PURPOSE: To investigate the relationship between temporal resolution of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and classification of breast lesions as benign versus malignant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients underwent T(1)-weighted DCE MRI with 15 s/acquisition temporal resolution using 1.5 Tesla (n = 48) and 3.0T (n = 33) MRI scanners. Seventy-nine patients had pathologically proven diagnosis and 2 had 2 years follow-up showing no change in lesion size. The temporal resolution of DCE MRI was systematically reduced as a postprocessing step from 15 to 30, 45, and 60 s/acquisition by eliminating intermediate time points. Average wash-in and wash-out slopes, wash-out percentage changes, and kinetic curve shape (persistently enhancing, plateau, or wash-out) were compared for each temporal resolution. Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis were used to compare kinetic parameters and diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: Sixty patients (74%) had malignant lesions and 21 patients (26%) had benign lesions. All temporal-resolution parameters significantly predicted benign versus malignant diagnosis (P < 0.05). However, 45 s/acquisition and higher temporal-resolution datasets showed higher accuracy than the 60 s/acquisition dataset by ROC curve analysis (0.72 versus 0.69 for average wash-in slope; 0.85 versus 0.82, for average wash-out slope; and 0.88 versus 0.80 for kinetic curve shape assessment, for 45 s/acquisition versus 60 s/acquisition temporal-resolution datasets, respectively (P = 0.027). CONCLUSION: DCE MRI data with at least 45-s temporal resolution maximized the agreement between the kinetic parameters and correct classification of benign versus malignant diagnosis.
PURPOSE: To investigate the relationship between temporal resolution of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and classification of breast lesions as benign versus malignant. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients underwent T(1)-weighted DCE MRI with 15 s/acquisition temporal resolution using 1.5 Tesla (n = 48) and 3.0T (n = 33) MRI scanners. Seventy-nine patients had pathologically proven diagnosis and 2 had 2 years follow-up showing no change in lesion size. The temporal resolution of DCE MRI was systematically reduced as a postprocessing step from 15 to 30, 45, and 60 s/acquisition by eliminating intermediate time points. Average wash-in and wash-out slopes, wash-out percentage changes, and kinetic curve shape (persistently enhancing, plateau, or wash-out) were compared for each temporal resolution. Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis were used to compare kinetic parameters and diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: Sixty patients (74%) had malignant lesions and 21 patients (26%) had benign lesions. All temporal-resolution parameters significantly predicted benign versus malignant diagnosis (P < 0.05). However, 45 s/acquisition and higher temporal-resolution datasets showed higher accuracy than the 60 s/acquisition dataset by ROC curve analysis (0.72 versus 0.69 for average wash-in slope; 0.85 versus 0.82, for average wash-out slope; and 0.88 versus 0.80 for kinetic curve shape assessment, for 45 s/acquisition versus 60 s/acquisition temporal-resolution datasets, respectively (P = 0.027). CONCLUSION:DCE MRI data with at least 45-s temporal resolution maximized the agreement between the kinetic parameters and correct classification of benign versus malignant diagnosis.
Authors: K Kinkel; T H Helbich; L J Esserman; J Barclay; E H Schwerin; E A Sickles; N M Hylton Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: S H Heywang-Köbrunner; U Bick; W G Bradley; B Boné; J Casselman; A Coulthard; U Fischer; M Müller-Schimpfle; H Oellinger; R Patt; J Teubner; M Friedrich; G Newstead; R Holland; A Schauer; E A Sickles; L Tabar; J Waisman; K D Wernecke Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2001 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Brian M Dale; John A Jesberger; Jonathan S Lewin; Claudia M Hillenbrand; Jeffrey L Duerk Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Wei Huang; Paul R Fisher; Khaldoon Dulaimy; Luminita A Tudorica; Brian O'Hea; Terry M Button Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-06-17 Impact factor: 11.105
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: Karan Sikka; Alex A Ahmed; Damaris Diaz; Matthew S Goodwin; Kenneth D Craig; Marian S Bartlett; Jeannie S Huang Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2015-06-01 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Michael A Jacobs; Vered Stearns; Antonio C Wolff; Katarzyna Macura; Pedram Argani; Nagi Khouri; Theodore Tsangaris; Peter B Barker; Nancy E Davidson; Zaver M Bhujwalla; David A Bluemke; Ronald Ouwerkerk Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2010-09-21 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Richard G Abramson; Xia Li; Tamarya Lea Hoyt; Pei-Fang Su; Lori R Arlinghaus; Kevin J Wilson; Vandana G Abramson; A Bapsi Chakravarthy; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-08-15 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Katherine D Watson; Xiaowen Hu; Chun-Yen Lai; Heather A Lindfors; Dana D Hu-Lowe; Theresa A Tuthill; David R Shalinsky; Katherine W Ferrara Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2011-04-30 Impact factor: 2.998
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