michael D Feldman; Paul Zhang; Carolyn Mies; Mitchell D Schnall; Anant Madabhushi Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-03-10 Impact factor: 11.105
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