OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to assess the sensitivity and specificity for malignant and benign mass lesions of a diagnostic approach combining DWI with T2-weighted images (unenhanced MR mammography, ueMRM) and compare the results with contrast-enhanced MR mammography (ceMRM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing histopathological verification of mass lesions after MR mammography without prior breast interventions (contrast-enhanced T1-weighted, T2-weighted and DWI sequences) were eligible for this retrospective investigation. Two blinded observers first rated ueMRM and then ceMRM according to the BIRADS scale. Lesion size, ADC values and T2-weighted TSE descriptors were assessed. RESULTS: This study examined 81 lesions (27 benign, 54 malignant). Sensitivity of ueMRM was 93% (observer 1) and 86% (observer 2), respectively. Sensitivity of ceMRM was 96.5% (observer 1) and 98.3% (observer 2). Specificity was 85.2% (ueMRM) and 92.6% (ceMRM) for both observers. The differences between both methods and observers were not significant (P > or = 0.09). Lesion size measurements did not differ significantly among all sequences analyzed. Tumor visibility was worse using ueMRM for both benign (P < 0.001) and malignant lesions (P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Sensitivity and specificity of ueMRM in mass lesions equal that of ceMRM. However, a reduced lesion visibility in ueMRM may lead to more false-negative findings.
OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to assess the sensitivity and specificity for malignant and benign mass lesions of a diagnostic approach combining DWI with T2-weighted images (unenhanced MR mammography, ueMRM) and compare the results with contrast-enhanced MR mammography (ceMRM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing histopathological verification of mass lesions after MR mammography without prior breast interventions (contrast-enhanced T1-weighted, T2-weighted and DWI sequences) were eligible for this retrospective investigation. Two blinded observers first rated ueMRM and then ceMRM according to the BIRADS scale. Lesion size, ADC values and T2-weighted TSE descriptors were assessed. RESULTS: This study examined 81 lesions (27 benign, 54 malignant). Sensitivity of ueMRM was 93% (observer 1) and 86% (observer 2), respectively. Sensitivity of ceMRM was 96.5% (observer 1) and 98.3% (observer 2). Specificity was 85.2% (ueMRM) and 92.6% (ceMRM) for both observers. The differences between both methods and observers were not significant (P > or = 0.09). Lesion size measurements did not differ significantly among all sequences analyzed. Tumor visibility was worse using ueMRM for both benign (P < 0.001) and malignant lesions (P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Sensitivity and specificity of ueMRM in mass lesions equal that of ceMRM. However, a reduced lesion visibility in ueMRM may lead to more false-negative findings.
Authors: P A T Baltzer; D M Renz; K-H Herrmann; M Dietzel; I Krumbein; M Gajda; O Camara; J R Reichenbach; W A Kaiser Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-03-14 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: C K Kuhl; S Schrading; S Weigel; K Nüssle-Kügele; H Sittek; B Arand; N Morakkabati; C Leutner; B Tombach; D Nordhoff; C Perlet; A Rieber; W Heindel; H J Brambs; H Schild Journal: Rofo Date: 2005-06
Authors: M O Leach; C R M Boggis; A K Dixon; D F Easton; R A Eeles; D G R Evans; F J Gilbert; I Griebsch; R J C Hoff; P Kessar; S R Lakhani; S M Moss; A Nerurkar; A R Padhani; L J Pointon; D Thompson; R M L Warren Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 May 21-27 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Rajender Agarwal; Steven M Brunelli; Kendal Williams; Matthew D Mitchell; Harold I Feldman; Craig A Umscheid Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2008-10-24 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Laura Liberman; Elizabeth A Morris; Melissa Joo-Young Lee; Jennifer B Kaplan; Linda R LaTrenta; Jennifer H Menell; Andrea F Abramson; Stephen M Dashnaw; Douglas J Ballon; D David Dershaw Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Pascal A T Baltzer; Anja Schäfer; Matthias Dietzel; David Grässel; Mieczyslaw Gajda; Oumar Camara; Werner A Kaiser Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-07-29 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Katja Pinker; Linda Moy; Elizabeth J Sutton; Ritse M Mann; Michael Weber; Sunitha B Thakur; Maxine S Jochelson; Zsuzsanna Bago-Horvath; Elizabeth A Morris; Pascal At Baltzer; Thomas H Helbich Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: K Deike-Hofmann; T Kuder; F König; D Paech; C Dreher; S Delorme; H-P Schlemmer; S Bickelhaupt Journal: Radiologe Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 0.635
Authors: Habib Rahbar; Zheng Zhang; Thomas L Chenevert; Justin Romanoff; Averi E Kitsch; Lucy G Hanna; Sara M Harvey; Linda Moy; Wendy B DeMartini; Basak Dogan; Wei T Yang; Lilian C Wang; Bonnie N Joe; Karen Y Oh; Colleen H Neal; Elizabeth S McDonald; Mitchell D Schnall; Constance D Lehman; Christopher E Comstock; Savannah C Partridge Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2019-01-15 Impact factor: 12.531